Cargando…
Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis
BACKGROUND: The NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care. METHOD: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9887378/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35393354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014478 |
_version_ | 1784880330057973760 |
---|---|
author | Anderson, Michael Molloy, Aoife Maynou, Laia Kyriopoulos, Ilias McGuire, Alistair Mossialos, Elias |
author_facet | Anderson, Michael Molloy, Aoife Maynou, Laia Kyriopoulos, Ilias McGuire, Alistair Mossialos, Elias |
author_sort | Anderson, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care. METHOD: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment. RESULTS: We found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9887378 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98873782023-02-01 Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis Anderson, Michael Molloy, Aoife Maynou, Laia Kyriopoulos, Ilias McGuire, Alistair Mossialos, Elias BMJ Qual Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: The NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care. METHOD: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment. RESULTS: We found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-02 2022-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9887378/ /pubmed/35393354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014478 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Anderson, Michael Molloy, Aoife Maynou, Laia Kyriopoulos, Ilias McGuire, Alistair Mossialos, Elias Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis |
title | Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis |
title_full | Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis |
title_short | Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis |
title_sort | evaluation of the nhs england evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9887378/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35393354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014478 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT andersonmichael evaluationofthenhsenglandevidencebasedinterventionsprogrammeadifferenceindifferenceanalysis AT molloyaoife evaluationofthenhsenglandevidencebasedinterventionsprogrammeadifferenceindifferenceanalysis AT maynoulaia evaluationofthenhsenglandevidencebasedinterventionsprogrammeadifferenceindifferenceanalysis AT kyriopoulosilias evaluationofthenhsenglandevidencebasedinterventionsprogrammeadifferenceindifferenceanalysis AT mcguirealistair evaluationofthenhsenglandevidencebasedinterventionsprogrammeadifferenceindifferenceanalysis AT mossialoselias evaluationofthenhsenglandevidencebasedinterventionsprogrammeadifferenceindifferenceanalysis |