Impact of pay for performance on inequalities in health care: systematic review

Strategies and indicators to integrate health equity in health service and delivery systems in high-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to describe how health service and delivery systems in high-income countries define and operationalize health equity. A secondary objective was to identify implementation strategies and indicators being used to integrate and measure health equity.

INTRODUCTION

To improve the health of populations, a population health and health equity approach is needed. To date, most work on health equity integration has focused on reducing health inequities within public health, health care delivery, or providers within a health system, but less is known about integration across the health service and delivery system.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review included academic and gray literature sources that described the definitions, frameworks, level of integration, strategies, and indicators that health service and delivery systems in high-income countries have used to describe, integrate, and/or measure health equity. Sources were excluded if they were not available in English (or a translation was not available), were published before 1986, focused on strategies that were not implemented, did not provide health equity indicators, or featured strategies that were implemented outside the health service or delivery systems (eg, community-based strategies).

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility followed by a full-text review to determine inclusion. The information extracted from the included studies consisted of study design and key findings, such as health equity definitions, strategies, frameworks, level of integration, and indicators. Most data were quantitatively tabulated and presented according to 5 secondary review questions. Some findings (eg, definitions and indicators) were summarized using qualitative methods. Most findings were visually presented in charts and diagrams or presented in tabular format.

RESULTS

Following review of 16,297 titles and abstracts and 824 full-text sources, we included 122 sources (108 scholarly and 14 gray literature) in this scoping review. We found that health equity was inconsistently defined and operationalized. Only 17 sources included definitions of health equity, and we found that both indicators and strategies lacked adequate descriptions. The use of health equity frameworks was limited and, where present, there was little consistency or agreement in their use. We found that strategies were often specific to programs, services, or clinics, rather than broadly applied across health service and delivery systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that strategies to advance health equity work are siloed within health service and delivery systems, and are not currently being implemented system-wide (ie, across all health settings). Healthy equity definitions and frameworks are varied in the included sources, and indicators for health equity are variable and inconsistently measured. Health equity integration needs to be prioritized within and across health service and delivery systems. There is also a need for system-wide strategies to promote health equity, alongside robust accountability mechanisms for measuring health equity. This is necessary to ensure that an integrated, whole-system approach can be consistently applied in health service and delivery systems internationally.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

DalSpace dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/80835.

The relationship between Quality and Outcomes Framework scores and socioeconomic deprivation: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a pay incentive scheme in England designed to improve and standardise general practice. QOF attainment has been used as a proxy for primary care quality in previous research.

AIM

To investigate whether there is a relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and QOF attainment in primary care in England.

DESIGN & SETTING

Retrospective longitudinal study of primary care providers in England.

METHOD

QOF scores were obtained for individual general practices in England from between 2007-2019 and linked to practice-level Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores derived from census data. Beta regression analyses were used to analyse the relationship with either percentage of total QOF attainment or of domain-specific attainment with multivariate analyses, adjusting for additional practice-level demographics. QOF attainment in the most affluent quintile was used as the reference group.

RESULTS

General practices in less deprived areas have consistently outperformed those in more deprived areas in terms of QOF achievement. Initially, the gap between least and most deprived practices decreased, however since 2015 there has been relatively little change in comparative performance. The magnitude of inequality was reduced after adjusting for demographic factors. Of the independent variables analysed, the proportion of patients aged >65 years ('over 65s') had the strongest relationship with QOF attainment.

CONCLUSION

There remains an inequality in primary care quality by socioeconomic deprivation in England, even after accounting for demographic differences.

Did paying drugs misuse treatment providers for outcomes lead to unintended consequences for hospital admissions? Difference-in-differences analysis of a pay-for-performance scheme in England

AIMS

To estimate how a scheme to pay substance misuse treatment service providers according to treatment outcomes affected hospital admissions.

DESIGN

A controlled, quasi-experimental (difference-in-differences) observational study using negative binomial regression.

SETTING

Hospitals in all 149 organisational areas in England for the period 2009-2010 to 2015-2016.

PARTICIPANTS

572 545 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis indicating drug misuse, defined based on International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes (37 964 patients in 8 intervention areas and 534 581 in 141 comparison areas).

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATORS

Linkage of provider payments to recovery outcome indicators in 8 intervention organisational areas compared with all 141 comparison organisational areas in England. Outcome indicators included: abstinence from presenting substance, abstinent completion of treatment and non-re-presentation to treatment in the 12 months following completion.

MEASUREMENTS

Annual counts of hospital admissions, emergency admissions and admissions including a diagnosis indicating drugs misuse. Covariates included age, sex, ethnic origin and deprivation.

