pbr-g-to-l-fi
Russell Webster

Russell Webster

Criminal Justice & substance misuse expert and author of this blog.

PbR jargon demystified (2) G-L

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on print
Share on email
Second in a series of infographics which demystify the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.

Demystifying payment by results

This is the second 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  infographic below deals with key terms from G-L. 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.

 

Related posts you might like:

The unexpected consequences of payment by results

The issue of providers “gaming” PbR contracts is a hot issue in the literature. Commentators take different views with some stating that it is only rational and efficient for providers to focus on the outcomes incentivised by PbR payments to the best of their ability while others describe similar behaviour as “gaming.”

Read More »

Designing payment by results schemes (NAO 4)

The NAO cautions that in designing PbR schemes, commissioners need to get the balance between pure PbR and non PbR payments right. Where a scheme is financed by a Social Impact Bond, it may be possible – and indeed appropriate – to stipulate that 100% income is dependent on achieving the specified outcomes.

Read More »

Payment by Results and Drug Recovery

Some reported that PbR created opportunities for increased creativity and flexibility in the way in which services were designed and delivered. PbR had also encouraged a greater emphasis on monitoring and reviewing the progress of those in treatment. However the emphasis on measuring progress solely in terms of the PbR outcomes was both extremely costly and time-consuming but also had the potential to alter and

Read More »

Payment by results and complex needs

Following a balanced and coherent examination of these key difficulties based on the real life application of PbR in the UK through the various homeless, workless, offending and troubled families initiatives, the Revolving Doors report comes to five principal conclusions:

Read More »
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on print
Share on email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Privacy Preference Center

Select Language

Keep up-to-date on drugs and crime

You will get one email with a new article every day.