International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

The Consequences of Performance Measurement Systems in Multilevel Governance Health Systems: The Case of the Italian National Healthcare Service

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Federico Rotondo 1
Lucia Giovanelli 2
Nicoletta Fadda 2
Russell Mannion 3
1 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
2 Department of Economics and Business, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
3 Health Services Management Centre, School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Abstract
Background
Performance measurement systems (PMSs) have become an essential component of health system reforms globally and are increasingly used to assess, reward and improve provider performance. While PMSs can be valuable tools for achieving desired health outcomes, their effectiveness depends on how they are designed, implemented, and used within complex multilevel governance structures. There is evidence that PMSs may also have unintended negative consequences. Drawing on new empirical evidence, the present study examines the consequences of PMSs implemented in multi-level governance systems through the analysis of the Italian National Healthcare Service (INHS), which exemplifies a decentralised health system with multiple levels of governance.

Methods
The study employed a mixed methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the functional and dysfunctional consequences of PMSs in the INHS across three governance levels: (i) State-Regions, (ii) Regions-healthcare organisations, and (iii) Healthcare organisations-healthcare professionals.

Results
We identified three key functional consequences. First, PMSs drive improvement by facilitating benchmarking, advocacy, and collaboration. Second, quantifying activities and services improves objectivity and transparency. Third, national PMSs provide a comprehensive view of performance across multiple dimensions and provide a more holistic understanding of how different aspects of the system interact. We confirmed previously reported dysfunctional consequences of PMSs found in other health systems and identified three new dysfunctional consequences in the INHS: Measurement Overload, Misconsideration, and Exploitation.

