Exclusion of patients from quality measurement of diabetes care in the UK pay-for-performance programme

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.

Ethnic inequities in the patterns of personalized care adjustments for 'informed dissent' and 'patient unsuitable': a retrospective study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BACKGROUND

In England, general practitioners voluntarily take part in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, which is a program that seeks to improve care by rewarding good practice. They can make personalized care adjustments (PCAs), e.g. if patients choose not to have the treatment/intervention offered ('informed dissent') or because they are considered to be clinically 'unsuitable'.

METHODS

Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum), this study examined patterns of PCA reporting for 'informed dissent' and 'patient unsuitable', how they vary across ethnic groups and whether ethnic inequities were explained by sociodemographic factors or co-morbidities.

RESULTS

The odds of having a PCA record for 'informed dissent' were lower for 7 of the 10 minoritized ethnic groups studied. Indian patients were less likely than white patients to have a PCA record for 'patient unsuitable'. The higher likelihood of reporting for 'patient unsuitable' among people from Black Caribbean, Black Other, Pakistani and other ethnic groups was explained by co-morbidities and/or area-level deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings counter narratives that suggest that people from minoritized ethnic groups often refuse medical intervention/treatment. The findings also illustrate ethnic inequities in PCA reporting for 'patient unsuitable', which are linked to clinical and social complexity and should be tackled to improve health outcomes for all.

Addressing racial/ethnic disparities associated with Medicare Part D Star Ratings among population with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

BACKGROUND

Previous studies noted that racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely than non-Hispanic White beneficiaries to be included in the assessment of medication utilization measures of Medicare Part D Star Ratings due to restrictive inclusion criteria for measure calculation. This study explored whether adding a measure with less stringent inclusion criteria to Star Ratings can reduce disparities in measure assessment among beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized 2017 Medicare databases linked to Area Health Resources Files. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare disparities before and after adding the new measure.

RESULTS

By adding the new measure, disparities in the odds for assessment inclusion between non-Hispanic White beneficiaries and Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Other beneficiaries were respectively reduced by 97% (odds ratio, or OR = 1.97, 95% Confidence Interval or CI = 1.89-2.05), 72% (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.58-1.87), 115% (OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.87-2.46), and 44% (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.28-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the selection of medication utilization measures in Star Ratings among beneficiaries with ADRD, policymakers should investigate the optimal composition of measures to better align the interests of patients, providers, and health plans.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice.

Quality and Performance Measurement in Primary Diabetes Care: A Qualitative Study in Urban China

BACKGROUND

Quality measurements in primary healthcare (PHC) have become an essential component for improving diabetes outcomes in many high-income countries. However, little is known about their implementation within the Chinese health-system context and how they are perceived by patients, physicians, and policy-makers. We examined stakeholders' perceptions of quality and performance measurements for primary diabetes care in Shanghai, China, and analyzed facilitators and barriers to implementation.

METHODS

In-depth interviews with 26 key stakeholders were conducted from 2018 to 2019. Participants were sampled from two hospitals, four community healthcare centers (CHCs), and four institutes involved in regulating CHCs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data analysis.

RESULTS

Existing quality measurements were uniformly implemented via a top-down process, with daily monitoring of family doctors' work and pay-for-performance incentives. Barriers included excluding frontline clinicians from indicator planning, a lack of transparent reporting, and a rigid organizational culture with limited bottom-up feedback. Findings under the CFIR construct "organizational incentives" suggested that current pay-for-performance incentives function as a "double-edged sword," increasing family doctors' motivation to excel while creating pressures to "game the system" among some physicians. When considering the CFIR construct "reflecting and evaluating," policy-makers perceived the online evaluation application - which provides daily reports on family doctors' work - to be an essential tool for improving quality; however, this information was not visible to patients. Findings included under the "network and communication" construct showed that specialists support the work of family doctors by providing training and patient consultations in CHCs.

CONCLUSION

The quality of healthcare could be considerably enhanced by involving patients and physicians in decisions on quality measurement. Strengthening hospital-community partnerships can improve the quality of primary care in hospital-centric systems. The case of Shanghai provides compelling policy lessons for other health systems faced with the challenge of improving PHC.

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.

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.

Research methodology and practical issues relating to the conduct of a medical device registry

BACKGROUND

The postmarket research goal is to assess "generalizability" or "external validity" to see if the early results of clinical trials with investigational devices are reproducible in everyday practice in the real world and the longer term. Registries have an important but ambivalent role in achieving this goal.

METHODS

Although registries are common, in practice they follow the regulatory processes that appear designed primarily for pharmaceutical clinical trials and confirmatory studies. We review the literature to assess different definitions and the role of registries in the hierarchy of scientific evidence. We analyze common characteristics affecting registry design, implementation, and governance as well as safety reporting and off-label use while describing the experience of setting up an international, prospective registry for an endovascular device used to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms.

