Background Primary care in England is facing increasing pressure due to the increasing number and complexity of consultations and the declining number of doctors per head of population. The improvement of primary care efficiency and productivity should be a priority, to ensure that future investments in the medical workforce can cope with the increasingly large and complex demand for care. Objectives This paper presents a systematic literature review of studies that define or measure efficiency in primary care in high-income settings. The review of the existing definitions of primary care efficiency and their limitations will inform future research on the measurement of efficiency in primary care in England and its determinants. Methods Literature searches were performed on Embase, Medline, and EconLit in January 2020. The records that passed the screening were reviewed in full text, and data on the study settings, the efficiency definition, and the efficiency analysis were extracted. Results Of the 2590 non-duplicate records retrieved from the searches, 38 papers were included in the analysis. The volume of the literature on primary care efficiency has evolved significantly from the 1980s, with the majority of the published studies focussing on European health systems. The setting most often analysed was primary care centres. Output was usually expressed using measures of primary care utilisation, with or without quality adjustments. Reference to the health outcomes achieved was, however, limited. Inputs were more commonly expressed in labour terms, while the exogenous variables related either to the characteristics of the patient population or the organisation of primary care. While all studies included an analysis of technical efficiency, consideration of allocative or cost efficiency or the determinants of productivity (e.g. technological change, skill mix) was rare. Conclusions The main limitations that future research on primary care efficiency should address relate to the definition of output. Current approaches to measure the impact on health and the multiple dimensions of output are not sufficient to represent the valued output of primary care. In light of the recent changes in the model of primary care delivery in England, future research should also investigate the impact of technological change on productivity and the scope for substitution across staff roles.

Many health technology assessment (HTA) agencies limit their assessments of vaccines to the health benefits for the vaccinated individual, the costs associated with vaccine administration and the disease avoided. However, because the value of vaccines tends to accrue to a large extent beyond the vaccinated individual, they are systematically undervalued in many current HTA processes. This is also the case in the UK, where the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is in charge of assessing preventative vaccines, while therapeutic vaccines fall in the realm of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Hospitals in England experience extremely high levels of bed occupancy in the winter. In these circumstances, vaccine-preventable hospitalisations due to seasonal respiratory infections have a high cost because of the missed opportunity to treat other patients on the waiting list. This paper estimates the number of hospitalisations that current vaccines against influenza, pneumococcal disease (PD), COVID-19, and a hypothetical Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine, could prevent in the winter among older adults in England. Their costs were quantified using a conventional reference costing method and a novel opportunity costing approach considering the net monetary benefit (NMB) obtained from alternative uses of the hospital beds freed-up by vaccines. The influenza, PD and RSV vaccines could collectively prevent 72,813 bed days and save over £45 million in hospitalisation costs. The COVID-19 vaccine could prevent over 2 million bed days and save £1.3 billion. However, the value of hospital beds freed up by vaccination is likely to be 1.1–2 times larger (£48–93 million for flu, PD and RSV; £1.4–2.8 billion for COVID-19) when quantified in opportunity cost terms. Considering opportunity costs is key to ensuring maximum value is obtained from preventative budgets, as reference costing may significantly underestimate the true value of vaccines.

Vaccine-preventable diseases continue to generate a substantial burden on health, healthcare systems, and societies, which is projected to increase with population ageing. There is a need to better understand the full value of adult immunisation programmes corresponding to the broader value of vaccine frameworks that are recommended for evidence-based decision-making. This review aims to summarise and map evidence for the value of selected adult immunisation programmes (seasonal influenza, pneumococcal disease, RSV, and HZ) in ten diverse countries. We conducted a structured literature review of evidence published from 2017 to 2023. An existing framework was used to structure the assessment, developing matrices demonstrating the elements of value evidenced for each vaccine and country of focus. Our analysis showed substantial evidence base on the value of adult immunisation programmes, but the availability of evidence varied by value element and by vaccine. The impact on the quality of life of the vaccinated individual was the most evidenced value element. Mortality benefits for vaccinated individuals and cost-offsets to healthcare systems were also well-evidenced. The availability of evidence for ‘broader’ societal value elements (such as transmission value, carer productivity and impact on social equity, and antimicrobial resistance prevention) varied. No evidence was identified relating to the broader value elements of macroeconomic effects, value to other interventions, or effects on the quality of life of caregivers. Robust evidence exists to show that adult immunisation programmes generate substantial value for population health and health systems, yet some elements of broader value remain underrepresented in the academic literature. Without such evidence, the full value of immunisation programmes is underestimated, risking suboptimal policy decisions.

Improving efficiency and productivity are key aspects to ensure that general practices in England can meet the needs of a growing population with increasingly demanding and costly healthcare needs. However, current evidence on the efficiency and productivity of general practices is weak, partly due to suboptimal approaches to measure their ‘valued’ output. To overcome this limitation, this paper presents a multi-dimensional framework and indicators of valued output from the healthcare decision-maker’s perspective. We identified existing primary care performance frameworks through a targeted literature review. We reviewed the frameworks and selected the dimensions relating to the impact on patients’ health outcomes, corresponding with the definition of ‘valued’ output from the healthcare decision-maker perspective. For each dimension, we reviewed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence base and guidance on best practice to develop indicators of valued output. Clinical experts and representatives of the main primary care stakeholders reviewed and validated the framework’s comprehensiveness and development process. Based on a review of three existing frameworks, we synthesised a multi-dimensional output framework comprising 13 dimensions for significant primary care-related conditions and services and 51 indicators of valued output. Each indicator of valued output measures a healthcare episode and the resulting impact on patient’s health. The multi-dimensional framework and indicators provide a theoretical tool to improve the measurement of primary care output in economic efficiency and productivity studies. Future research should explore the measurability of the indicators through available datasets and the implementation of the framework through analytical approaches for efficiency measurement.

Introduction: The rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as an international public health threat calls urgently for improved stewardship of antibiotics and for the development of new antibiotics to tackle AMR. There is growing agreement that changes are needed to existing systems for health technology assessment (HTA) and procurement if antibiotics are to be used appropriately, and manufacturers are to receive rewards that incentivize research and development. However, there has been little discussion of what changes might actually be made.Methods: We conducted a literature review of recent proposals to modify HTA and contracting for antibiotics, and interviewed HTA experts from England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Sweden to explore the attractiveness of these and other proposals in their countries. A forum (held in February 2019) with government and health system representatives from these countries, as well as from industry, will promote face-to-face discussions on practical ways to modify approaches in these countries to recognize the full value of antibiotics and promote responsible stewardship.Results: The focus of the main proposal is to define value attributes that reflect the societal impact of antibiotics, model the dynamics of infection transmission and resistance development, and conceptualize payment models that delink volumes sold from final revenues. However, HTA experts perceived a number of issues with these proposals, including a lack of data to demonstrate societal value, complex modeling techniques that require advanced capabilities, uncertain value estimates, and lack of alignment with current approaches. At present, it appears that only England and Sweden have started to actively address HTA and contracting for antibiotics as a priority.Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggested that efforts and progress on modifying HTA and contracting of antibiotics have been heterogeneous so far. The forum will shed further light on possible ways forward within the two value assessment approaches of clinical added benefit and quality-adjusted life years.