FINDINGS

For 37 245 patients in the intervention areas, annual emergency admissions were 1.073 times higher during the operation of the scheme compared with non-intervention areas (95% CI = 1.049; 1.097). There were an estimated additional 3 352 emergency admissions in intervention areas during the scheme. These findings were robust to a range of secondary analyses.

CONCLUSION

A programme in England from 2012 to 2014 to pay substance misuse treatment service providers according to treatment outcomes appeared to increase emergency hospital admissions.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study

National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates in the intervention city, to the change in a matched comparison population. Emergency admissions rates fell by 19 per 1,000 people in the years following the intervention (95% confidence interval [17, 21]) in the intervention city, relative to the comparison population. This effect was greater among more disadvantaged populations, narrowing socioeconomic inequalities in emergency admissions. The findings suggest that similar approaches could be an effective component of strategies to reduce unplanned hospital admissions elsewhere.

Analyzing the operational barriers of government-supported healthcare supply chain

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to develop a methodology for the identification, categorization and prioritization of operational government-supported healthcare supply chain barriers (GHSCBs).

Design/methodology/approach

This study develops a theoretical background for identifying and segregating relevant GHSCBs and proposes a 5W2H (a Toyota production system) with fuzzy DEcision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) embedded approach to quantify the causal–effect relationships among the identified operational GHSCBs.

Findings

Seven GHSCBs (i.e. uncertainty of demand management, lack of continuous improvement and learning, lack of deadline management, lack of social audit, warehousing equipment unavailability, human resource shortage and inadequate top level monitoring) were identified as significant cause group where the government, top management and decision-makers of government-supported healthcare supply chain (GHSC) have to put efforts.

Research limitations/implications

The results obtained are specific to the GHSC of Indian perspective, which could be extended to global context. However, the proposed approach can be a base and provide a platform to understand and analyze the interactions among GHSCBs.

Practical implications

The proposed methodology will show the appropriate areas for allocating efforts and resources to mitigate the impact of GHSCBs for successful implementation of healthcare supply chain.

Originality/value

According to best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study of operational barrier for GHSC in India in specific. The use of 5W2H embedded fuzzy DEMATEL approach for the development and analysis of the theoretical framework of Indian GHSCBs is unique in barrier literature.

Allocation of health care under pay for performance: Winners and losers

Many physicians receive a payment for their performance (P4P). This performance is often linked to a health target that triggers a bonus when met. For some patients the target is easily met, while others require a significant amount of care to reach the target (if ever). This study contributes to the literature by providing evidence of how P4P affects allocation of care across patients with low and high responsiveness to treatment compared to a fixed payment, such as capitation and salary, under different degrees of resource constraint. Our evidence is based on a controlled laboratory experiment involving 143 medical students in Denmark in 2019. We find that patients who have the potential to reach the health target, gain care under P4P, whereas patients with no potential to reach it, may receive less care. Redistribution of care between patients under P4P arises when physicians are resource constrained. As many physicians are currently operating under tight resource constraints, policymakers should be careful to avoid unintended inequalities in patients' access to health care when introducing P4P. Risk-adjusting the performance target may potentially solve this issue.

Socioeconomic inequalities in the quality of primary care under Brazil's national pay-for-performance programme: a longitudinal study of family health teams

Background

Many governments have introduced pay-for-performance programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care. Evidence on whether these programmes reduce or exacerbate disparities in health care is scarce. In this study, we aimed to assess socioeconomic inequalities in the performance of family health teams under Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ).

Methods

For this longitudinal study, we analysed data on the quality of care delivered by family health teams participating in PMAQ over three rounds of implementation: round 1 (November, 2011, to March, 2013), round 2 (April, 2013, to September, 2015), and round 3 (October, 2015, to December, 2019). The primary outcome was the percentage of the maximum performance score obtainable by family health teams (the PMAQ score), based on several hundred (ranging from 598 to 914) indicators of health-care delivery. Using census data on household income of local areas, we examined the PMAQ score by income ventile. We used ordinary least squares regressions to examine the association between PMAQ scores and the income of each local area across implementation rounds, and we did an analysis of variance to assess geographical variation in PMAQ score.

Findings

Of the 40 361 family health teams that were registered as ever participating in PMAQ, we included 13 934 teams that participated in the three rounds of PMAQ in our analysis. These teams were located in 11 472 census areas and served approximately 48 million people. The mean PMAQ score was 61·0% (median 61·8, IQR 55·3–67·9) in round 1, 55·3% (median 56·0, IQR 47·6–63·4) in round 2, and 61·6% (median 62·7, IQR 54·4–69·9) in round 3. In round 1, we observed a positive socioeconomic gradient, with the mean PMAQ score ranging from 56·6% in the poorest group to 64·1% in the richest group. Between rounds 1 and 3, mean PMAQ performance increased by 7·1 percentage points for the poorest group and decreased by 0·8 percentage points for the richest group (p<0·0001), with the gap between richest and poorest narrowing from 7·5 percentage points (95% CI 6·5 to 8·5) to –0·4 percentage points over the same period (–1·6 to 0·8).

