Article

Economic incentives and physicians' delivery of preventive care: a systematic review.

Division of Health Services Research and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.28). 03/2005; 28(2):234-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A systematic review of the randomized trial literature examining the impact of financial incentives on provider preventive care delivery was conducted. English-language studies published between 1966 and 2002 that addressed primary or secondary preventive care or health promotion behaviors were included in the review. Six studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified, which generated eight different findings. The literature is sparse. Of the eight financial interventions reviewed, only one led to a significantly greater provision of preventive services. The lack of a significant relationship does not necessarily imply that financial incentives cannot motivate physicians to provide more preventive care. The rewards offered in these studies tend to be small. Therefore, the results suggest that small rewards will not motivate doctors to change their preventive care routines.

1 Follower
 · 
76 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Although state Medicaid programs cover cancer screening, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to be screened for cancer and are more likely to present with tumors of an advanced stage than are those with other insurance. The current study was performed to determine whether state Medicaid eligibility and reimbursement policies affect the receipt of breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.METHODS Cross-sectional regression analyses of 2007 Medicaid data from 46 states and the District of Columbia were performed to examine associations between state-specific Medicaid reimbursement/eligibility policies and receipt of cancer screening. The study sample included individuals aged 21 years to 64 years who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid for at least 4 months. Subsamples eligible for each screening test were: Papanicolaou test among 2,136,511 patients, mammography among 792,470 patients, colonoscopy among 769,729 patients, and fecal occult blood test among 753,868 patients. State-specific Medicaid variables included median screening test reimbursement, income/financial asset eligibility requirements, physician copayments, and frequency of eligibility renewal.RESULTSIncreases in screening test reimbursement demonstrated mixed associations (positive and negative) with the likelihood of receiving screening tests among Medicaid beneficiaries. In contrast, increased reimbursements for office visits were found to be positively associated with the odds of receiving all screening tests examined, including colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06-1.08), fecal occult blood test (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10), Papanicolaou test (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), and mammography (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03). Effects of other state-specific Medicaid policies varied across the screening tests examined.CONCLUSIONS Increased reimbursement for office visits was consistently associated with an increased likelihood of being screened for cancer, and may be an important policy tool for increasing screening among this vulnerable population. Cancer 2014. © 2014 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 10/2014; 120(19). DOI:10.1002/cncr.28704 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of this paper The NHHRC is seeking to explore new service delivery and financing models for preventative health care. Professors Young and Gunn from the Department of General Practice at The University of Melbourne were invited to prepare a discussion paper that examined options for the creation of a new funding stream targeted at primary health care. We were encouraged to reflect upon existing funding models that were effective in supporting primary health care to focus on prevention and to enhance the role of prevention in the health system. This discussion paper has been prepared by rapidly reviewing existing literature on economic incentives and payment systems for preventative health care within primary health care, from predominantly English speaking countries, with health systems comparable to Australia. This paper has three sections: 1) the current evidence; and 2) the current context; 3) potential funding policy options.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Annually around 40 million mothers give birth at home without any trained health worker. Consequently, most of the maternal and neonatal mortalities occur at the community level due to lack of good quality care during labour and birth. Interventions delivered at the community level have not only been advocated to improve access and coverage of essential interventions but also to reduce the existing disparities and reaching the hard to reach. In this paper, we have reviewed the effectiveness of care delivered through community level inputs for improving maternal and newborn health outcomes. We considered all available systematic reviews published before May 2013 on the pre-defined community level interventions and report findings from 43 systematic reviews.
    Reproductive Health 09/2014; 11 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S2. DOI:10.1186/1742-4755-11-S2-S2 · 1.62 Impact Factor