Public Reporting of Primary Care Clinic Quality: Accounting for Sociodemographic Factors in Risk Adjustment and Performance Comparison

The role of pay-for-performance in reducing healthcare disparities: A narrative literature review

As American healthcare shifts to value-based payment, Pay-for-Performance (P4P) has become an important and controversial topic. One of the main controversies pertains to its potential to narrow or widen existing healthcare disparities depending on how the program is designed and implemented. It is thus imperative to understand which design features are most likely to reduce disparities. We conducted a systematic literature review from 2004 to 2021 of P4P's impact on disparities. Given the interdisciplinary nature of P4P research, multiple search strategies were combined, and many study designs were eligible for analysis. The literature was then qualitatively analyzed, with themes and major findings developed using Grounded Theory. Six major design features emerged as most promising in leveraging P4P to reduce disparities: 1) Risk/Case-Mix Adjustment; 2) Stratified Performance Measures/Stratification; 3) Disparity Reduction Metrics; 4) Exception Reporting; 5) Pay-for-Improvement; and 6) Population-Specific Metrics. Each design feature has its own mechanism, strengths, and weaknesses. We identify and define these features' direct and indirect effects on healthcare disparities. The interaction of each design feature with one another, with P4P as a whole, and within the larger reimbursement system can have considerable effects on disparities. Promising strategies exist to leverage P4P to narrow disparities for clinically and socially complex patients. The six design features discussed in this review help P4P programs address structural disadvantages faced by such patients and their providers. In regard to health equity, these design features can transform P4P from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.

Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences

BACKGROUND

Health systems are increasingly implementing policy-driven programs to incentivize performance using contracts, scorecards, rankings, rewards, and penalties. Studies of these "Performance Management" (PM) programs have identified unintended negative consequences. However, no single comprehensive typology of the negative and positive unintended consequences of PM in healthcare exists and most studies of unintended consequences were conducted in England or the United States. The aims of this study were: (1) To develop a comprehensive typology of unintended consequences of PM in healthcare, and (2) To describe multiple stakeholder perspectives of the unintended consequences of PM in cancer and renal care in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of unintended consequences of PM in healthcare (n = 41 papers) to develop a typology of unintended consequences. We then conducted a secondary analysis of data from a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 147 participants involved with or impacted by a PM system used to oversee 40 care delivery networks in Ontario, Canada. Participants included administrators and clinical leads from the networks and the government agency managing the PM system. We undertook a hybrid inductive and deductive coding approach using the typology we developed from the rapid review.

RESULTS

We present a comprehensive typology of 48 negative and positive unintended consequences of PM in healthcare, including five novel unintended consequences not previously identified or well-described in the literature. The typology is organized into two broad categories: unintended consequences on (1) organizations and providers and on (2) patients and patient care. The most common unintended consequences of PM identified in the literature were measure fixation, tunnel vision, and misrepresentation or gaming, while those most prominent in the qualitative data were administrative burden, insensitivity, reduced morale, and systemic dysfunction. We also found that unintended consequences of PM are often mutually reinforcing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our comprehensive typology provides a common language for discourse on unintended consequences and supports systematic, comparable analyses of unintended consequences across PM regimes and healthcare systems. Healthcare policymakers and managers can use the results of this study to inform the (re-)design and implementation of evidence-informed PM programs.

Diverse community leaders' perspectives about quality primary healthcare and healthcare measurement: Qualitative community-based participatory research

Background

Healthcare quality measurements in the United States illustrate disparities by racial/ethnic group, socio-economic class, and geographic location. Redressing healthcare inequities, including measurement of and reimbursement for healthcare quality, requires partnering with communities historically excluded from decision-making. Quality healthcare is measured according to insurers, professional organizations and government agencies, with little input from diverse communities. This community-based participatory research study aimed to amplify the voices of community leaders from seven diverse urban communities in Minneapolis-Saint Paul Minnesota, view quality healthcare and financial reimbursement based on quality metric scores.

Methods

A Community Engagement Team consisting of one community member from each of seven urban communities —Black/African American, Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer-Two Spirit, Hmong, Latino/a/x, Native American, Somali, and White—and two community-based researchers conducted listening sessions with 20 community leaders about quality primary healthcare. Transcripts were inductively analyzed and major themes were identified.

Results

Listening sessions produced three major themes, with recommended actions for primary care clinics.

#1: Quality Clinics Utilize Structures and Processes that Support Healthcare Equity.

#2: Quality Clinics Offer Effective Relationships, Education, and Health Promotion.

#3: Funding Based on Current Quality Measures Perpetuates Health Inequities.

Conclusion

Community leaders identified ideal characteristics of quality primary healthcare, most of which are not currently measured. They expressed concern that linking clinic payment with quality metrics without considering social and structural determinants of health perpetuates social injustice in healthcare.