Back to Glossary
Outcomes-Based Contract
An outcomes-based contract is a contract, often for services, that bases payment on the accomplishment of a specified objective, rather than upon time spent working or activities performed. In other words, the outcomes-based contracting approach focuses on obtaining a desired result, rather than on how the outcome is achieved.
Outcomes-based contracts originated in the United States many years ago, but have become much more popular in recent years. These contracts traditionally have been more popular in the non-profit or government sectors, but are gaining popularity in the business community. We’ll provide a real-life example below.
A health insurer entered into an outcomes-based contract with a pharmaceutical company to govern the amount the insurer will pay to the pharmaceutical company for a particular drug when it is provided to insured patients. The drug costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and therefore requires a massive up-front cash outlay. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, reimbursement rates for the drug are tied to the patient’s clinical experience from using the drug. Health improvements to the patient are measured at agreed-upon intervals of time after taking the drug and measured against specific medical benchmarks. If treatment is unsuccessful, the insurer is entitled to a rebate.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does outcomes-based contracting make sense?
It works best when the result is clearly measurable, both sides agree on how it’s measured, and the provider genuinely controls whether it happens. Healthcare, infrastructure, and social services use it often for that reason. It fits poorly when outcomes depend heavily on factors outside the provider’s control, since you’ll spend more time arguing about attribution than delivering the work.
How do you measure outcomes in a performance contract?
Pick a small number of specific metrics, define exactly how each is calculated, name the data source, and set measurement dates in the contract itself. Vague goals like improved efficiency cause disputes. Agree in advance who collects the data, how disagreements get resolved, and what baseline you’re comparing against. Payment terms should tie directly to those defined measurements, with no room for interpretation.
What are the risks of paying for results instead of effort?
Providers may price in a premium for the added risk, or avoid harder cases that could drag their numbers down. Measurement disputes are common, and administrative costs run higher because someone has to track and verify performance. There’s also a real chance of rewarding the metric rather than the goal. Careful metric design and honest baselines reduce most of these problems.
