Outcomes, Outcomes Research and Disease Management
- 5 Downloads
The UK National Health Service (NHS) is in the process of further reforms aimed at restoring a national focus to its activities and also at enhancing the quality of the service it provides. Key features are: (i) the formation of primary care groups to replace general practitioner (GP) fundholders, holding a single devolved budget for the majority of NHS services; (ii) a move towards defining outcome and performance indicators for the NHS; (iii) the establishment of new bodies to develop and monitor the implementation of clinical guidelines; (iv) the evaluation of new technologies including pharmaceuticals; and (v) a new framework termed ‘clinical governance’ for the long term maintenance of quality.
This approach to quality and outcomes may start to move the NHS away from its focus on processes, but in the short term at least, the ability to make this change is limited by the performance indicators available. Many of these indicators are process markers rather than true outcomes, but given the poor outcomes data currently collected by the NHS, it may be all that is possible for the moment.
The commitment to better quality in the NHS may make underfunding of the NHS more obvious and lead to further political difficulties for the government. Disease management systems which have in-built markers of their quality, both in terms of the service provided and its outcomes, may look increasingly attractive to the NHS. Outcomes research in the NHS will remain clinically focused for the moment but, with the explicit consideration of cost effectiveness underlying clinical guidelines in the future, a gradual move to the US type of outcomes research is possible in the future.
KeywordsAdis International Limited Economic Evaluation Disease Management National Health Service Health Technology Assessment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Secretary of State for Health. The New NHS — modern, dependable. London: Stationary Office, 1997Google Scholar
- 3.UK Department of Health. The new NHS modern and dependable: a national framework for assessing performance (consultation document). London: UK Department of Health, 1998Google Scholar
- 6.Secretary of State for Health. A first class service: quality in the new NHS. London: Stationary Office, 1998Google Scholar
- 8.Faster access to modern treatment: how NICE appraisal will work [online]. Available from: www.doh.gov.uk/nice/appriase.htm [Accessed 1999 Feb 3]
- 9.Canadian Coordinating Office on Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1997Google Scholar
- 15.Duerdan M, Walley T. Prescribing at the interface between primary and secondary care in the UK: towards joint formularies? Pharmacoeconomics. In pressGoogle Scholar
- 19.Anonymous. Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures. Effective Health Care Bulletin no. 1. Leeds: University of Leeds, 1992Google Scholar
- 22.Health economics in the USA: expectations, applications and future directions. Washington, DC: IMS America, 1997Google Scholar
- 24.Short R. UK and Germany: European leaders in disease management implementation? Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes News 1996; Feb 10Google Scholar
- 26.Drummond M. Disease management: who needs it and why? Discussion paper 152. York: Center for Health Economics, University of York, 1997Google Scholar
- 27.Woods D. Exportability of managed care is limited. BMJ 1997; 315: 701Google Scholar
- 31.NHS Executive EL (94)94 Commercial approaches to the NHS regarding disease management packages. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1994Google Scholar