Increase in the pharmacological management of Type 2 diabetes with pay-for-performance in primary care in the UK

Physician Financial Incentives for Use of Outpatient Intravenous Antimicrobial Therapy: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2011, policymakers in British Columbia introduced a fee-for-service payment to incentivize infectious diseases physicians to supervise outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Whether this policy increased use of OPAT remains uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population-based administrative data over a 14-year period (2004-2018). We focused on infections that required intravenous antimicrobials for ≥10 days (eg, osteomyelitis, joint infection, endocarditis) and used the monthly proportion of index hospitalizations with a length of stay shorter than the guideline-recommended "usual duration of intravenous antimicrobials" (LOS < UDIVA) as a surrogate for population-level OPAT use. We used interrupted time series analysis to determine whether policy introduction increased the proportion of hospitalizations with LOS < UDIVA.

RESULTS

We identified 18 513 eligible hospitalizations. In the pre-policy period, 82.3% of hospitalizations exhibited LOS < UDIVA. Introduction of the incentive was not associated with a change in the proportion of hospitalizations with LOS < UDIVA, suggesting that the policy intervention did not increase OPAT use (step change, -0.06%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.69% to 2.58%; P = .97 and slope change, -0.001% per month; 95% CI, -.056% to .055%; P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a financial incentive for physicians did not appear to increase OPAT use. Policymakers should consider modifying the incentive design or addressing organizational barriers to expanded OPAT use.

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.

Use of interrupted time series methods in the evaluation of health system quality improvement interventions: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND

When randomisation is not possible, interrupted time series (ITS) design has increasingly been advocated as a more robust design to evaluating health system quality improvement (QI) interventions given its ability to control for common biases in healthcare QI. However, there is a potential risk of producing misleading results when this rather robust design is not used appropriately. We performed a methodological systematic review of the literature to investigate the extent to which the use of ITS has followed best practice standards and recommendations in the evaluation of QI interventions.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from inception to June 2018 to identify QI intervention studies that were evaluated using ITS. There was no restriction on date, language and participants. Data were synthesised narratively using appropriate descriptive statistics. The risk of bias for ITS studies was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care standard criteria. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018094427).

RESULTS

Of 4061 potential studies and 2028 unique records screened for inclusion, 120 eligible studies assessed eight QI strategies and were from 25 countries. Most studies were published since 2010 (86.7%), reported data using monthly interval (71.4%), used ITS without a control (81%) and modelled data using segmented regression (62.5%). Autocorrelation was considered in 55% of studies, seasonality in 20.8% and non-stationarity in 8.3%. Only 49.2% of studies specified the ITS impact model. The risk of bias was high or very high in 72.5% of included studies and did not change significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ITS in the evaluation of health system QI interventions has increased considerably over the past decade. However, variations in methodological considerations and reporting of ITS in QI remain a concern, warranting a need to develop and reinforce formal reporting guidelines to improve its application in the evaluation of health system QI interventions.

Pay-for-performance programmes reduce stroke risks in patients with type 2 diabetes: a national cohort study

OBJECTIVES

A pay-for-performance (P4P) programme is a management strategy that encourages healthcare providers to deliver high quality of care. In Taiwan, the P4P programme has been implemented for diabetes, and certified diabetes physicians voluntarily enrol patients with diabetes into the P4P programme. The objectives of this study were to compare the risk of stroke and its related factors in patients with type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in a P4P programme compared with those who were not.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a natural experiment in Taiwan. A retrospective cohort investigation was conducted from 2002 to 2013, which included 459 726 patients with type 2 diabetes, who were grouped according to P4P enrolment status following a propensity score matching process.

METHODS

We reviewed patients ≥45 years of age newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the relative risk of stroke between patients with type 2 DM enrolled in the P4P programme and those who were not enrolled.

RESULTS

Compared with the patients not enrolled, there was a significantly lower stroke risk in P4P participants (HR=0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99). Although a significantly lower risk of haemorrhagic stroke was observed (HR=0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93) in P4P participants, no statistically significant difference for the risk of ischaemic stroke between P4P and non-P4P patients (HR=0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02) was found. Following stratification analysis, a significantly reduced stroke risk was observed in male patients with type 2 diabetes, but not in women.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in Taiwan's Diabetes P4P programme displayed a significantly reduced stroke risk, especially haemorrhagic stroke. We recommend the continual promotion of this programme to the general public and to physicians.

Design and effects of outcome-based payment models in healthcare: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Outcome-based payment models (OBPMs) might solve the shortcomings of fee-for-service or diagnostic-related group (DRG) models using financial incentives based on outcome indicators of the provided care. This review provides an analysis of the characteristics and effectiveness of OBPMs, to determine which models lead to favourable effects.

METHODS

We first developed a definition for OBPMs. Next, we searched four data sources to identify the models: (1) scientific literature databases; (2) websites of relevant governmental and scientific agencies; (3) the reference lists of included articles; (4) experts in the field. We only selected studies that examined the impact of the payment model on quality and/or costs. A narrative evidence synthesis was used to link specific design features to effects on quality of care or healthcare costs.

RESULTS

We included 88 articles, describing 12 OBPMs. We identified two groups of models based on differences in design features: narrow OBPMs (financial incentives based on quality indicators) and broad OBPMs (combination of global budgets, risk sharing, and financial incentives based on quality indicators). Most (5 out of 9) of the narrow OBPMs showed positive effects on quality; the others had mixed (2) or negative (2) effects. The effects of narrow OBPMs on healthcare utilization or costs, however, were unfavourable (3) or unknown (6). All broad OBPMs (3) showed positive effects on quality of care, while reducing healthcare cost growth.

