Cost Profiles: Should The Focus Be On Individual Physicians Or Physician Groups?

RAND, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 08/2010; 29(8):1532-8. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1091
Source: PubMed


In an effort to rein in rising health care costs, health plans are using physician cost profiles as the basis for tiered networks that give patients incentives to visit low-cost physicians. Because physician cost profiles are often statistically unreliable some experts have argued that physician groups should be profiled instead. Using Massachusetts data, we evaluate the two options empirically. Although we find that physician-group profiles are statistically more reliable, the group profile is not a good predictor of individual physician performance within the group. Better methods for creating provider cost profiles are needed.

  • Source
    • "Without decoupling, the incentive payment may be perceived as negligible compared to the base payment and the behavioral response may be small [95]. However, decoupling adds to administrative complexity [71]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pay for performance (P4P) is increasingly being used to stimulate healthcare providers to improve their performance. However, evidence on P4P effectiveness remains inconclusive. Flaws in program design may have contributed to this limited success. Based on a synthesis of relevant theoretical and empirical literature, this paper discusses key issues in P4P-program design. The analysis reveals that designing a fair and effective program is a complex undertaking. The following tentative conclusions are made: (1) performance is ideally defined broadly, provided that the set of measures remains comprehensible, (2) concerns that P4P encourages "selection" and "teaching to the test" should not be dismissed, (3) sophisticated risk adjustment is important, especially in outcome and resource use measures, (4) involving providers in program design is vital, (5) on balance, group incentives are preferred over individual incentives, (6) whether to use rewards or penalties is context-dependent, (7) payouts should be frequent and low-powered, (8) absolute targets are generally preferred over relative targets, (9) multiple targets are preferred over single targets, and (10) P4P should be a permanent component of provider compensation and is ideally "decoupled" form base payments. However, the design of P4P programs should be tailored to the specific setting of implementation, and empirical research is needed to confirm the conclusions.
    Preview · Article · Sep 2011 · The European Journal of Health Economics
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We show that lower semicontinuous Lyapunov functions can be used to determine both stable and attractive sets of differential equations with a short proof similar to that of the original Lyapunov indirect method. Several examples illustrate the flexibility of using such lower semicontinuous Lyapunov functions.
    Preview · Conference Paper · Jan 2003
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance (P4P) intents to stimulate both more effective and more efficient health care delivery. To date, evidence on whether P4P itself is an efficient method has not been systematically analyzed. OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze the existing literature regarding economic evaluation of P4P. DATA SOURCES: English, German, Spanish, and Turkish language literature were searched in the following databases: Business Source Complete, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, ISI web of knowledge, Medline (via PubMed), and PsycInfo (January 2000-April 2010). STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in peer-reviewed journals and describing economic evaluations of P4P initiatives. Full economic evaluations, considering costs and consequences of the P4P intervention simultaneously, were the prime focus. Additionally, comparative partial evaluations were included if costs were described and the study allows for an assessment of consequences. Both experimental and observational studies were considered. RESULTS: In total, nine studies could be identified. Three studies could be regarded as full economic evaluations, and six studies were classified as partial economic evaluations. Based on the full economic evaluations, P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. Partial economic evaluations showed mixed results, but several flaws limit their significance. Ranges of costs and consequences were typically narrow, and programs differed considerably in design. Methodological quality assessment showed scores between 32% and 65%. CONCLUSION: The results show that evidence on the efficiency of P4P is scarce and inconclusive. P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. The small number and variability of included studies limit the strength of our conclusions. More research addressing P4P efficiency is needed.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2011 · The European Journal of Health Economics
Show more

We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on ResearchGate. Read our cookies policy to learn more.