Conclusion
Based on our analysis and existing literature, we propose ten key factors for strengthening performance measurement in the INHS. While this study offers novel evidence on the functional and dysfunctional consequences of PMSs in the Italian system, our research is context-specific, and the applicability of these factors to other multi-level health systems remains an area for future empirical testing.
Keywords
Performance Measurement System
Multilevel Governance
Functional Consequences
Dysfunctional Consequences
Effectiveness Factors
Italy
1.     Smith PC. Performance Measurement for Health System Improvement: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
2.     Mannion R, Braithwaite J. Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Intern Med J. 2012;42(5):569-574. doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02766.x
3. Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire W, Champagne F, Barnsley J, et al. The use of multilevel performance indicators in managing performance in health care organizations. Manag  Decis. 2003;41(8):760-770. doi:10.1108/00251740310496279
4.     Smith PC. Measuring health system performance. Eur J Health Econ. 2002;3(3):145-148. doi:10.1007/s10198-002-0138-1
5.     Mannion R, Goddard M, Bate A. Aligning incentives and motivations in health care: The case of earned autonomy. Financ Account Manag. 2007;23:401-420. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2007.00435.x
6.     Li X, Evans JM. Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):690. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08032-z
7.     Hooghe L, Marks G, Schakel A. Multilevel governance. In: Caramani D, ed. Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020:193-210.
8.     Maggetti M, Trein P. Multilevel governance and problem solving: Towards a dynamic theory of multilevel policy-making? Public Adm. 2019;97(2):355-369. doi:10.1111/padm.12573
9.     Mannion R, Exworthy M, Wiig S, Braithwaite J. The power of autonomy and resilience in healthcare delivery. BMJ. 2023;382:e073331. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-073331
10. Marchildon GP, Bossert TJ, Eds. Federalism and Decentralisation in Health Care: A Decision Space Approach. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2018.
11. Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ. 1976;3(4):305-360. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X   
12. Mannion R, Goddard M. Performance measurement and improvement in health care. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2002;1(1):13-23.
13. Adair CE, Simpson E, Casebeer AL, Birdsell JM, Hayden KA, Lewis S. Performance measurement in healthcare. Health Care Policy. 2006;2(1):56-78.
14. Goddard M, Mannion R, Smith P. Enhancing performance in health care: a theoretical perspective on agency and the role of information. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):95-107. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200003)9:2<95::aid-hec488>3.0.co;2-a
15. Schyve P. Models for relating performance measurement and accreditation. Int J Health Plann Manage. 1995;10(3):231-241. doi:10.1002/hpm.4740100309
16. Smith PC, Mannion R, Goddard M. Performance Management in Health Care: Information, Incentives and Culture, in Public Services Productivity. Presented at a seminar held in HM Treasury, 13 June, 2002, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London.
17. Mannion R, Davies HT. Payment for performance in health care. BMJ. 2008;336(7639):306-8. doi:10.1136/bmj.39463.454815.94
18. Smith PC. Performance measurement in health care: history, challenges and prospects. Public Money Manag. 2005;25(4):213-220. doi:10.1080/09540962.2005.10600096
19. Matta ME, Patterson SS. Evaluating multiple performance measures across several dimensions at a multi-facility outpatient center. Health Care Manag Sci. 2007;10(2):173-194. doi:10.1007/s10729-007-9010-2
20. Giovanelli L, Marinò L, Rotondo F, Fadda N, Ezza A, Amadori M. Developing a performance measurement system for the Italian public healthcare sector. Public Money Manag. 2015;35:297-302. doi:10.1080/09540962.2015.1047274
21. KirungaTashobya C, Ssengooba F, Nabyonga-Orem J, et al. A critique of the Uganda district league table using a normative health system performance assessment framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):355. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3126-6
22. Kruk ME, Sabwa S, Lewis TP, et al. Population assessment of health system performance in 16 countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2024;102(7):486-497B. doi:10.2471/BLT.23.291184
23. Sharma A, Prinja S, Aggarwal AK. Measurement of health system performance at district level: A study protocol. J Public Health Res. 2018;6(3):917. doi:10.4081/jphr.2017.917
24. Conrad L, Guven Uslu P. UK health sector performance management: Conflict, crisis and unintended consequences. Account Forum. 2012;36:231-250. doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2012.06.001
25. Röttger J, Blümel M, Fuchs S, Busse R. Assessing the responsiveness of chronic disease care - is the World Health Organization's concept of health system responsiveness applicable?. Soc Sci Med. 2014;113:87-94. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.009
26. Freeman T. Using performance indicators to improve health care quality in the public sector: a review of the literature. Health Serv Manage Res. 2002;15(2):126-137. doi:10.1258/0951484021912897
27. Arsenault C, Mebratie AD, Gelaw SK, Shamebo D. Routine data in a primary care performance dashboard, Ethiopia. Bull World Health Organ. 2024;102(7):465-475A. doi:10.2471/BLT.23.291122
28. Lai T, Al Salmi Q, Koch K, Hashish A, Ravaghi H, Mataria A. Health system performance assessment and reforms, Oman. Bull World Health Organ. 2024;102(7):533-537. doi:10.2471/BLT.24.291750
29. Szigeti S, Gaál P, Gyenes P, et al. Health System Performance Assessment, Hungary: a step forward toward evidence-informed health policy: Balázs Babarczy. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(suppl 3):ckx187.338. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckx187.338
30. van den Berg MJ, Kringos DS, Marks LK, Klazinga NS. The Dutch Health Care Performance Report: seven years of health care performance assessment in the Netherlands. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:1. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-1
