Objectives: The Primary Care Network (PCN), comprising small private General Practitioner (GP) clinics supported by a mobile team of dedicated nursing and allied health professionals, as well as a chronic disease register (CDR), can be an alternative model for good chronic disease management. GPs in the network manage the mobile team, set common goals for each clinic and self-evaluate. In this paper we share the data and experience of the first year of the pilot PCN in Singapore. Methodology: Process indicators for diabetic patients seen from April 2011 to March 2012 (pre-PCN) and April 2012 to March 2013 were compared. McNemar test was performed. Results: There was statistically significant improvement in process indicators of yearly DRP, DFS and Urine ACR screening for diabetes in the first year post-PCN compared to baseline data. Rates of regular HbA1c and LDL-C testing, as well as smoking blood pressure and weight assessment also showed statistically significant improvement. Conclusion: The PCN has shown promise in improving quality of care for diabetes among small private GP clinics. Key challenges to the success of PCN include good clinician leadership, suitable IT support, and creating a viable business model for GPs.

Healthcare decision-makers are constantly challenged by growing healthcare needs in tandem with rising healthcare costs. Disinvesting in technologies and practices that are "low in value" is one strategy to re-allocate limited resources to the most effective, safe and cost-effective technologies. We put forward a health technology reassessment framework and examined the opportunities and challenges on technology disinvestment in Singapore and deliberated on possible solutions. We coordinated and supported a disinvestment programme in 2 hospitals, 1 specialist centre and 9 primary care institutions in the public healthcare sector. The key processes were identifying, prioritising and assessing low-value health technologies and practices, disseminating and implementing disinvestment recommendations, and post-implementation evaluation. Through case studies, we explored the barriers and enablers to the success of the programme. One of the barriers to disinvestment included difficulty in demonstrating a lack of benefit of in-use technologies from published studies. Differing viewpoint and priority might preclude a healthcare leader's support in such initiatives and that posed an unsurmountable hurdle. On the other hand, engaging the stakeholder throughout the evidence review process and striking a balance between rigour and timeliness of review were likely to assure success. Lastly, monitoring the impact on resources and patient outcomes can be diverse and methods need to be developed. Understanding barriers and enablers in health technology disinvestment can translate into improved opportunities for eliminating and minimising resource wastage.