RESULTS

Key areas in which to distinguish registries from trials are as follows: eligibility, setting (patients and institutions), device configurations and iterations, the use of design and quality "spaces," a focus on systematic quality checks (rather than source data monitoring), open-ended follow-up, flexibility in the definition of end points and sample sizes, data sharing, and publishing commitments.

CONCLUSION

Both clinical trials and registries are essential and complementary research methods and the strengths and weaknesses of each need to be recognized. The specific characteristics of registry research deserve to be acknowledged and safeguarded in the regulations governing clinical investigations with medical devices.

Incentivised chronic disease management and the inverse equity hypothesis: findings from a longitudinal analysis of Scottish primary care practice-level data

BACKGROUND

The inverse equity hypothesis asserts that new health policies initially widen inequality, then attenuate inequalities over time. Since 2004, the UK's pay-for-performance scheme for chronic disease management (CDM) in primary care general practices (the Quality and Outcomes Framework) has permitted practices to except (exclude) patients from attending annual CDM reviews, without financial penalty. Informed dissent (ID) is one component of exception rates, applied to patients who have not attended due to refusal or non-response to invitations. 'Population achievement' describes the proportion receiving care, in relation to those eligible to receive it, including excepted patients. Examination of exception reporting (including ID) and population achievement enables the equity impact of the UK pay-for-performance contract to be assessed. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of practice-level rates and of predictors of ID, overall exceptions and population achievement for CDM to examine whether the inverse equity hypothesis holds true.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective, longitudinal study using routine primary care data, analysed by multilevel logistic regression. Data were extracted from 793 practices (83% of Scottish general practices) serving 4.4 million patients across Scotland from 2010/2011 to 2012/2013, for 29 CDM indicators covering 11 incentivised diseases. This provided 68,991 observations, representing a total of 15 million opportunities for exception reporting.

RESULTS

Across all observations, the median overall exception reporting rate was 7.0% (7.04% in 2010-2011; 7.02% in 2011-2012 and 6.92% in 2012-2013). The median non-attendance rate due to ID was 0.9% (0.76% in 2010-2011; 0.88% in 2011-2012 and 0.96% in 2012-2013). Median population achievement was 83.5% (83.51% in 2010-2011; 83.41% in 2011-2012 and 83.63% in 2012-2013). The odds of ID reporting in 2012/2013 were 16.0% greater than in 2010/2011 (p < 0.001). Practices in Scotland's most deprived communities were twice as likely to report non-attendance due to ID (odds ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.83-2.40, p < 0.001) compared with those in the least deprived; rural practices reported lower levels of non-attendance due to ID. These predictors were also independently associated with overall exceptions. Rates of population achievement did not change over time, with higher levels (higher remuneration) associated with increased rates of overall and ID exception and more affluent practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-attendance for CDM due to ID has risen over time, and higher rates are seen in patients from practices located in disadvantaged areas. This suggests that CDM incentivisation does not conform to the inverse equity hypothesis, because inequalities are widening over time with lower uptake of anticipatory care health checks and CDM reviews noted among those most in need. Incentivised CDM needs to include incentives for engaging with the 'hard to reach' if inequalities in healthcare delivery are to be tackled.

Implementation Processes and Pay for Performance in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight.

RESULTS

Among 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence.

DISCUSSION

There is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input.

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.

Associations between exemption and survival outcomes in the UK's primary care pay-for-performance programme: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework permits practices to exempt patients from financially-incentivised performance targets. To better understand the determinants and consequences of being exempted from the framework, we investigated the associations between exception reporting, patient characteristics and mortality. We also quantified the proportion of exempted patients that met quality targets for a tracer condition (diabetes).

DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal study, using individual patient data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

SETTING

644 general practices, 2006/7 to 2011/12.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients registered with study practices for at least one year over the study period, with at least one condition of interest (2 460 341 in total).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Exception reporting rates by reason (clinical contraindication, patient dissent); all-cause mortality in year following exemption. Analyses with logistic and Cox proportional-hazards regressions, respectively.

