Effect of Financial Incentives on Improvement in Medical Quality Indicators for Primary Care

Department of Family Medicine, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.85). 09/2010; 23(5):622-31. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.05.070187
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The efficacy of rewarding physicians financially for preventive services is unproven. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a physician pay-for-performance program similar to the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting Initiative program on quality of preventive care in a network of community health centers.
A retrospective review of administrative data was done to evaluate a natural quasi-experiment in a network of publicly funded primary care clinics. Physicians in 6 of 11 clinics were given a financial incentive twice the size of the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' incentive for achieving group targets in preventive care that included cervical cancer screening, mammography, and pediatric immunization. They also received productivity incentives. Six years of performance indicators were compared between incentivized and nonincentivized clinics. We also surveyed the incentivized clinicians about their perception of the incentive program.
Although some performance indicators improved for all measures and all clinics, there were no clinically significant differences between clinics that had incentives and those that did not. A linear trend test approached conventional significance levels for Papanicolaou smears (P = .08) but was of very modest magnitude compared with observed nonlinear variations; there was no suggestion of a linear trend for mammography or pediatric immunizations. The survey revealed that most physicians felt the incentives were not very effective in improving quality of care.
We found no evidence for a clinically significant effect of financial incentives on performance of preventive care in these community health centers. Based on our findings and others, we believe there is great need for more research with strong research designs to determine the effects, both positive and negative, of financial incentives on clinical quality indicators in primary care.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aims of this study were to investigate whether general practitioners (GPs) who complied with quality prescribing indicators included in the pay-for-performance programmes also complied with quality prescribing indicators which are not linked to incentives and to compare the prescribing behaviour between those GPs who showed compliance with quality prescribing indicators linked to financial incentives and those who did not. This was a descriptive cross-sectional study which was conducted in 2007 in the Aljarafe Primary Care Area (Andalusia, Spain) and involved 37 Health Care Centres and 176 GPs. The main outcome was the results of a comparison of six quality prescribing indicators linked to incentives and 14 quality prescribing indicators not linked to incentives. The chi-square test was used to compare qualitative variables. Quantitative variables were tested using Student's t test upon confirmation of normality. Those GPs showing compliance with the indicators included in the pay-for performance programme showed low levels of compliance with quality prescribing indicators that were unincentivised. With respect to compliance with the indicators not linked to financial incentives, we found no statistical difference between GPs who showed compliance with incentivised indicators (n = 57) and those showing non-compliance (n = 112) in terms of drug selection, with the exception of the selection of second- and third-line antibiotics and antihistamines, nor in terms of the appropriate use of drugs linked to patient's clinical conditions. The compliance of GPs showing compliance with quality prescribing indicators included in pay-for-performance programmes was not better than that of those who showed no compliance with other relevant quality prescribing indicators not linked to financial incentives.
    European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 12/2013; 70(3). DOI:10.1007/s00228-013-1610-9 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients diagnosed with cancer by the emergency route often have more advanced diseases and poorer outcomes. Rates of cancer diagnosed through unplanned admissions vary within and between countries, suggesting potential inconsistencies in the quality of care. To reduce diagnoses by this route and improve patient outcomes, high risk patient groups must be identified. This cross-sectional observational study determined the incidence of first-ever diagnoses of cancer by emergency (unplanned) admission and identified patient-level risk factors for these diagnoses in England. Data for 74,763 randomly selected patients at 457 general practices between 1999 and 2008 were obtained from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), including integrated Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality data. The proportion of first-ever diagnoses by emergency admission out of all recorded first cancer diagnoses by any route was analysed by patient characteristics. Diagnosis by emergency admission was recorded in 13.9% of patients diagnosed with cancer for the first time (n = 817/5870). The incidence of first cases by the emergency route was 2.51 patients per 10,000 person years. In adjusted regression analyses, patients of older age (p < 0.0001), living in the most deprived areas (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.47; p < 0.0001) or who had a total Charlson score of 1 compared to 0 (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.69; p = 0.014) were most at risk of diagnosis by emergency admission. Patients with more prior (all-cause) emergency admissions were less at risk of subsequent diagnosis by the emergency route (RR 0.31 per prior emergency admission, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; p < 0.0001). A much lower incidence of first-ever cancer diagnoses by emergency admission was found compared with previous studies. Identified high risk groups may benefit from interventions to reduce delayed diagnosis. Further studies should include screening and cancer staging data to improve understanding of delayed or untimely diagnosis and patient care pathways.
    BMC Health Services Research 08/2013; 13(1):308. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-308 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Claims-based quality profiles are increasingly used by third-party payers as a means of monitoring and remunerating physician performance. As traditional approaches to assessing performance yield to electronically generated data, identifying practice tools capable of influencing the behavior of these measures becomes essential to effectively managing medical practices. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of using office system tools (i.e., patient registries, physician reminders, and flow sheets) and health information technology (HIT) on claims-based quality profile scores in primary care practices. We analyzed survey responses from primary care physicians (n = 191) regarding their use of office system tools and HIT. These responses were linked to quality profile scores obtained from a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas claims-based data set. Elevated quality profile scores were associated with physicians who reported higher use of HIT. In addition, the influence of one office system tool, physician reminders, was contingent upon the availability and use of HIT. Our findings indicate that primary care practices that fail to implement or use HIT appropriately will fare poorly in systems that monitor and reward performance based on measures derived from claims data. Linking prompts or reminders directly to clinical actions that influence quality indicators endorsed by payers should be a component of quality assurance programs.
    Health care management review 09/2013; 39(4). DOI:10.1097/HMR.0b013e31829fc9f1 · 1.30 Impact Factor