Pay for performance in commercial HMOs

Department of Health Policy and Management , Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examines the relationship between CEO compensation and patient satisfaction in Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this paper is to determine what impact hospital CEO compensation has on hospital patient satisfaction. CEO compensation does not significantly influence hospital patient satisfaction. Both patient satisfaction and CEO compensation appear to be driven primarily by hospital size. Patient satisfaction decreases, while CEO compensation increases, with the number of acute care beds in a hospital. In addition, CEO compensation does not even appear to moderate the influence of hospital size on patient satisfaction. The findings seem to suggest that hospital directors seeking to improve patient satisfaction may find their efforts frustrated if they focus exclusively on the hospital CEO. The findings highlight the need for further research on how CEOs may, through leading and supporting those hospital clinicians and staff that interact more closely with patients, indirectly enhance patient satisfaction.
    Journal of Health Organisation and Management 03/2015; 29(1):111-127. DOI:10.1108/JHOM-02-2013-0034 · 0.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the substantial progress in elucidating the pathophysiology of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and developing an array of therapeutic advances for the management of these conditions, several challenges still persist. The use of guideline recommendations for the care of patients with ACS by both healthcare providers and hospitals can improve short-term and long-term outcomes and potentially reduce healthcare costs. However, evidence suggests that adherence to guidelines is suboptimal. Several quality improvement programs, by both governmental and nongovernmental organizations, have been developed in an attempt to encourage maximal utilization of evidence-based interventions. In this review, we will examine the evidence for the importance of guideline adherence in the management of ACS, explore predictors of adherence to these guidelines, and provide evidence-based strategies for improving their implementation.
    Coronary Artery Disease 11/2014; 26(1). DOI:10.1097/MCA.0000000000000180 · 1.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Policy makers and the healthcare industry have proposed changes to physician payment structures as a way to improve the quality of health care and reduce costs. Several of these proposals require healthcare providers to employ a value-based purchasing program (also known as pay-for-performance [P4P]). However, the way in which existing payment structures impact physician behavior is unclear and therefore, predicting how well P4P will perform is difficult. To understand the impact physician payment structures have on physician behavior, I approximate the physician–patient relationship in a real-effort laboratory experiment. I study several prominent physician payment structures including fee-for-service, capitation, salary, and P4P. I find that physicians are intrinsically motivated to provide high quality care and relying exclusively on extrinsic incentives to motivate physicians is detrimental to the quality of care and costly for the healthcare industry.
    10/2014; 106. DOI:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.05.009