31. Radford KH, Karanikolos M, Cylus J. Pandemic preparedness and health system resilience in 14 European countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2024;102(8):571-581. doi:10.2471/BLT.23.290509
32. Waitzberg R, Pfundstein I, Maresso A, Rechel B, van Ginneken E, Quentin W. Health system description and assessment: a scoping review of templates for systematic analyses. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024;22(1):82. doi:10.1186/s12961-024-01166-y
33. Mahdiyan S, Akbari M, Bozorgi M, Amini-Rarani M. Identifying and prioritizing challenges related to promoting the health system performance assessment in Iran. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:169. doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_106_20
34. Noordegraaf M, Van der Meulen M. Professional power play: organizing management in health care. Public Adm. 2008;864:1055-1069. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00746.x
35. Blümel M, Röttger J, Köppen J, Achstetter K, Busse R. Integrating the population perspective into health system performance assessment (IPHA): study protocol for a cross-sectional study in germany linking survey and claims data of statutorily and privately insured. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(9):370-379. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.141
36. Brito Fernandes Ó, Barbazza E, Ivanković D, Jansen T, Klazinga NS, Kringos DS. Engaging citizens in the development of a health system performance assessment framework: a case study in Ireland. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):148. doi:10.1186/s12961-021-00798-8
37. Guyatt G, Cook D, King D, Nishikawa J, Brill-Edwards P. Evaluating the performance of academic medical education administrators. Eval Health Prof. 1999;22(4):484-496. doi:10.1177/01632789922034428
38. Rotondo F, Giovanelli L, Fadda N, Ezza A. A methodology to design a performance management system in preventive care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1002. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3837-8
39. Mannion R, Goddard M. General practitioners' assessments of hospital quality and performance. Corp Gov. 2004;9(1):42-47. doi:10.1108/14777270410517719   
40. Leatherman S, McCarthy D. Public disclosure of health care performance reports: experience, evidence and issues for policy. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;11(2):93-98. doi:10.1093/intqhc/11.2.93
41. Nuti S, Noto G, Vola F, Vainieri M. Let’s play the patients music: A new generation of performance measurement systems in healthcare. Manag Decis. 2018;56(10):2252-2272. doi:10.1108/MD-09-2017-0907
42. Ivanković D, Jansen T, Barbazza E, Fernandes ÓB, Klazinga N, Kringos D. Status of the health information system in Ireland and its fitness to support health system performance assessment: a multimethod assessment based on stakeholder involvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;21(1):1. doi:10.1186/s12961-022-00931-1
43. Siverbo S, Cäker M, Åkesson J. Conceptualizing dysfunctional consequences of performance measurement in the public sector. Public Manag Rev. 2019;21(12):1801-1823, doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1577906   
44. Van Thiel S, Leeuw FL. The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Perform Manag Rev. 2002;25(3):267-281. doi:10.2307/3381236
45. Casalino LP. The unintended consequences of measuring quality on the quality of medical care. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(15):1147-1150. doi:10.1056/NEJM199910073411511
46. Kerpershoek E, Groenleer M, de Bruijn H. Unintended responses to performance management in dutch hospital care: Bringing together the managerial and professional perspectives. Public Manag Rev. 2014;18(3):417–436. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.985248
47. Powell AA, White KM, Partin MR, et al. Unintended consequences of implementing a national performance measurement system into local practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(4):405-412. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1906-3
48. Aryankhesal A, Sheldon TA, Mannion R, Mahdipour S. The dysfunctional consequences of a performance measurement system: the case of the Iranian national hospital grading programme. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015;20(3):138-145. doi:10.1177/1355819615576252
49. Fiore M, Bianconi A, Acuti Martellucci C, et al. Impact of the Italian healthcare outcomes program (PNE) on the care quality of the poorest performing hospitals. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(4):431. doi:10.3390/healthcare12040431
50. Edwards N, Black S. Targets: unintended and unanticipated effects. BMJ Qual Saf. 2023;32:697-699. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016247  
51. Giovanelli L, Rotondo F, Fadda N. Management training programs in healthcare: effectiveness factors, challenges and outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):904. doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11229-z
52. The Lancet Regional Health-Europe. The Italian health data system is broken. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2025;48:101206. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101206
53. Rajan D., Papanicolas I., Karanikolos M, et al. Health system performance assessment: A renewed global framework for policy making. Policy Brief 59. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (WHO); 2022.
54. OECD. Rethinking Health System Performance Assessment: A Renewed Framework. OECD Health Policy Studies. OECD; 2024. doi:10.1787/107182c8-en
55. Kringos D, Ivanković D, Barbazza E, Klazinga N, Brito Fernandes Ó. Health system performance assessment: embedding resilience through performance intelligence. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024;36(1):mzae010. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzae010
56. Goddard M, Mannion R, Smith PC. Assessing the performance of NHS hospital trusts: the role of 'hard' and 'soft' information. Health Policy. 1999;48(2):119-134. doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(99)00035-4
57. Mannion R, Greenfield D. Heeding frontline voice for better quality and safer care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024;36(3):mzae091. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzae091 
International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 13 June 2026

  • Received Date 05 August 2025
  • Revised Date 21 April 2026
  • Accepted Date 10 June 2026
  • First Published Date 13 June 2026
  • Published Date 13 June 2026