Tag Archives: National Health Service

Genetic testing in England: ROI, cost-effectiveness analysis, or both to evaluate intervention

In healthcare, return on investment (ROI) can be used to measure the effectiveness of various disease management programmes. ROI provides a framework to help determine whether additional funds should be allocated to a particular activity or alternatively whether these funds should be withdrawn and allocated elsewhere. The rapid uptake of genetic testing within the National Health Service (NHS) and current debate around genetics make evaluating tailored interventions increasingly more relevant to ensure an efficient use of NHS spend. Milliman’s Joanne Buckle and Didier Serre provide perspective in this paper.

How capitation arrangements can be applied to deliver the NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans

Capitation arrangements are traditionally used as an alternative to fee-for-service reimbursement to facilitate a transfer of risk from the funder to providers of healthcare services. The objective of introducing risk sharing between funders and providers is to encourage the delivery of efficient and patient-centred care by incentivising the integration of services and minimising unwarranted variation in care. This paper by Milliman’s Joanne Buckle and Tanya Hayward explores how the principles of a traditional capitation arrangement may apply in a regional National Health Service system where the stakeholder roles differ and the implementation of various key capitation principles is not possible.

A tale of two national health plans

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) and the United States’ Medicaid program both provide publicly funded medical services to a broad population. The general goal of both is to find a balance of quality and efficiency that promotes access to appropriate and financially sustainable medical care. This article written by Milliman consultant Jennifer Gerstorff and Northampton General Hospital’s Chris Pallot explains the history of both programs. The authors also compare and contrast how the programs are funded, how providers are contracted, and how innovations are changing each system.