Article

Impact of Pay for Performance on Ethnic Disparities in Intermediate Outcomes for Diabetes: A Longitudinal Study

Department of Primary Care and Social Medicine, Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, London, UK.
Diabetes care (Impact Factor: 8.57). 02/2009; 32(3):404-9. DOI: 10.2337/dc08-0912
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a major pay for performance incentive on trends in the quality of diabetes care in white, black, and South Asian ethnic groups in an urban setting in the U.K.
We developed longitudinal models examining the quality of diabetes care in a cohort of ethnically diverse patients in Southwest London using electronic family practice records. Outcome measures were mean blood pressure and A1C values between 2000 and 2005.
The introduction of pay for performance was associated with reductions in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, which were significantly greater than those predicted by the underlying trend in the white (-5.8 and -4.2 mmHg), black (-2.5 and -2.4 mmHg), and South Asian (-5.5 and -3.3 mmHg) groups. Reductions in A1C levels were significantly greater than those predicted by the underlying trend in the white group (-0.5%) but not in the black (-0.3%) or South Asian (-0.4%) groups. Ethnic group disparities in annual measurement of blood pressure and A1C were abolished before the introduction of pay for performance.
The introduction of a pay for performance incentive in U.K. primary care was associated with improvements in the intermediate outcomes of diabetes care for all ethnic groups. However, the magnitude of improvement appeared to differ between ethnic groups, thus potentially widening existing disparities in care. Policy makers should consider the potential impacts of pay for performance incentives on health disparities when designing and evaluating such programs.

Full-text

Available from: Sonia K Saxena, May 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
95 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and Aims: Previous studies have investigated the association between ethnicity and processes of care and intermediate outcomes of diabetes, but there are limited population-based studies available. The aim of this study was to use population-based data to investigate the relationships between ethnicity and glycaemic control in men and women with diabetes mellitus living in Scotland Methods: We used a 2008 extract from the population-based national electronic diabetes database of Scotland. The association between ethnicity with mean glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus was examined in a retrospective cohort study, including adjustment for a number of variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, body mass index (BMI), prescribed treatment and duration of diabetes. Results: Complete data for analyses were available for 56,333 White Scottish adults, 2,535 Pakistanis, 857 Indians, 427 Chinese and 223 African-Caribbeans. All other ethnic groups had significantly (p<0.05) greater proportions of people with suboptimal glycaemic control (HbA1c >58 mmol/mol, 7.5%) compared to the White Scottish group, despite generally younger mean age and lower BMI. Fully adjusted odds ratios for suboptimal glycaemic control were significantly higher among Pakistanis and Indians (1.85, 95% CI: 1.68-2.04, and 1.62,95% CI: 1.38-1.89) respectively. Conclusions: Pakistanis and Indians with type 2 diabetes mellitus were more likely to have suboptimal glycaemic control than the white Scottish population. Further research on health services and self-management are needed to understand the association between ethnicity and glycaemic control to address ethnic disparities in glycaemic control.
    PLoS ONE 12/2013; 8(12). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0083292 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review and synthesize published evidence of pay-for-performance (P4P) effects on management of diabetes. Databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2012) were comprehensively searched for the effects of P4P programs in terms of patient outcomes and physician behaviors. Studies covering detailed data were included and synthesized. The quality of the body of evidence for each quality indicator was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Among 742 identified articles, 12 interrupted time series studies, 7 controlled before-after studies, and 2 cross-sectional studies were included. Additionally, 12 studies were further included for quantitative analysis. Results of meta-analysis showed that P4P produced generally positive effects in most indicators (eg, patients with records of total cholesterol or blood pressure). However, these results were inconsistent. The percentage of patients with HbA1c ≤ 7% or 53 mmol/mol showed a pooled odds ratio of 0.98 in patients, but a pooled mean difference of 19.71% in the physician groups. The odds ratios of receiving tests/reaching an outcome level were also diverse in patients (odds ratios ranged from 0.98 to 3.32). Besides, process indicators had higher rates of improvement than outcome indicators. P4P programs have variable impacts on patient outcomes of diabetes as well as physician behaviors, with various effects from negligible to strongly beneficial. Considering the low quality of the included studies, this conclusion should be cautiously interpreted.
    Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 08/2013; 6(3):173-84. DOI:10.1111/jebm.12052
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of financial incentives provided to primary care physicians who achieve target management or clinical outcomes has been advocated to support the fulfillment of care recommendations for patients with diabetes. This article explores the characteristics of incentive models implemented in the context of universal healthcare systems in the United Kingdom, Australia, Taiwan and Canada; the extent to which these interventions have been successful in improving diabetes outcomes; and the key challenges and concerns around implementing incentive models. Research in the effect of incentives in the United Kingdom demonstrates some improvements in process outcomes and achievement of cholesterol, blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets. Evidence of the efficacy of programs implemented outside of the United Kingdom is very limited but suggests that physicians participating in these enhanced billing incentive programs were already completing the guideline-recommended care prior to the introduction of the incentive. A shift to a pay-for-performance programs may have important implications for professionalism and patient-centred care. In the absence of definitive evidence that financial incentives drive the quality of diabetes management at the level of primary care, policy makers should proceed with caution. It is important to look beyond simply modifying physicians' behaviours and address the factors and systemic barriers that make it challenging for patients and physicians to manage diabetes in partnership.
    Canadian Journal of Diabetes 10/2014; 39(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jcjd.2014.06.002 · 0.46 Impact Factor