Article

Pay for performance in commercial HMOs.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 12/2006; 355(18):1895-902. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa063682
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Pay for performance has increasingly become the subject of intense interest and debate, both of which have been heightened as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services moves closer to adopting this approach for Medicare. Although many claims have been made for the effectiveness of this approach, the extent of its national penetration remains unknown.
We surveyed a sample of 252 health maintenance organizations (HMOs) (response rate, 96%) drawn from 41 metropolitan areas across the nation about use of pay for performance. We determined the prevalence of pay-for-performance programs, detailed the features of such programs, and examined the adoption of pay for performance as a function of the characteristics of both the health plans and markets.
More than half the HMOs, representing more than 80% of persons enrolled, use pay for performance in their provider contracts. Of the 126 health plans with pay-for-performance programs, nearly 90% had programs for physicians and 38% had programs for hospitals. Use of pay for performance was statistically associated with geographic region, use of primary care providers (PCPs) as gatekeepers, use of capitation to pay PCPs, and whether the plans themselves received bonuses or penalties according to performance.
Pay for performance is now commonly used by HMOs, especially those that are situated to assign responsibility for a particular patient to a PCP or medical group. As the design of Medicare with pay for performance moves forward, it will be important to leverage the early experience of pay for performance in the commercial market.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
106 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To compare utilization and preventive care receipt among patients of federal Section 330 health centers (HCs) versus patients of other settings.Data SourcesA nationally representative sample of adults from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2004–2008).Study DesignHC patients were defined as those with ≥50 percent of outpatient visits at HCs in the first panel year. Outcomes included utilization and preventive care receipt from the second panel year. We used negative binomial and logistic regression models with propensity score adjustment for confounding differences between HC and non-HC patients.Principal FindingsCompared to non-HC patients, HC patients had fewer office visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.63) and hospitalizations (aIRR, 0.43) (both p < .001). HC patients were more likely to receive breast cancer screening than non-HC patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, p < .01). In subgroup analyses, uninsured HC patients had fewer outpatient and emergency room visits and were more likely to receive dietary advice and breast cancer screening compared to non-HC patients.Conclusions Health centers add value to the health care system by providing socially and medically disadvantaged patients with care that results in lower utilization and maintained or improved preventive care.
    Health Services Research 04/2014; · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To compare male and female physicians on patient-centeredness and patients’ satisfaction in three practice settings within a hospital; to test whether satisfaction is more strongly predicted by patient-centeredness in male than female physicians. Methods Encounters between physicians (N = 71) and patients (N = 497) in a hospital were videotaped and patients’ satisfaction was measured. Patient-centeredness was measured by trained coders. Results In the outpatient setting, female physicians were somewhat more patient-centered than male physicians; patient satisfaction did not differ. In the inpatient and emergency room settings, female physicians were notably more patient-centered than male physicians; satisfaction paralleled these differences. Nevertheless, there was some, though mixed, evidence that patient-centeredness predicted satisfaction more strongly in male than female physicians, suggesting that patients valued patient-centered behavior more in male than female physicians. Conclusion Even though satisfaction mirrored the different behavior styles of male and female physicians in the inpatient and emergency room settings, in all settings male physicians got somewhat more credit for being patient-centered than female physicians did. Practice Implications: If female physicians do not consistently receive credit for high patient-centeredness in the eyes of patients, this could lead female physicians to reduce their patient-centered behavior.
    Patient Education and Counseling 06/2014; · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To estimate: (1) the percentage of physicians whose compensation is variable; (2) the frequency at which performance incentives for productivity, care quality, patient satisfaction, and resource use were used to determine compensation; and (3) how much incentives differ for physicians who serve greater percentages of patients who are Medicaid-insured, racial/ethnic minorities, or who face language barriers, versus those who do not. Study Design: Cross-sectional study of 3234 nationally representative physicians responding to the 2008 Center for Studying Health System Change's Health Tracking Physician Survey (HTPS). Methods: We examined the degree to which practices' percentage of Medicaid revenues and physicians' panel characteristics were associated with physicians' financial incentives using x2 statistics and multivariate logistic regression (adjusting for physician specialty, practice type, and capitation levels, and area-based factors). Results: Compensation was variable for 69% of respondents, was most frequently tied to productivity (68%), and less often to care quality (19%), patient satisfaction (21%), or resource use (14%). Physicians were significantly less likely to report variable compensation if the percentage Medicaid revenues was 50% or more (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.95) or if physician panels were at least 50% Hispanic (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.56-0.99). However, physicians were significantly more likely to report use of all 4 performance incentives if percentage of Medicaid revenues was 6% to 24%. Conclusions: Physicians report different types of financial incentives designed to alter care quality and quantity; incentive types differ by the degree that practices derive revenues from Medicaid or serve Hispanic patients. Further investigation is needed to understand how to align financial incentives with disparity-reduction efforts.
    The American journal of managed care 02/2014; 20(2):121-9. · 2.17 Impact Factor