How should we fund integrated primary care for children in Australia? A resource allocation study

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: Integrated primary care provides health and social care services to intervene early and support children and families. Funding of integrated care is a barrier to care provision, but evidence is limited for which funding models are most appropriate. Our study aimed to provide expert judgement on what funding model, or mix of models, are most likely effective for integrating primary care for families with children aged 0-12 years in Australia. METHODS: We conducted a resource allocation survey to value funding models for integrated care. Participants were purposively sampled experts in primary health, social care and mental health care. Six funding types were included in the study. Outcome measures included ranking of funding model preferences and qualitative analysis from open-ended questions. RESULTS: Block-funding, alternative-payment-methods and incentive-payments were preferred models for integrated care individually and within a blended model. Fee-for-service, capitation and pay-for-performance were the least preferred models. There was agreement Fee-for-service may hinder integrating care. CONCLUSIONS: A blended model, including alternative-payment-methods, incentive-payments and block-funding, were preferred models to best integrate care for child outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Determining how best to fund integrated primary care for children is a priority for decision-making in Australia, as fee-for-service is no longer considered appropriate.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.