Physician attitudes toward participating in a financial incentive program for LDL reduction are associated with patient outcomes

Effect of primary care-level chronic disease management policy on self-management of patients with hypertension and diabetes in Korea

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of introducing a regional chronic disease management project on the self-management of patients with hypertension and diabetes.

METHODS

This study included 174,546 patients. The relationship between introducing chronic disease management in a region and the self-awareness of disease status was analyzed using a generalized estimating equation model. Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of policy adoption on medication adherence and risk-reduction behavior in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Finally, we used a difference-in-differences model to assess the net effectiveness of policies.

RESULTS

Overall, regions with policies implemented showed more condition awareness and drug adherence than those without; however, this was only significant in regions where patients and physicians were incentivized. Risk-reduction behavior for patients with diabetes was higher in regions with policies implemented than in those without. The policy had a net effect of significantly and non-significantly increasing disease awareness and medication adherence, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Chronic disease management policies at the primary care level that incentivized both patients and physicians improved patient self-management. However, the effects on patients with diabetes and hypertension differed. Future studies should account for additional patient outcomes, including long-term impact assessments and clinical outcomes.

Financial Incentives for Healthy Living for Patients With Cardiac Disease From the Perspective of Health Care Professionals: Interview Study

Background

A promising new approach to support lifestyle changes in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the use of financial incentives. Although financial incentives have proven to be effective, their implementation remains controversial, and ethical objections have been raised. It is unknown whether health care professionals (HCPs) involved in CVD care find it acceptable to provide financial incentives to patients with CVD as support for lifestyle change.

Objective

This study aims to investigate HCPs’ perspectives on using financial incentives to support healthy living for patients with CVD. More specifically, we aim to provide insight into attitudes toward using financial incentives as well as obstacles and facilitators of implementing financial incentives in current CVD care.

Methods

A total of 16 semistructured, in-depth, face-to-face interviews were conducted with Dutch HCPs involved in supporting patients with CVD with lifestyle changes. The topics discussed were attitudes toward an incentive system, obstacles to using an incentive system, and possible solutions to facilitate the use of an incentive system.

Results

HCPs perceived an incentive system for healthy living for patients with CVD as possibly effective and showed generally high acceptance. However, there were concerns related to focusing too much on the extrinsic aspects of lifestyle change, disengagement when rewards are insignificant, paternalization and threatening autonomy, and low digital literacy in the target group. According to HCPs, solutions to mitigate these concerns included emphasizing intrinsic aspects of healthy living while giving extrinsic rewards, integrating social aspects to increase engagement, supporting autonomy by allowing freedom of choice in rewards, and aiming for a target group that can work with the necessary technology.

Conclusions

This study mapped perspectives of Dutch HCPs and showed that attitudes are predominantly positive, provided that contextual factors, design, and target groups are accurately considered. Concerns about digital literacy in the target group are novel findings that warrant further investigation. Follow-up research is needed to validate these insights among patients with CVD.

Acceptability of financial incentives for health-related behavior change: An updated systematic review

Despite the successes of financial incentives in increasing uptake of evidence-based interventions, acceptability is polarized. Given widespread interest in the use of financial incentives, we update findings from Giles and colleagues' 2015 systematic review (n = 81). The objectives of this systematic review are to identify what is known about financial incentives directed to patients for health-related behavior change, assess how acceptability varies, and address which aspects and features of financial incentives are potentially acceptable and not acceptable, and why. PRISMA guidelines were used for searching peer-reviewed journals across 10 electronic databases. We included empirical and non-empirical papers published between 1/1/14 and 6/1/18. After removal of duplicates, abstract screening, and full-text reviews, 47 papers (n = 31 empirical, n = 16 scholarly) met inclusion criteria. We assessed empirical papers for risk of bias and conducted a content analysis of extracted data to synthesize key findings. Five themes related to acceptability emerged from the data: fairness, messaging, character, liberty, and tradeoffs. The wide range of stakeholders generally preferred rewards over penalties, vouchers over cash, smaller values over large, and certain rewards over lotteries. Deposits were viewed unfavorably. Findings were mixed on acceptability of targeting specific populations. Breastfeeding, medication adherence, smoking cessation, and vaccination presented as more complicated incentive targets than physical activity, weight loss, and self-management. As researchers, clinicians, and policymakers explore the use of financial incentives for challenging health behaviors, additional research is needed to understand how acceptability influences uptake and ultimately health outcomes.

Primary care clinicians' perspectives about quality measurements in safety-net clinics and non-safety-net clinics

BACKGROUND

Quality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.

RESULTS

Three themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.

CONCLUSION

Aligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.