IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-293226.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Performance-based financing is not backed by credible theoretical justifications

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabeth Paul
  • Oriane Bodson
  • Valéry Ridde

Abstract

Introduction: Pay-for-performance is expanding in many health systems, both in high-income countries and in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where it is commonly known as “performance-based financing” (PBF). PBF results are mixed and it has been criticised for its potential perverse effects. Yet, PBF promoters fail to provide a clear and consistent explanation of why and how it is supposed to produce results and to perform better than alternative approaches. The literature on PBF-related approaches is fragmented across disciplines and much of the current cross-disciplinary research on PBF and similar schemes lacks a sound theoretical basis.1Aim: This study explores the theoretical justifications advanced to legitimate the choice of PBF.Methods: We performed a systematic review of the scientific papers and grey literature on PBF so as to identify the theories utilised to justify it, and critically analyse them.Results: The theoretical approach that has most often been advanced to justify PBF is the principal-agent theory – arguing that its objective is to better align healthcare providers’ incentives with populations’ interests. Surprisingly, while many PBF promoters refer to this theory, a correct utilisation of it leads to the conclusion that considering the specificities of the health sector in LMICs, high-powered incentives (as are inherent to PBF) are not recommended. There is now growing consensus on the fact that the principal-agent theory is not appropriate to justify PBF – notably because it rests on wrong assumptions and does not take context into consideration. Other related (New Institutional) Economics currents have also been used to justified PBF, including property right theory, transaction cost economics, political economy theories, or behavioural economics. Non-economic approaches, relating to organisations sciences and management, have also been used to justify PBF (management control theory, operations and supply management).Conclusion: PBF is actually not justified by any credible “grand theory”, and not yet by convincing theories of change. If PBF cannot be justified neither theoretically, nor empirically, one can only conclude it is promoted on an ideological ground.Reference(s):1. Selviaridis K. Wynstra F. Performance-based contracting: a literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Production Research 2015; 53:12, 3505-3540.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabeth Paul & Oriane Bodson & Valéry Ridde, 2019. "Performance-based financing is not backed by credible theoretical justifications," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/293226, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/293226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/293226/3/ECTMIH2019-Poster-PBF.pdf
    File Function: Œuvre complète ou partie de l'œuvre
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Performance-based financing; Theory; Low- and middle-income countries; Scoping review;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/293226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.