RESULTS

The odds of being exempted increased with age, deprivation and multimorbidity. Men were more likely to be exempted but this was largely attributable to higher prevalence of conditions with high exemption rates. Modest associations remained, with women more likely to be exempted due to clinical contraindication (OR 0.90, 99% CI 0.88 to 0.92) and men more likely to be exempted due to informed dissent (OR 1.08, 99% CI 1.06 to 1.10). More deprived areas (both for practice location and patient residence) were non-linearly associated with higher exception rates, after controlling for comorbidities and other covariates, with stronger associations for clinical contraindication. Compared with patients with a single condition, odds ratios for patients with two, three, or four or more conditions were respectively 4.28 (99% CI 4.18 to 4.38), 16.32 (99% CI 15.82 to 16.83) and 68.69 (99% CI 66.12 to 71.37) for contraindication, and 2.68 (99% CI 2.63 to 2.74), 4.02 (99% CI 3.91 to 4.13) and 5.17 (99% CI 5.00 to 5.35) for informed dissent. Exempted patients had a higher adjusted risk of death in the following year than non-exempted patients, regardless of whether this exemption was for contraindication (hazard ratio 1.37, 99% CI 1.33 to 1.40) or for informed dissent (1.20, 99% CI 1.17 to 1.24). On average, quality standards were met for 48% of exempted patients in the diabetes domain, but there was wide variation across indicators (ranging from 8 to 80%).

CONCLUSIONS

Older, multimorbid and more deprived patients are more likely to be exempted from the scheme. Exception reported patients are more likely to die in the following year, whether they are exempted by the practice for a contraindication or by themselves through informed dissent. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between exception reporting and patient outcomes.

Multimorbidity and Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is increasingly prevalent and represents a major challenge in primary care. Patients with multimorbidity are potentially more likely to experience safety incidents due to the complexity of their needs and frequency of their interactions with health services. However, rigorous syntheses of the link between patient safety incidents and multimorbidity are not available. This review examined the relationship between multimorbidity and patient safety incidents in primary care.

METHODS

We followed our published protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007434). Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched up to May 2015. Study design and quality were assessed. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for the associations between multimorbidity and two categories of patient safety outcomes: 'active patient safety incidents' (such as adverse drug events and medical complications) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (such as prescription errors, medication non-adherence, poor quality of care and diagnostic errors). Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken.

RESULTS

Eighty six relevant comparisons from 75 studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that physical-mental multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for 'active patient safety incidents' (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.38) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.03). Physical multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for active safety incidents (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.45 to 1.80) but was not associated with precursors of safety incidents (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.13). Statistical heterogeneity was high and the methodological quality of the studies was generally low.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between multimorbidity and patient safety is complex, and varies by type of multimorbidity and type of safety incident. Our analyses suggest that multimorbidity involving mental health may be a key driver of safety incidents, which has important implication for the design and targeting of interventions to improve safety. High quality studies examining the mechanisms of patient safety incidents in patients with multimorbidity are needed, with the goal of promoting effective service delivery and ameliorating threats to safety in this group of patients.

Impact of 'stretch' targets for cardiovascular disease management within a local pay-for-performance programme

Pay-for-performance programs are often aimed to improve the management of chronic diseases. We evaluate the impact of a local pay for performance programme (QOF+), which rewarded financially more ambitious quality targets (‘stretch targets’) than those used nationally in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). We focus on targets for intermediate outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease and diabetes. A difference-in-difference approach is used to compare practice level achievements before and after the introduction of the local pay for performance program. In addition, we analysed patient-level data on exception reporting and intermediate outcomes utilizing an interrupted time series analysis. The local pay for performance program led to significantly higher target achievements (hypertension: p-value <0.001, coronary heart disease: p-values <0.001, diabetes: p-values <0.061, stroke: p-values <0.003). However, the increase was driven by higher rates of exception reporting (hypertension: p-value <0.001, coronary heart disease: p-values <0.03, diabetes: p-values <0.05) in patients with all conditions except for stroke. Exception reporting allows practitioners to exclude patients from target calculations if certain criteria are met, e.g. informed dissent of the patient for treatment. There were no statistically significant improvements in mean blood pressure, cholesterol or HbA1c levels. Thus, achievement of higher payment thresholds in the local pay for performance scheme was mainly attributed to increased exception reporting by practices with no discernable improvements in overall clinical quality. Hence, active monitoring of exception reporting should be considered when setting more ambitious quality targets. More generally, the study suggests a trade-off between additional incentive for better care and monitoring costs.

Inequality in diabetes-related hospital admissions in England by socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity: facility-based cross-sectional analysis

Objective

To investigate the effect of social deprivation and ethnicity on inpatient admissions due to diabetes in England.

Design

Facility-based cross-sectional analysis.

Setting

National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England reporting inpatient admissions with better than 80% data reporting quality from 2010–2011 (355 facilities).

Participants

Non-obstetric patients over 16 years old in all NHS facilities in England. The sample size after exclusions was 5,147,859 all-cause admissions.

Main Outcome Measures

The relative risk of inpatient admissions and readmissions due to diabetes adjusted for confounders.

