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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anderson, Michael, Molloy, Aoife, Maynou, Laia, Kyriopoulos, Ilias, McGuire, Alistair, Mossialos, Elias
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