Impact of a pay-for-performance incentive scheme on age, sex, and socioeconomic disparities in diabetes management in UK primary care

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework

Background

Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.

Objectives

We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.

Design

Realist review.

Main outcome measures

Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.

Review methods

Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.

Limitations

The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.

Conclusions

Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.

Future work

Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

From quality improvement to equality improvement projects: A scoping review and framework

Increasing awareness of health disparities has led to proposals for a pay-for-equity scheme. Implementing such proposals requires systematic methods of collecting and reporting health outcomes for targeted demographics over time. This lays the foundation for a shift from quality improvement projects (QIPs) to equality improvement projects (EQIPs) that could evaluate adherence to standards and progress toward health equity. We performed a scoping review on EQIPs to inform a new framework for quality improvement through a health equity lens. Forty studies implemented an intervention after identifying a disparity compared to 149 others which merely identified group differences. Most evaluated race-based differences and were conducted at the institutional level, with representation in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. EQIPs that improved equity leveraged multidisciplinary expertise, healthcare staff education, and developed tools to track health outcomes continuously. EQIPs can help bridge the inequality gap and form part of an incentivized systematic equality improvement framework.

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.

Evaluation of the Diabetes Screening Component of a National Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Programme in England: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is increasing but the effectiveness of large-scale diabetes screening programmes is debated. We assessed associations between coverage of a national cardiovascular and diabetes risk assessment programme in England (NHS Health Check) and detection and management of incident cases of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH) and T2D. Retrospective analysis employing propensity score covariate adjustment method of prospectively collected data of 348,987 individuals aged 40-74 years and registered with 455 general practices in England (January 2009-May 2016). We examined differences in diagnosis of NDH and T2D, and changes in blood glucose levels and cardiovascular risk score between individuals registered with general practices with different levels (tertiles) of programme coverage. Over the study period 7,126 cases of NDH and 12,171 cases of T2D were detected. Compared with low coverage practices, incidence rate of detection in medium and high coverage practices were 15% and 19% higher for NDH and 10% and 9% higher for T2D, respectively. Individuals with NDH in high coverage practices had 0.2 mmol/L lower mean fasting plasma glucose and 0.9% lower cardiovascular risk score at follow-up. General practices actively participating in the programme had higher detection of NDH and T2D and improved management of blood glucose and cardiovascular risk factors.

Disparities in glycaemic control, monitoring, and treatment of type 2 diabetes in England: A retrospective cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Disparities in type 2 diabetes (T2D) care provision and clinical outcomes have been reported in the last 2 decades in the UK. Since then, a number of initiatives have attempted to address this imbalance. The aim was to evaluate contemporary data as to whether disparities exist in glycaemic control, monitoring, and prescribing in people with T2D.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A T2D cohort was identified from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre dataset: a nationally representative sample of 164 primary care practices (general practices) across England. Diabetes healthcare provision and glucose-lowering medication use between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016 were studied. Healthcare provision included annual HbA1c, renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]), blood pressure (BP), retinopathy, and neuropathy testing. Variables potentially associated with disparity outcomes were assessed using mixed effects logistic and linear regression, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), and nested using random effects within general practices. Ethnicity was defined using the Office for National Statistics ethnicity categories: White, Mixed, Asian, Black, and Other (including Arab people and other groups not classified elsewhere). From the primary care adult population (n = 1,238,909), we identified a cohort of 84,452 (5.29%) adults with T2D. The mean age of people with T2D in the included cohort at 31 December 2016 was 68.7 ± 12.6 years; 21,656 (43.9%) were female. The mean body mass index was 30.7 ± SD 6.4 kg/m2. The most deprived groups (IMD quintiles 1 and 2) showed poorer HbA1c than the least deprived (IMD quintile 5). People of Black ethnicity had worse HbA1c than those of White ethnicity. Asian individuals were less likely than White individuals to be prescribed insulin (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.95; p < 0.01), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79; p < 0.001), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.44; p < 0.001). Black individuals were less likely than White individuals to be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39-0.65; p < 0.001) and GLP-1 agonists (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.57; p < 0.001). Individuals in IMD quintile 5 were more likely than those in the other IMD quintiles to have annual testing for HbA1c, BP, eGFR, retinopathy, and neuropathy. Black individuals were less likely than White individuals to have annual testing for HbA1c (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-0.99; p = 0.04) and retinopathy (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; p = 0.011). Asian individuals were more likely than White individuals to have monitoring for HbA1c (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20; p = 0.023) and eGFR (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.19; p = 0.048), but less likely for retinopathy (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.97; p = 0.01) and neuropathy (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97; p = 0.01). The study is limited by the nature of being observational and defined using retrospectively collected data. Disparities in diabetes care may show regional variation, which was not part of this evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that disparity in glycaemic control, diabetes-related monitoring, and prescription of newer therapies remains a challenge in diabetes care. Both SES and ethnicity were important determinants of inequality. Disparities in glycaemic control and other areas of care may lead to higher rates of complications and adverse outcomes for some groups.

Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Provider financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care while promoting efficiency.

AIM

To review the UK evidence on whether provider financial incentives are an effective way of improving the quality of health care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of UK evidence, undertaken in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations.

METHOD

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched in August 2016. Original articles that assessed the relationship between UK provider financial incentives and a quantitative measure of quality of health care were included. Studies showing improvement for all measures of quality of care were defined as 'positive', those that were 'intermediate' showed improvement in some measures, and those classified as 'negative' showed a worsening of measures. Studies showing no effect were documented as such. Quality was assessed using the Downs and Black quality checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 232 published articles identified by the systematic search, 28 were included. Of these, nine reported positive effects of incentives on quality of care, 16 reported intermediate effects, two reported no effect, and one reported a negative effect. Quality assessment scores for included articles ranged from 15 to 19, out of a maximum of 22 points.

CONCLUSION

The effects of UK provider financial incentives on healthcare quality are unclear. Owing to this uncertainty and their significant costs, use of them may be counterproductive to their goal of improving healthcare quality and efficiency. UK policymakers should be cautious when implementing these incentives - if used, they should be subject to careful long-term monitoring and evaluation. Further research is needed to assess whether provider financial incentives represent a cost-effective intervention to improve the quality of care delivered in the UK.

Nation-wide trends in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in patients with and without diabetes between 2004-05 and 2014-15 in England

AIMS

There are no national studies evaluating the epidemiology of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in England. NASH is becoming an increasingly important health issue given the inexorable rise in obesity and diabetes. We evaluated the rates of NASH in people with and without diabetes from 2004-2005 to 2014-2015.

METHODS

We identified cases of biopsy-proven NASH in people with and without diabetes in England over an eleven-year period using Hospital Episode Statistics. We estimated incidence rates for each year. Negative binomial regression models were fitted to test trends.

RESULTS

Over the study period, people without diabetes recorded a 3% reduction in admission rates per year (incidence rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) 0.97 (0.96-0.98), p<0.001), whilst there was an increase in admission rates in people with diabetes (IRR (95% CI) 1.01 (1.00-1.02), p=0.04). In people with diabetes, this upward trend was driven by people over 65years (IRR (95% CI) 1.03 (1.02-1.04), p<0.001) and men (IRR (95% CI) 1.01 (1.0-1.02), p=0.03). Inpatient mortality declined for people with diabetes by 2% per year after adjusting for age, sex and year (IRR (95% CI) 0.98 (0.95-0.99), p=0.03). The 2% decline per year in inpatient mortality for people without diabetes did not achieve statistical significance after adjustment (IRR (95% CI) 0.98 (0.95-1.01), p=0.175).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a decline in NASH-related hospital admissions amongst people without diabetes over eleven years, whilst rates increased in people with diabetes. These observations highlight the increasing burden of NASH.

Gender differences in hospital admissions for major cardiovascular events and procedures in people with and without diabetes in England: a nationwide study 2004-2014

Background

Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has improved immensely during the past decade but controversies persist on cardiovascular benefits among women with diabetes. We investigated 11-year trends in hospital admission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in people with and without diabetes by gender in England.

Methods

We identified all hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease causes among people aged 17 years and above between 2004 and 2014 in England. We calculated diabetes-specific and non-diabetes-specific rates for study outcomes by gender. To assess temporal changes, we fitted negative binomial regression models.

