Payment reforms are frequently implemented alongside service delivery reforms, thus rendering it difficult to disentangle their impact. This scoping review aims to link alternative payment arrangements within their context of service delivery, to assess their impact on quality of chronic care, and to disentangle, where possible, the impact of payment reforms from changes to service delivery. A search of literature published between 2013 and 2022 resulted in 34 relevant articles across five types of payment models: capitation/global budget (n = 13), pay-for-coordination (n = 10), shared savings/shared risk (n = 6), blended capitation (n = 3), and bundled payments (n = 1). The certainty of evidence was generally low due to biases associated with voluntary participation in reforms. This scoping review finds that population-based payment reforms are better suited for collaborative, person-centred approaches of service delivery spanning settings and providers, but also highlights the need for a wider evidence base of studies disentangling the impact of financing from service delivery reforms. Limited evidence disentangling the two suggests that transforming service delivery to a team-based model of care alongside a purchasing reform shifting to blended capitation was more impactful in improving quality of chronic care, than the individual components of payment and service delivery. Further comparative studies employing causal inference methods, accounting for biases and quantifying aspects of service delivery, are needed to better disentangle the mechanisms impacting quality of care.