Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20529330›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2010

Primary care capitation payments in the UK. An observational study.

Gwion Rhys, Hendrik J Beerstecher, Claire L Morgan

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Relationship between research activity and the performance of English general practices: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Impact of primary care funding on secondary care utilisation and patient outcomes: a retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gwion RhysTy Doctor, Ffordd Dewi Sant, Nefyn, LL53 6EA, UK.
Hendrik J Beerstecher
Claire L Morgan
Kent and Canterbury Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2004 an allocation formula for primary care services was introduced in England and Wales so practices would receive equitable pay. Modifications were made to this formula to enable local health authorities to pay practices. Similar pay formulae were introduced in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but these are unique to the country and therefore could not be included in this study.

objectiveTo examine the extent to which the Global Sum, and modifications to the original formula, determine practice funding.

methodsThe allocation formula determines basic practice income, the Global Sum. We compared practice Global Sum entitlements using the original and the modified allocation formula calculations. Practices receive an income supplement if Global Sum payments were below historic income in 2004. We examined current overall funding levels to estimate what the effect will be when the income supplements are removed.

resultsVirtually every Welsh and English practice (97%) received income supplements in 2004. Without the modifications to the formula only 72% of Welsh practices would have needed supplements. No appreciable change would have occurred in England. The formula modifications increased the Global Sum for 99.5% of English practices, while it reduced entitlement for every Welsh practice. In 2008 Welsh practices received approximately pound 6.15 (9%) less funding per patient per year than an identical English practice. This deficit will increase to 11.2% when the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee is abolished.

conclusionsIdentical practices in different UK countries do not receive equitable pay. The pay method disadvantages Wales where the population is older and has higher health needs.

Indexed as

Capitation FeeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFamily PracticeFee-for-Service PlansHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalObservationPrimary Health CareProfessional Practice LocationRate Setting and ReviewResource Allocation

Identifiers

PMID20529330
PMCPMC2889945
OpenAlexW2118006157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.