Results

Diabetes-related admission rates remained unchanged for AMI (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99 [95% CI 0.98–1.01]), increased for stroke by 2% (1.02 [1.01–1.03]) and PCI by 3% (1.03 [1.01–1.04]) and declined for CABG by 3% (0.97 [0.96–0.98]) annually. Trends did not differ significantly by diabetes status. Women with diabetes had significantly lower rates of AMI (IRR 0.46 [95% CI 0.40–0.53]) and stroke (0.73 [0.63–0.84]) compared with men with diabetes. However, gender differences in admission rates for AMI attenuated in diabetes compared with the non-diabetic group. While diabetes tripled admission rates for AMI in men (IRR 3.15 [95% CI 2.72–3.64]), it increased it by over fourfold among women (4.27 [3.78–4.93]). Furthermore, while the presence of diabetes was associated with a threefold increased rates for PCI and fivefold increased rates for CABG (IRR 3.14 [2.83–3.48] and 5.01 [4.59–5.05], respectively) in men, among women diabetes was associated with a 4.4-fold increased admission rates for PCI and 6.2-fold increased rates for CABG (4.37 [3.93–4.85] and 6.24 [5.66–6.88], respectively). Proportional changes in rates were similar in men and women for all study outcomes, leaving the relative risk of admissions unchanged.

Conclusions

Diabetes still confers a greater increase in risk of hospital admission for AMI in women relative to men. However, the absolute risk remains higher in men. These results call for intensified CVD risk factor management among people with diabetes, consideration of gender-specific treatment targets and treatment intensity to be aligned with levels of CVD risk.

Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004-2010: A population-based electronic cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial falls in coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in the United Kingdom (UK), marked socioeconomic inequalities in CHD risk factors and CHD mortality persist. We investigated whether inequity in CHD healthcare in Wales (UK) could contribute to the observed social gradient in CHD mortality.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Linking data from primary and secondary care we constructed an electronic cohort of individuals (n = 1199342) with six year follow-up, 2004-2010. We identified indications for recommended CHD interventions, measured time to their delivery, and estimated risk of receiving the interventions for each of five ordered deprivation groups using a time-to-event approach with Cox regression frailty models. Interventions in primary and secondary prevention included risk-factor measurement, smoking management, statins and antihypertensive therapy, and in established CHD included medication and revascularization. For primary prevention, five of the 11 models favoured the more deprived and one favoured the less deprived. For medication in secondary prevention and established CHD, one of the 15 models favoured the more deprived and one the less deprived. In relation to revascularization, six of the 12 models favoured the less deprived and none favoured the more deprived-this evidence of inequity exemplified by a hazard ratio for revascularization in stable angina of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.92). The main study limitation is the possibility of under-ascertainment or misclassification of clinical indications and treatment from variability in coding.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care components of CHD healthcare were equitably delivered. Evidence of inequity was found for revascularization procedures, although this inequity is likely to have only a modest effect on social gradients in CHD mortality. Policymakers should focus on reducing inequalities in CHD risk factors, particularly smoking, as these, rather than inequity in healthcare, are likely to be key drivers of inequalities in CHD mortality.

Influence of a Pay-for-Performance Program on Glycemic Control in Patients Living with Diabetes by Family Physicians in a Canadian Province

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the influence of the introduction of a pay-for-performance program implemented in 2010 for family physicians on the glycemic control of patients with diabetes.

METHODS

Administrative data for all 583 eligible family physicians and 83,580 adult patients with diabetes in New Brunswick over 10 years were used. We compared the probability of receiving at least 2 tests for glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and achieving glycemic control before (2005-2009) and after (2010-2014) the implementation of the program and between patients divided based on whether a physician claimed the incentive or did not.

RESULTS

Patients living with diabetes showed greater odds of receiving at least 2 A1C tests per year if the detection of their diabetes occurred after (vs. before) the implementation of the program (OR, 99% CI=1.23, 1.18 to 1.28), if a physician claimed the incentive (vs. not claiming it) for their care (1.92, 1.87 to 1.96) in the given year, and if they were followed by a physician who ever (vs. never) claimed the incentive (1.24, 1.15 to 1.34). In a cohort-based analysis, patients for whom an incentive was claimed (vs. not claimed) had greater odds of receiving at least 2 A1C tests per year before implementation of the incentive, and these odds increased by 56% (1.49 to 1.62) following its implementation. However, there was no difference in A1C values among the various comparison groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of the incentive was associated with greater odds of having a minimum of 2 A1C tests per year, which may suggest that it led physicians to provide better follow-up care for patients with diabetes. However, the incentive program has not been associated with differences in glycemic control.

