Do Financial Incentives Influence GPs' Decisions to Do After-hours Work? A Discrete Choice Labour Supply Model

The prevalence and associations of Australian early-career general practitioners' provision of after-hours care

INTRODUCTION

Access to after-hours care (AHC) is an important aspect of general practice service provision.

OBJECTIVE

To establish the prevalence and associations of early-career GPs' provision of AHC.

DESIGN

An analysis of data from the New alumni Experiences of Training and independent Unsupervised Practice (NEXT-UP) cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. Participants were early-career GPs (6-month to 2-year post-Fellowship) following the completion of GP vocational training in NSW, the ACT, Victoria or Tasmania. The outcome factor was 'current provision of after-hours care'. Associations of the outcome were established using multivariable logistic regression.

FINDINGS

Three hundred and fifty-four early-career GPs participated (response rate 28%). Of these, 322 had responses available for analysis of currently performing AHC. Of these observations, 128 (40%) reported current provision of AHC (55% of rural participants and 32% of urban participants). On multivariable analysis, participants who provided any AHC during training were more likely to be providing AHC (odds ratio (OR) 5.51, [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.80-10.80], p < 0.001). Current rural location and in-training rural experience were strongly associated with currently providing AHC in univariable but not multivariable analysis.

DISCUSSION

Early-career GPs who provided AHC during training, compared with those who did not, were more than five times more likely to provide after-hours care in their first 2 years after gaining Fellowship, suggesting participation in AHC during training may have a role in preparing registrars to provide AHC as independent practitioners.

CONCLUSION

These findings may inform future GP vocational training policy and practice concerning registrars' provision of AHC during training.

The relative importance of clinical factors in initiating interfacility transfer of major trauma patients: A discrete choice experiment

Introduction and Objectives

Approximately 30% of patients meeting severe injury criteria are never transferred to lead trauma centers (LTCs). The reasons for this gap are not fully understood but involve both system-level factors and individual decision-making. We used a method called discrete choice modeling (DCM) to evaluate which clinical and demographic patient factors might make emergency physicians more likely to initiate transfers to LTCs.

Methods

An email survey was distributed to physicians working in emergency departments (EDs) in Ontario. The relative importance of clinical and demographic patient attributes as drivers for transfer was evaluated using DCM. Simulated patient cases were created using a random generator to combine attributes. Each respondent was presented with 36 different patients in sets of three and asked if they would transfer each patient to an LTC. The relative importance of each driver was then compared across physician characteristics.

Results

One hundred and fifty three emergency physicians completed the survey. The drivers for transfer, expressed as utility scores, were derangements in hemodynamics (22), CNS/head injuries (19), pelvic fractures (11), chest injuries (10), comorbidities (9), abdominal injuries (8), extremity injuries (7), mechanism of injury (7), age (5), and gender (2). Drivers for patient transfer did not differ based on physician experience or type of training.

Conclusion

In this DCM study, the clinical and demographic factors most likely to make emergency physicians consider patient transfers to LTCs were patient hemodynamic derangements and CNS/head injuries. Overall, these drivers did not differ by physician experience or training. An understanding of such patient-level drivers for transfers to LTCs may improve the implementation of evidence-based interfacility transfer criteria.

Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

Development and evaluation of a code frame to identify potential primary care presentations in the hospital emergency department

OBJECTIVE

A major challenge in evaluating the appropriateness of ED presentations is the lack of a universal and workable definition of patients who could have received primary care instead. Our objective was to develop a standardised code frame to identify potential primary care patients in the ED.

METHODS

A standardised code frame to identify which patients could potentially be treated in a primary care setting was developed and tested on all patient episodes of care who presented to the ED of the St George Hospital, Sydney, between December 2016 and February 2017. Sensitivity and specificity of the code frame were performed. The code frame was then tested on all presentations from 2011 to 2016 in the St George Hospital and The Sutherland Hospital in Sydney.

RESULTS

Of 19 916 ED presentations, 5810 (29%) were potential primary care presentations. The code frame had a sensitivity of 99.9% and a specificity of 49.0%. Results were consistent (28%) when applied to 5 years of presentations (601 168 presentations).

