TY - JOUR
AU - C. Bailey
AU - S. Honisett
AU - J. Dermentzis
AU - J. Devereux
AU - J. A. Manski-Nankervis
AU - K. Dalziel
AU - H. Hiscock
A1 - 
AB - 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.
AD - Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.; Centre for Community Child Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: Suzy.honisett@mcri.edu.au.; Health Services and Economics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia.; Health Systems Integration Unit, North-Western Melbourne Primary Health Network, Victoria, Australia.; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Family Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.; Health Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.; Health Services and Economics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
AN - 39461258
BT - Aust N Z J Public Health
C5 - Financing & Sustainability; Healthcare Policy
CP - 6
DA - Dec
DO - 10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100196
DP - NLM
ET - 20241025
IS - 6
JF - Aust N Z J Public Health
LA - eng
N2 - 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.
PY - 2024
SN - 1326-0200
SP - 100196
ST - How should we fund integrated primary care for children in Australia? A resource allocation study
T1 - How should we fund integrated primary care for children in Australia? A resource allocation study
T2 - Aust N Z J Public Health
TI - How should we fund integrated primary care for children in Australia? A resource allocation study
U1 - Financing & Sustainability; Healthcare Policy
U3 - 10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100196
VL - 48
VO - 1326-0200
Y1 - 2024
ER -