The impact of reimbursement systems on equity in access and quality of primary care: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Reimbursement systems provide incentives to health care providers and may drive physician behaviour. This review assesses the impact of reimbursement system on socioeconomic and racial inequalities in access, utilization and quality of primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in Web of Science and PubMed for English language studies published between 1980 and 2013, supplemented by reference tracking. Articles were selected based on inclusion criteria, and data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by two authors independently. Data were synthesized in a narrative manner and categorized according to study outcome and reimbursement system.

RESULTS

Twenty seven articles, mostly from the United States and United Kingdom, were included in the data synthesis. Reimbursement systems seem to have limited effect on socioeconomic and racial inequity in access, utilization and quality of primary care. Capitation might have a more beneficial impact on inequity in access to primary care and number of ambulatory care sensitive admissions than fee-for-service, but did worse in patient satisfaction. Pay-for-performance had little or no impact on socioeconomic and racial inequity in the management of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and preventive services.

CONCLUSION

We found little scientific evidence supporting an association between reimbursement system and socioeconomic or racial inequity in access, utilization and quality of primary care. Overall, few studies addressed this research question, and heterogeneity in context and outcomes complicates comparisons across studies. Further empirical studies are warranted.

The effectiveness of a pay for performance program on diabetes care in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based longitudinal study

Over the past two decades, studies have widely examined the effectiveness of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs by conducting biochemical tests and assessing complications; however, the reported effectiveness of such programs among participants selected through purposeful sampling is controversial. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to analyze the effectiveness of a P4P program on patients' prognoses, including hospitalization for chronic diabetic complications, and all-cause mortality during specific follow-up years by using a nationwide population-based database in Taiwan. Based on 125,315 newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patient cohort during 2002-2006, two control sets were designed by propensity-score-matching strategy according to participation of P4P program and followed up to 2012. The results indicated that full participants demonstrated the lowest risks of developing complications and all-cause mortality compared with nonparticipants. These findings confirm the long-term effect of P4P programs on full participants and reveal that this effect is not due to confounding variables. The results indicate the importance of performance management and adherence to interventions for patients with chronic diseases in a long-term observation. Comprehensive and continuous care is suggested to improve patient prognosis and quality of care.

Impact of pay for performance on behavior of primary care physicians and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pay-for-performance is a financial incentive which links physicians' income to the quality of their services. Although pay-for-performance is suggested to be an effective payment method in many pilot countries (ie the UK) and enjoys a wide application in primary health care, researches on it are yet to reach an agreement. Thus, a systematic review was conducted on the evidence of impact of pay-for-performance on behavior of primary care physicians and patient outcomes aiming to provide a comprehensive and objective evaluation of pay-for-performance for decision-makers.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library. Electronic search was conducted in the fourth week of January 2013. As the included studies had significant clinical heterogeneity, a descriptive analysis was conducted. Quality Index was adopted for quality assessment of evidences.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 651 candidate articles, of which 44 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. An overall positive effect was found on the management of disease, which varied in accordance with the baseline medical quality and the practice size. Meanwhile, it could bring about new problems regarding the inequity, patients' dissatisfaction and increasing medical cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-makers should consider the baseline conditions of medical quality and the practice size before new medical policies are enacted. Furthermore, most studies are retrospective and observational with high level of heterogeneity though, the descriptive analysis is still of significance.

The future of life expectancy and life expectancy inequalities in England and Wales: Bayesian spatiotemporal forecasting

BACKGROUND

To plan for pensions and health and social services, future mortality and life expectancy need to be forecast. Consistent forecasts for all subnational units within a country are very rare. Our aim was to forecast mortality and life expectancy for England and Wales' districts.

METHODS

We developed Bayesian spatiotemporal models for forecasting of age-specific mortality and life expectancy at a local, small-area level. The models included components that accounted for mortality in relation to age, birth cohort, time, and space. We used geocoded mortality and population data between 1981 and 2012 from the Office for National Statistics together with the model with the smallest error to forecast age-specific death rates and life expectancy to 2030 for 375 of England and Wales' 376 districts. We measured model performance by withholding recent data and comparing forecasts with this withheld data.

