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.
12th October 2016
Menu
Tags are keywords. I put tags on every post to help you find the content you want. Tags may be people (Dominic Raab, say), organisations (The Howard League, PRT), themes (women offenders, homelessness) or specific items (heroin, racial disparity, ROTL). If you’re looking to research a particular issue, they can be invaluable.
Second in a series of infographics which demystify the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.
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.”
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
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:
The interesting thing about PbR schemes is that they are supposed to be all about finding creative solutions to entrenched social problems which actually work.
