Over the past decade, there has been a substantial increase in the use of financial incentives by private employers and public programs to encourage healthy behaviors, wellness activities, and use of preventive services. The research evidence regarding the effectiveness of this approach is reviewed, summarizing relevant findings from literature reviews and from recent evaluations. The article concludes that financial incentives, even relatively small incentives, can influence individuals' health-related behaviors. However, the findings regarding health promotion and wellness are based primarily on analyses of a limited number of private sector initiatives, whereas the evidence regarding preventive services is based on evaluations of initiatives sponsored predominantly by public programs and directed at low-income populations. In either case, there are several important limitations in the ability of the published findings to provide clear guidance for public program administrators or private purchasers seeking to design and implement effective incentive programs.

There has been a growing interest in the use of financial incentives to encourage improvements in the quality of health care. Several articles have reviewed past studies of the impact of specific incentive arrangements, but these studies addressed small-scale experiments, making their findings arguably of limited relevance to current improvement efforts. In this article, the authors review evaluations of more recent pay-for-performance initiatives instituted by health plans or by provider organizations in cooperation with health plans. Findings show improvement in selected quality measures in most of these initiatives, but the contribution of financial incentives to that improvement is not clear; the incentives typically were implemented in conjunction with other quality improvement efforts, or there was not a convincing comparison group. However, the literature relating to purchaser pay-for-performance initiatives does underscore several important issues that deserve attention going forward that relate to the design and implementation of pay-for-performance initiatives.

Rationale, aims, and objectives: Unwarranted clinical variation is a topic of heightened interest in health care systems around the world. While there are many publications and reports on clinical variation, few studies are conceptually grounded in a theoretical model. This study describes the empirical foundations of the field and proposes an analytic framework. Method: Structured construct mapping of published empirical studies which explicitly address unwarranted clinical variation.Results: A total of 190 studies were classified in terms of three key dimensions: perspective (assessing variation across geographical areas or across providers); criteria for assessment (measuring absolute variation against a standard, or relative variation within a comparator group); and object of analysis (using process, structure/resource, or outcome metrics). Conclusion:Consideration of the results of the mapping exercise-together with a review of adjustment, explanatory and stratification variables, and the factors associated with residual variation-informed the development of an analytic framework.This framework highlights the role that agency and motivation, evidence and judgement, and personal and organizational capacity play in clinical decision making and reveals key facets that distinguish warranted from unwarranted clinical variation.From a measurement perspective, it underlines the need for careful consideration of attribution, aggregation, models of care, and temporality in any assessment.

COVID-19 has affected every healthcare system around the world. In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, healthcare activity was subdued in the first half of 2020, as healthcare-seeking behaviour changed and service provision was modified to manage system capacity • The disruption COVID-19 has caused to provision of healthcare may have both positive and negative health consequences. Ongoing monitoring of these potential consequences will be required

Background: The science of measuring and reporting on the performance of healthcare systems is rapidly evolving. In the past decade, across many jurisdictions, organisations tasked with monitoring progress towards reform targets have broadened their purview to take a more system-functioning approach. Their aim is to bring clarity to performance assessment, using relevant and robust conceptsand avoiding reductionist measuresto build a whole-of-system view of performance. Existing performance frameworks are not fully aligned with these developments. Methods: An eight stage process to develop a conceptual framework incorporated literature review, mapping, categorisation, integration, synthesis and validation of performance constructs that have been used by organisations and researchers in order to assess, reflect and report on healthcare performance. Results: A total of 19 performance frameworks were identified and included in the review. Existing frameworks mostly adopted either a logic model (inputs, outputs and outcomes), a functional, or a goal-achievement approach. The mapping process identified 110 performance terms and concepts. These were integrated, synthesised and resynthesised to produce a framework that features 12 derived constructs reflecting combinations of patients' needs and expectations; healthcare resources and structures; receipt and experience of healthcare services; healthcare processes, functions and context; and healthcare outcomes. The 12 constructs gauge performance in terms of coverage, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, safety, productivity, efficiency, impact, sustainability, resilience, adaptability and equity. They reflect four performance perspectives (patient, population, delivery organisation and system). Conclusions: Internationally, healthcare systems and researchers have used a variety of terms to categorise indicators of healthcare performance, however few frameworks are based on a theoretically-based conceptual underpinning. The proposed framework incorporates a manageable number of performance domains that together provide a comprehensive assessment, as well as conceptual and operational clarity and coherence that support multifaceted measurement systems for healthcare.