FINDINGS

Life expectancy at birth in England and Wales was 79·5 years (95% credible interval 79·5-79·6) for men and 83·3 years (83·3-83·4) for women in 2012. District life expectancies ranged between 75·2 years (74·9-75·6) and 83·4 years (82·1-84·8) for men and between 80·2 years (79·8-80·5) and 87·3 years (86·0-88·8) for women. Between 1981 and 2012, life expectancy increased by 8·2 years for men and 6·0 years for women, closing the female-male gap from 6·0 to 3·8 years. National life expectancy in 2030 is expected to reach 85·7 (84·2-87·4) years for men and 87·6 (86·7-88·9) years for women, further reducing the female advantage to 1·9 years. Life expectancy will reach or surpass 81·4 years for men and reach or surpass 84·5 years for women in every district by 2030. Longevity inequality across districts, measured as the difference between the 1st and 99th percentiles of district life expectancies, has risen since 1981, and is forecast to rise steadily to 8·3 years (6·8-9·7) for men and 8·3 years (7·1-9·4) for women by 2030.

INTERPRETATION

Present forecasts underestimate the expected rise in life expectancy, especially for men, and hence the need to provide improved health and social services and pensions for elderly people in England and Wales. Health and social policies are needed to curb widening life expectancy inequalities, help deprived districts catch up in longevity gains, and avoid a so-called grand divergence in health and longevity.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council and Public Health England.

[Pay-for-performance in health care services: a review of the best evidence available]

Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been widely used around the world seeking to improve health outcomes, and in Brazil it is the basis of the National Program for Improving Access and Quality (PMAQ). The literature published between 1998 and January 2013 that evaluated the effectiveness of P4P to produce results or patterns of access and quality in health was scrutinized. A total of 138 studies, with the inclusion of a further 41 studies (14 systematic reviews, 07 clinical trials and 20 observational studies) were retrieved and analyzed Among the more rigorous studies, favorable conclusions for P4P were less frequent, whereas observational studies were more favorable to positive effects of P4P on the quality of, and access to, health services. Methodological limitations of observational studies may have contributed to these results, but the range of results is more linked to the conceptual and contextual aspects of the use of the P4P schemes reviewed, the heterogeneity of P4P models and results. P4P can be helpful in promoting the achievement of objectives in health care systems, especially in the short term and for specific actions requiring less effort of health care providers, but should be used with caution and with a rigorous planning model, also considering undesirable or adverse effects.

Cardiovascular risk in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus and prediabetes: is it indeed higher than men?

The relative risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and mortality in diabetic women (in comparison with non-diabetic women) is believed to be greater than that in diabetic men. However, the absolute risk for CVD mortality and morbidity does not appear to be higher in women. In general, there is heterogeneity between studies, and whether there is any definite difference in the CVD risk between sexes at any level of glycaemia is not known. The same arguments also apply when comparing the CVD risk factors, such as lipid profiles and systemic inflammation indices, which seem to be worse in women than in men with diabetes mellitus (DM). The same questions emerge at any given glycaemic state: are women at worse risk and do they have a worse risk factor profile than men? These issues have yet to be resolved. Similar, though less extensive, data have been reported for prediabetes. Furthermore, women with DM are suboptimally treated compared with men regarding lipid and blood pressure targets. Large prospective studies representative of the general population are therefore needed to define the differences between sexes regarding CVD events and mortality at a given glucose level and after adjusting for any other confounders.

Performance-based financial incentives for diabetes care: an effective strategy?