DISCUSSION

Although strong empirical evidence on the effects of OBPMs on healthcare quality, utilization, and costs is limited, our findings suggest that broad OBPMs may be preferred over narrow OBPMs.

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.

The role of the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the care of long-term conditions: a systematic review

Background

Improving care for people with long-term conditions is central to NHS policy. It has been suggested that the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a primary care pay-for-performance scheme that rewards practices for delivering effective interventions in long-term conditions, does not encourage high-quality care for this group of patients.

Aim

To examine the evidence that the QOF has improved quality of care for patients with long-term conditions.

Design and setting

This was a systematic review of research on the effectiveness of the QOF in the UK.

Method

The authors searched electronic databases for peer-reviewed empirical quantitative research studying the effect of the QOF on a broad range of processes and outcomes of care, including coordination and integration of care, holistic and personalised care, self-care, patient experience, physiological and biochemical outcomes, health service utilisation, and mortality. Because the studies were heterogeneous, a narrative synthesis was carried out.

Results

The authors identified three systematic reviews and five primary research studies that met the inclusion criteria. The QOF was associated with a modest slowing of both the increase in emergency admissions and the increase in consultations in severe mental illness (SMI), and modest improvements in diabetes care. The nature of the evidence means that the authors cannot be sure that any of these associations is causal. No clear effect on mortality was found. The authors found no evidence that the QOF influences integration or coordination of care, holistic care, self-care, or patient experience.

Conclusion

The NHS should consider more broadly what constitutes high-quality primary care for people with long-term conditions, and consider other ways of motivating primary care to deliver it.

Basal-bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK: Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns and the Effect of Switching to Premixed Insulin

INTRODUCTION

Increasing emphasis is being placed on insulin use among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Basal-bolus (BB) therapy is regarded as the gold standard, but a high frequency of injections and the general complexity of this therapy are seen as barriers in real-world practice. Here we describe the characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with T2DM receiving BB in the UK, with specific focus on those switching to a simplified regimen of premixed insulin.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM receiving BB from 1 January 2005 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Characteristics were described at treatment initiation or on 1 January 2005, and treatment patterns were assessed at 12 months of follow-up. Clinical factors were compared in two groups of patients who while receiving BB had one haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement of ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0%) and remained either on BB or switched to a premixed insulin regimen.

RESULTS

Study criteria were met by 12,060 subjects (mean age 59 years; duration diabetes 12.4 years). The mean HbA1c concentration was 76 mmol/mol (9.1% of patients), and 84.0% of patients were overweight. At 12 months of follow-up, 74.5% of the patients who had started BB remained on it. While on BB, 8835 patients had a HbA1c measurement of ≥53 mmol/mol (7.0% of all patients); of these, 95.9% remained on BB and 4.1% switched to premixed insulin. Mean HbA1c levels were consistently higher for patients who switched to premixed insulin than for those who remained on BB, but the levels remained relatively unchanged over time.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients receiving insulin did not achieve good glycaemic control in clinical practice. A small subset with higher comorbidities and HbA1c levels switched to a simplified regimen. Little evidence was found that type of insulin therapy was associated with meaningful changes in key clinical factors over time.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and company.

Financial Incentives to Encourage Value-Based Health Care

This article reviews the literature on the use of financial incentives to improve the provision of value-based health care. Eighty studies of 44 schemes from 10 countries were reviewed. The proportion of positive and statistically significant outcomes was close to .5. Stronger study designs were associated with a lower proportion of positive effects. There were no differences between studies conducted in the United States compared with other countries; between schemes that targeted hospitals or primary care; or between schemes combining pay for performance with rewards for reducing costs, relative to pay for performance schemes alone. Paying for performance improvement is less likely to be effective. Allowing payments to be used for specific purposes, such as quality improvement, had a higher likelihood of a positive effect, compared with using funding for physician income. Finally, the size of incentive payments relative to revenue was not associated with the proportion of positive outcomes.

Prescription Rates of Cardiovascular Medications in a Large UK Primary Care Chronic Kidney Disease Cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Guidelines have suggested the universal use of statins in CKD but aspirin's role is less well defined. The aim of this study was to determine prescription rates for statins and aspirin in a UK-based CKD cohort and to establish factors that influenced prescription rates.

METHODS

We used data from a UK primary care CKD cohort to study rates of prescription of statins and aspirin. Simple rates were initially calculated. Binary logistic regression was utilized with either statin or aspirin prescription as the outcome variable and covariates including demographic details and comorbidities.

RESULTS

There were 31,056 individuals in the cohort with at least one estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 65.1% individuals had 2 eGFR results <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 more than 3 months apart. Mean eGFR at baseline was 51.1 ml/min/1.73 m2 (SD 9.1), and 64.9% had a diagnosis of hypertension (HTN), 18.8% had diabetes mellitus (DM) and 29.8% a history of CV disease. Statins were prescribed to 14,972 (48.2%) and aspirin to 11,023 (35.5%). The regression model suggested that CV disease, HTN and DM influenced the prescriptions of statins and aspirin but overall CKD stage, calculated by either eGFR or proteinuria, did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescriptions of statins and aspirin in CKD is based more on the presence of comorbidities than the CKD severity. Further physician and patient education of the increased CV risk associated with CKD and its suitability for CV medication intervention is required.