CONCLUSION

This standardised code frame enables accurate retrospective local and national data estimations. The code frame could be used prospectively to evaluate interventions such as diverting patients to primary care settings, and to identify populations for specifically targeted interventions. The conservative nature of the code frame ensures that only those that can safely receive care in a primary care setting are identified as potential primary care.

Production of physician services under fee-for-service and blended fee-for-service: Evidence from Ontario, Canada

We examine family physicians' responses to financial incentives for medical services in Ontario, Canada. We use administrative data covering 2003-2008, a period during which family physicians could choose between the traditional fee for service (FFS) and blended FFS known as the Family Health Group (FHG) model. Under FHG, FFS physicians are incentivized to provide comprehensive care and after-hours services. A two-stage estimation strategy teases out the impact of switching from FFS to FHG on service production. We account for the selection into FHG using a propensity score matching model, and then we use panel-data regression models to account for observed and unobserved heterogeneity. Our results reveal that switching from FFS to FHG increases comprehensive care, after-hours, and nonincentivized services by 3%, 15%, and 4% per annum. We also find that blended FFS physicians provide more services by working additional total days as well as the number of days during holidays and weekends. Our results are robust to a variety of specifications and alternative matching methods. We conclude that switching from FFS to blended FFS improves patients' access to after-hours care, but the incentive to nudge service production at the intensive margin is somewhat limited.

New alumni EXperiences of Training and independent Unsupervised Practice (NEXT-UP): protocol for a cross-sectional study of early career general practitioners

INTRODUCTION

General practice in Australia, as in many countries, faces challenges in the areas of workforce capacity and workforce distribution. General practice vocational training in Australia not only addresses the training of competent independent general practitioners (GPs) but also addresses these workforce issues. This study aims to establish the prevalence and associations of early career (within 2 years of completion of vocational training) GPs' practice characteristics; and also to establish their perceptions of utility of their training in preparing them for independent practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a cross-sectional questionnaire study. Participants will be former registrars ('alumni') of three regional training organisations (RTOs) who achieved general practice Fellowship (qualifying them for independent practice) between January 2016 and July 2018 inclusive. The questionnaire data will be linked to data collected as part of the participants' educational programme with the RTOs. Outcomes will include alumni rurality of practice; socioeconomic status of practice; retention within their RTO's geographic footprint; workload; provision of nursing home care, after-hours care and home visits; and involvement in general practice teaching and supervision. Associations of these outcomes will be established with logistic regression. The utility of RTO-provided training versus in-practice training in preparing the early career GP for unsupervised post-Ffellowship practice in particular aspects of practice will be assessed with χ² tests.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is by the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee, approval numbers H-2018-0333 and H-2009-0323. The findings of this study will be widely disseminated via conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals, educational practice translational workshops and the GP Synergy Research subwebsite.

Why Money Alone Can’t (Always) “Nudge” Physicians

Behavioral economics seeks to define how humans respond to incentives, how to maximize desired behavioral change, and how to avoid perverse negative impacts on work effort. Relatively new in their application to physician behavior, behavioral economic principles have primarily been used to construct optimized financial incentives. This review introduces and evaluates the essential components of building successful financial incentive programs for physicians, adhering to the principles of behavioral economics. Referencing conceptual publications, observational studies, and the relatively sparse controlled studies, the authors offer physician leaders, healthcare administrators, and practicing anesthesiologists the issues to consider when designing physician incentive programs to maximize effectiveness and minimize unintended consequences.

Hours worked by general practitioners and waiting times for primary care

The decline in the working hours of general practitioners (GPs) is a key factor influencing access to health care in many countries. We investigate the effect of changes in hours worked by GPs on waiting times in primary care using the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life longitudinal survey of Australian doctors. We estimate GP fixed effects models for waiting time and use family circumstances to instrument for GP's hours worked. We find that a 10% reduction in hours worked increases average patient waiting time by 12%. Our findings highlight the importance of GPs' labor supply at the intensive margin in determining the length of time patients must wait to see their doctor.