ArticleHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
Does pay for performance affect socioeconomic inequalities in access? Evidence from hospital specialised care in England.
Article in Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pay for performance aims to improve quality and efficiency in the health sector but may widen inequalities. We investigate how pay for performance for specialised hospital care in England affected socioeconomic inequalities in access. We focus on two clinical areas: trauma care aimed at reducing delayed discharges from adult critical care; and internal medicine aimed at reducing in-hospital waiting time and length of stay for patients requiring urgent coronary bypass grafting. Both were part of the Prescribed Specialised Services Commissioning for Quality and Innovation. Using patient-level administrative data from Hospital Episodes Statistics in 2012/13-2016/17, we employ difference-in-difference models to estimate the impact of these schemes across socioeconomic status. Our treatment group comprises hospitals that adopted the scheme, and our control group the remaining eligible hospitals. For trauma care, we measure the impact of the scheme on discharge delays and the probability of an overnight discharge. For urgent coronary bypass, we measure pre-surgery inpatient waiting time, length of stay, 30-day and one-year mortality, and hospital-acquired infections. For trauma care we find the scheme widened inequalities by reducing delays that favoured more patients in the least income-deprived quintile (by 2.4 h or 30.4 % at the sample mean) than in the most income-deprived quintile (by 1.3 h). We find no effect or socioeconomic differences across outcomes for patients requiring an urgent coronary bypass.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.