The use of financial incentives provided to primary care physicians who achieve target management or clinical outcomes has been advocated to support the fulfillment of care recommendations for patients with diabetes. This article explores the characteristics of incentive models implemented in the context of universal healthcare systems in the United Kingdom, Australia, Taiwan and Canada; the extent to which these interventions have been successful in improving diabetes outcomes; and the key challenges and concerns around implementing incentive models. Research in the effect of incentives in the United Kingdom demonstrates some improvements in process outcomes and achievement of cholesterol, blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets. Evidence of the efficacy of programs implemented outside of the United Kingdom is very limited but suggests that physicians participating in these enhanced billing incentive programs were already completing the guideline-recommended care prior to the introduction of the incentive. A shift to pay-for-performance programs may have important implications for professionalism and patient-centred care. In the absence of definitive evidence that financial incentives drive the quality of diabetes management at the level of primary care, policy makers should proceed with caution. It is important to look beyond simply modifying physicians' behaviours and address the factors and systemic barriers that make it challenging for patients and physicians to manage diabetes in partnership.

[Compliance with process indicators in people with type 2 diabetes and linking incentives in Primary Care]

Objetivo

Los programas de pago por desempeño para mejorar la calidad de la atención sanitaria se están extendiendo de forma progresiva, en particular para en Atención Primaria. Nuestro objetivo fue explorar la relación entre el grado de cumplimiento de los indicadores de proceso (IPr) de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) en Atención Primaria y la vinculación a incentivos económicos.

Diseño

Estudio descriptivo observacional, descriptivo y transversal.

Emplazamiento

Seis centros de salud del Distrito Aljarafe, Sevilla, seleccionados de forma aleatoria y estratificada por tamaño poblacional.

Participantes

De un total de 3.647 sujetos incluidos en el Proceso Asistencial Integrado de DM2 durante el 2008, se incluyó a 366 pacientes, según cálculo de tamaño muestral, mediante muestreo aleatorio estratificado.

Mediciones

IPr: exploración de fondo de ojo y pies, hemoglobina glucosilada (HbA1c), perfil lipídico, microalbuminuria y electrocardiograma. Variables potencialmente confusoras: edad, género, característica de zona de residencia en pacientes y variables de los médicos.

Resultados

La edad media fue de 66,36 (desviación estándar –DE– 11,56 años); el 48,9% eran mujeres. Los IPr con mejor cumplimiento fueron la exploración de pies, HbA1c y perfil lipídico (59,6, 44,3 y 44, respectivamente). El 2,7% de los pacientes presentaban cumplimiento simultáneo de los 6 IPr y el 11,74% de los 3 IPr vinculados a incentivos. El cumplimiento de IPr vinculado y no a incentivos mostró asociación significativa (p = 0,001).

Conclusiones

El cumplimiento de los IPr para el cribado de complicaciones crónicas de la DM2 es en su mayoría bajo, aunque este fue superior en los indicadores vinculados a incentivos.

Provider and patient directed financial incentives to improve care and outcomes for patients with diabetes

Incentive programs directed at both providers and patients have become increasingly widespread. Pay-for-performance (P4P) where providers receive financial incentives to carry out specific care or improve clinical outcomes has been widely implemented. The existing literature indicates they probably spur initial gains which then level off or partially revert if incentives are withdrawn. The literature also indicates that process measures are easier to influence through P4P programs but that intermediate outcomes such as glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol control are harder to influence, and the long-term impact of P4P programs on health is largely unknown. Programs directed at patients show greater promise as a means to influence patient behavior and intermediate outcomes such as weight loss; however, the evidence for long-term effects are lacking. In combination, both patient and provider incentives are potentially powerful tools but whether they are cost-effective has yet to be determined.

Pay-for-performance: impact on diabetes

Pay-for-performance schemes explicitly link provider remuneration to the quality of care provided, with the aims of modifying provider behavior and improving patient outcomes. If successful, pay-for-performance schemes could drive improvements in quality and efficiency of care. However, financial incentives could also erode providers' intrinsic motivation, narrow their focus, promote unethical behavior, and ultimately increase health care inequalities. Evidence from schemes implemented to date suggests that carefully designed pay-for-performance schemes that align sufficient rewards with clinical priorities can produce modest but significant improvements in processes of diabetic care and intermediate outcomes. There is limited evidence, however, on whether improvements in processes of care result in improved outcomes, in terms of patient satisfaction, reduced complications, and greater longevity. The lack of adequate control groups has limited research findings to date, and more robust studies are needed to explore both the potential long-term benefits of pay-for-performance schemes and their unintended consequences.

