First in a series of infographics which demystify the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.

Share This Post

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Demystifying payment by results

This is the first in an occasional series of posts dedicated to providing an AZed of the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.

The first infographic below deals with key terms from A-F. Clicking here or on the bottom of the infographic will take you to my recently completed PbR interactive tool which is designed to help commissioners, investors and providers consider whether it might be appropriate to use PbR for a particular service. The tool asks key questions on both the rationale for using PbR and key elements of the contract such as defining and validating outcomes and guarding against common PbR problems such as “creaming and parking” and unintended consequences.

The tool provides immediate feedback, followed up by summaries of key research. Everything is evidence-based and the tool is completely free to use.

I hope you find both the infographic and the tool itself helpful.

 

 

 

 

Share This Post

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Related posts

Infographics
PbR jargon demystified (3) M-R

Third in a series of infographics which demystify the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.

Infographics
PbR jargon demystified (2) G-L

Second in a series of infographics which demystify the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.

Payment by Results
Getting the right outcomes for payment by results

Not only do outcomes therefore have to be accurate and realistic but commissioners need to consider that providers will quite reasonably de-prioritise work which is not governed by an outcome.

Payment by Results
Can payment by results save money?

Latest post in Payment by Results: Lessons from the Literature series examines what the research tells us about PbR’s capacity to save public money.

Featured
Peterborough Prison PbR pilot results improving, but still below target

However, if the offender population in Peterborough is typical of local prisons, these results are promising although they do not reach the 10% target figure which would release the full PbR payment (the number of reconviction events would need to be 148 per 100 offenders rather than the current 155).

Payment by Results
What did we learn from the Doncaster prison PbR reoffending pilot?

Sodexo and NACRO are the new partnership running the South Yorkshire Community Rehabilitation Company and it will be interesting to see whether they can have a positive impact on reducing the reoffending of released prisoners – their results will also be subject to a payment by results contracting approach, this time using both a binary and frequency (but not severity of offence) payment model.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Privacy Preference Center

keep informed

One email every day at noon