Effect of a UK Pay-for-Performance Program on Ethnic Disparities in Diabetes Outcomes: Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College, St. Dunstan's Road, London, United Kingdom.
The Annals of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.43). 05/2012; 10(3):228-34. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1335
Source: PubMed


We wanted to examine the long-term effects of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a major pay-for-performance program in the United Kingdom, on ethnic disparities in diabetes outcomes.
We undertook an interrupted time series analysis of electronic medical record data of diabetes patients registered with 29 family practices in South West London, United Kingdom. Main outcome measures were mean hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), total cholesterol, and blood pressure.
The introduction of QOF was associated with initial accelerated improvements in systolic blood pressure in white and black patients, but these improvements were sustained only in black patients (annual decrease: -1.68 mm Hg; 95% CI, -2.41 to -0.95 mm Hg). Initial improvements in diastolic blood pressure in white patients (-1.01 mm Hg; 95% CI, -1.79 to -0.24 mm Hg) and in cholesterol in white (-0.13 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.05 mmol/L) and black (-0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.01 mmol/L) patients were not sustained in the post-QOF period. There was no beneficial impact of QOF on HbA(1c) in any ethnic group. Existing disparities in risk factor control remained largely intact (for example; mean HbA(1c): white 7.5%, black 7.8%, south Asian 7.8%; P <.05) at the end of the study period.
A universal pay-for-performance scheme did not appear to address important disparities in chronic disease management over time. Targeted quality improvement strategies may be required to improve health care in vulnerable populations.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source

    The Annals of Family Medicine 05/2012; 10(3):194-5. DOI:10.1370/afm.1415 · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is increasingly touted as a means to improve health care quality. To evaluate the effect of P4P remuneration targeting individual health care providers. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, OpenSIGLE, Canadian Evaluation Society Unpublished Literature Bank, New York Academy of Medicine Library Grey Literature Collection, and reference lists were searched up until June 2012. Two reviewers independently identified original research papers (randomized, controlled trials; interrupted time series; uncontrolled and controlled before-after studies; and cohort comparisons). Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The literature search identified 4 randomized, controlled trials; 5 interrupted time series; 3 controlled before-after studies; 1 nonrandomized, controlled study; 15 uncontrolled before-after studies; and 2 uncontrolled cohort studies. The variation in study quality, target conditions, and reported outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Uncontrolled studies (15 before-after studies, 2 cohort comparisons) suggested that P4P improves quality of care, but higher-quality studies with contemporaneous controls failed to confirm these findings. Two of the 4 randomized trials were negative, and the 2 statistically significant trials reported small incremental improvements in vaccination rates over usual care (absolute differences, 8.4 and 7.8 percentage points). Of the 5 interrupted time series, 2 did not detect any improvements in processes of care or clinical outcomes after P4P implementation, 1 reported initial statistically significant improvements in guideline adherence that dissipated over time, and 2 reported statistically significant improvements in blood pressure control in patients with diabetes balanced against statistically significant declines in hemoglobin A1c control. Few methodologically robust studies compare P4P with other payment models for individual practitioners; most are small observational studies of variable quality. The effect of P4P targeting individual practitioners on quality of care and outcomes remains largely uncertain. Implementation of P4P models should be accompanied by robust evaluation plans. None.
    Annals of internal medicine 12/2012; 157(12):889-99. DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-157-12-201212180-00009 · 17.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The quality and outcomes framework (QOF) is one of the world's largest pay-for-performance schemes, rewarding general practitioners for the quality of care they provide. This review examines the evidence on the efficacy of the scheme for improving health outcomes, its impact on non-incentivized activities and the robustness of the clinical targets adopted in the scheme. The review was conducted using six electronic databases, six sources of grey literature and bibliography searches from relevant publications. Studies were identified using a comprehensive search strategy based on MeSH terms and keyword searches. A total of 21 543 references were identified of which 32 met the eligibility criteria with 11 studies selected for the review. Findings provide strong evidence that the QOF initially improved health outcomes for a limited number of conditions but subsequently fell to the pre-existing trend. There was limited impact on non-incentivized activities with adverse effects for some sub-population groups. The QOF has limited impact on improving health outcomes due to its focus on process-based indicators and the indicators' ceiling thresholds. Further research is required to strengthen the quality of evidence available on the QOF's impact on population health to ensure that the incentive scheme is both clinically and cost-effective.
    Journal of Public Health 08/2013; 36(2). DOI:10.1093/pubmed/fdt077 · 2.04 Impact Factor
Show more