Results

There were 445,504 diabetes-related hospital admissions in England in 2010, giving a directly (age-sex) standardized rate of 1049.0 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval (CI): 1046.0–1052.1). The relative risk of inpatient admission in the most deprived quintile was 2.08 times higher than that of the least deprived quintile (95% CI: 2.02–2.14), and the effect of deprivation varied across ethnicities. About 30.1% of patients admitted due to diabetes were readmitted at least once due to diabetes. South Asians showed 2.62 times (95% CI: 2.51 – 2.74) higher admission risk. Readmission risk increased with IMD among white British but not other ethnicities. South Asians showed slightly lower risk of readmission than white British (0.86, 95% CI: 0.80 – 0.94).

Conclusions

More deprived areas had higher rates of inpatient admissions and readmissions due to diabetes. South Asian British showed higher admission risk and lower readmission risk than white British. However, there was almost no difference by ethnicity in readmission due to diabetes. Higher rates of admission among deprived people may not necessarily reflect higher prevalence, but higher admission rates in south Asian British may be explained by their higher prevalence because their lower readmission risk suggests no inequality in primary care to prevent readmission. Better interventions in poorer areas, are needed to reduce these inequalities.

Short-term effects of a pay-for-performance programme for diabetes in a primary care setting: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

A pay-for-performance (P4P) programme for primary care was introduced in 2011 by a Swedish county (with 1.6 million inhabitants). Effects on register entry practice and comparability of data for patients with diabetes mellitus were assessed.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational study analysing short-term outcomes before and after introduction of a P4P programme in the study county as compared with a reference county.

SUBJECTS

A total of 84 053 patients reported to the National Diabetes Register by 349 primary care units.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Completeness of data, level and target achievement of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and LDL cholesterol (LDL).

RESULTS

In the study county, newly recruited patients who were entered during the incentive programme were less well controlled than existing patients in the register - they had higher HbA1c (54.9 [54.5-55.4] vs. 53.7 [53.6-53.9] mmol/mol), BP, and LDL. The percentage of patients with entry of BP, HbA1c, LDL, albuminuria, and smoking increased in the study county but not in the reference county (+26.3% vs -1.5%). In the study county, with an incentive for BP < 130/80 mmHg, BP data entry behaviour was altered with an increased preference for sub-target BP values and a decline in zero end-digit readings (38.3% vs. 33.7%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

P4P led to increased register entry, increased completeness of data, and altered BP entry behaviour. Analysis of newly added patients and data shows that missing patients and data can cause performance to be overestimated. Potential effects on reporting quality should be considered when designing payment programmes. Key points A pay-for-performance programme, with a focus on data entry, was introduced in a primary care region in Sweden. Register data entry in the National Diabetes Register increased and registration behaviour was altered, especially for blood pressure. Newly entered patients and data during the incentive programme were less well controlled. Missing data in a quality register can cause performance to be overestimated.

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.

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.

Comparing mandated health care reforms: the Affordable Care Act, accountable care organizations, and the Medicare ESRD program

In addition to extending health insurance coverage, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 aims to improve quality of care and contain costs. To this end, the act allowed introduction of bundled payments for a range of services, proposed the creation of accountable care organizations (ACOs), and established the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to test new care delivery and payment models. The ACO program began April 1, 2012, along with demonstration projects for bundled payments for episodes of care in Medicaid. Yet even before many components of the Affordable Care Act are fully in place, the Medicare ESRD Program has instituted legislatively mandated changes for dialysis services that resemble many of these care delivery reform proposals. The ESRD program now operates under a fully bundled, case-mix adjusted prospective payment system and has implemented Medicare's first-ever mandatory pay-for-performance program: the ESRD Quality Incentive Program. As ACOs are developed, they may benefit from the nephrology community's experience with these relatively novel models of health care payment and delivery reform. Nephrologists are in a position to assure that the ACO development will benefit from the ESRD experience. This article reviews the new ESRD payment system and the Quality Incentive Program, comparing and contrasting them with ACOs. Better understanding of similarities and differences between the ESRD program and the ACO program will allow the nephrology community to have a more influential voice in shaping the future of health care delivery in the United States.

Effect of financial relationships on the behaviors of health care professionals: a review of the evidence

This paper explores the empirical evidence regarding the impact financial relationships on the behavior of health care providers, specifically, physicians. We identify and synthesize peer-reviewed data addressing whether financial incentives are causally related to patient outcomes and health care costs. We cover three main areas where financial conflicts of interest arise and may have an observable relationship to health care practices: (1) physicians' roles as self-referrers, (2) insurance reimbursement schemes that create incentives for certain clinical choices over others, and (3) financial relationships between physicians and the drug and device industries. We found a well-developed scientific literature consisting of dozens of empirical studies, some that allow stronger causal inferences than others, but which altogether show that such financial conflicts of interests can, and sometimes do, impact physicians' clinical decisions. Further research is warranted to document the causal relationship of such changes on health outcomes and the cost of care, but the current base of evidence is sufficiently robust to motivate policy reform.