Combining QOF data with the care bundle approach may provide a more meaningful measure of quality in general practice

Background

A significant minority of patients do not receive all the evidence-based care recommended for their conditions. Health care quality may be improved by reducing this observed variation. Composite measures offer a different patient-centred perspective on quality and are utilized in acute hospitals via the ‘care bundle’ concept as indicators of the reliability of specific (evidence-based) care delivery tasks and improved outcomes. A care bundle consists of a number of time-specific interventions that should be delivered to every patient every time. We aimed to apply the care bundle concept to selected QOF data to measure the quality of evidence-based care provision.

Methods

Care bundles and components were selected from QOF indicators according to defined criteria. Five clinical conditions were suitable for care bundles: Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), Stroke & Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA), Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Diabetes Mellitus (DM). Each bundle has 3-8 components. A retrospective audit was undertaken in a convenience sample of nine general medical practices in the West of Scotland. Collected data included delivery (or not) of individual bundle components to all patients included on specific disease registers. Practice level and overall compliance with bundles and components were calculated in SPSS and expressed as a percentage.

Results

Nine practices (64.3%) with a combined patient population of 56,948 were able to provide data in the format requested. Overall compliance with developed QOF-based care bundles (composite measures) was as follows: CHD 64.0%, range 35.0-71.9%; Stroke/TIA 74.1%, range 51.6-82.8%; CKD 69.0%, range 64.0-81.4%; and COPD 82.0%, range 47.9-95.8%; and DM 58.4%, range 50.3-65.2%.

Conclusions

In this small study compliance with individual QOF-based care bundle components was high, but overall (‘all or nothing’) compliance was substantially lower. Care bundles may provide a more informed measure of care quality than existing methods. However, the acceptability, feasibility and potential impact on clinical outcomes are unknown.

Ethnic and social disparity in glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes; cohort study in general practice 2004-9

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether ethnic group differences in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changed over a 5-year period in people on medication for type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Open cohort in 2004-9.

SETTING

Electronic records of 100 of the 101 general practices in two inner London boroughs.

PARTICIPANTS

People aged 35 to 74 years on medication for type 2 diabetes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean HbA1c and proportion with HbA1c controlled to ≤ 7.5%.

RESULTS

In this cohort of 24,111 people, 22% were White, 58% South Asian and 17% Black African/Caribbean. From 2004 to 2009 mean HbA1c improved from 8.2% to 7.8% for White, from 8.5% to 8.0% for Black African/Caribbean and from 8.5% to 8.0% for South Asian people. The proportion with HbA1c controlled to 7.5% or less, increased from 44% to 56% in White, 38% to 53% in Black African/Caribbean and 34% to 48% in South Asian people. Ethnic group and social deprivation were independently associated with HbA1c. South Asian and Black African/Caribbean people were treated more intensively than White people.

CONCLUSION

HbA1c control improved for all ethnic groups between 2004-9. However, South Asian and Black African/Caribbean people had persistently worse control despite more intensive treatment and significantly more improvement than White people. Higher social deprivation was independently associated with worse control.

Nationwide study on trends in hospital admissions for major cardiovascular events and procedures among people with and without diabetes in England, 2004-2009

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear whether people with and without diabetes equally benefitted from reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD). We aimed to compare recent trends in hospital admission rates for angina, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) among people with and without diabetes in England.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified all patients aged >16 years with cardiovascular events in England between 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 using national hospital activity data. Diabetes- and nondiabetes-specific rates were calculated for each year. To test for time trend, we fitted Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

In people with diabetes, admission rates for angina, AMI, and CABG decreased significantly by 5% (rate ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.94-0.96]), 5% (0.95 [0.93-0.97]), and 3% (0.97 [0.95-0.98]) per year, respectively. Admission rates for stroke did not significantly change (0.99 [0.98-1.004]) but increased for PCI (1.01 [1.005-1.03]) in people with diabetes. People with and without diabetes experienced similar proportional changes for all outcomes, with no significant differences in trends between these groups. However, diabetes was associated with an ~3.5- to 5-fold risk of CVD events. In-hospital mortality rates declined for AMI and stroke, remained unchanged for CABG, and increased for PCI admissions in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This national study suggests similar changes in admissions for CVD in people with and without diabetes. Aggressive risk reduction is needed to further reduce the high absolute and relative risk of CVD still present in people with diabetes.