Interpretation

Existing income inequalities in the delivery of primary health care were eliminated during the three rounds of PMAQ, plausibly due to a design feature of PMAQ that adjusted financial payments for socioeconomic inequalities. However, there remains an important policy agenda in Brazil to address the large inequities in health.

Funding

UK Medical Research Council, Newton Fund, and CONFAP (Conselho Nacional das Fundações Estaduais de Amparo à Pesquisa).

Pay for Performance: A Reflection on How a Global Perspective Could Enhance Policy and Research

Pay-for-performance (P4P) is the provision of financial incentives to healthcare providers based on pre-specified performance targets. P4P has been used as a policy tool to improve healthcare provision globally. However, researchers tend to cluster into those working on high or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with still limited knowledge exchange, potentially constraining opportunities for learning from across income settings. We reflect here on some commonalities and differences in the design of P4P schemes, research questions, methods and data across income settings. We highlight how a global perspective on knowledge synthesis could lead to innovations and further knowledge advancement.

Effects of an Electronic Software "Prompt" With Health Care Professional Training on Cardiovascular and Renal Complications in a Multiethnic Population With Type 2 Diabetes and Microalbuminuria (the GP-Prompt Study): Results of a Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Tight, targeted control of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors can reduce cardiovascular complications and mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and microalbuminuria. The effects of using an electronic "prompt" with a treatment algorithm to support a treat-to-target approach has not been tested in primary care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multicenter, cluster-randomized trial was conducted among primary care practices across Leicestershire, U.K. The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals achieving systolic and diastolic blood pressure (<130 and <80 mmHg, respectively) and total cholesterol (<3.5 mmol/L) targets at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included proportion of individuals with HbA_1c <58 mmol/mol (<7.5%), changes in prescribing, change in the albumin-to-creatinine ratio, major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and coding accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 2,721 individuals from 22 practices, mean age 63 years, 41% female, and 62% from black and minority ethnic groups completed 2 years of follow-up. There were no significant differences in the proportion of individuals achieving the composite primary outcome, although the proportion of individuals achieving the prespecified outcome of total cholesterol <4.0 mmol/L (odds ratio 1.24; 95% CI 1.05-1.47; P = 0.01) increased with intensive intervention compared with control. Coding for microalbuminuria increased relative to control (odds ratio 2.05; 95% CI 1.29-3.25; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater improvements in composite cardiovascular risk factor control with this intervention compared with standard care were not achieved in this cohort of high-risk individuals with T2DM. However, improvements in lipid profile and coding can benefit patients with diabetes to alter the high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. Future studies should consider comprehensive strategies, including patient education and health care professional engagement, in the management of T2DM.

Improving primary care management of asthma: do we know what really works?

Asthma imposes a substantial burden on individuals and societies. Patients with asthma need high-quality primary care management; however, evidence suggests the quality of this care can be highly variable. Here we identify and report factors contributing to high-quality management. Twelve primary care global asthma experts, representing nine countries, identified key factors. A literature review (past 10 years) was performed to validate or refute the expert viewpoint. Key driving factors identified were: policy, clinical guidelines, rewards for performance, practice organisation and workforce. Further analysis established the relevant factor components. Review evidence supported the validity of each driver; however, impact on patient outcomes was uncertain. Single interventions (e.g. healthcare practitioner education) showed little effect; interventions driven by national policy (e.g. incentive schemes and teamworking) were more effective. The panel's opinion, supported by literature review, concluded that multiple primary care interventions offer greater benefit than any single intervention in asthma management.

Physician Incentives and Sex/Gender Differences in Depression Care: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Introduction: Physician incentives have been shown to reduce socioeconomic disparities in health care. The impact on sex/gender inequalities, however, has rarely been investigated. Using population-based data, this study investigated sex/gender differences in depression care and the impact of physician incentives.

Methods: Deidentified health data from physician claims, hospitals, vital statistics, prescription database, and insurance plan registries in British Columbia, Canada, were examined, retrospectively. Individuals with depression were identified and their use of mental health services was tracked for 12 months following initial diagnosis. The following indicators were assessed: (1) counseling/psychotherapy (CP), (2) minimally adequate counseling/psychotherapy (MACP), (3) antidepressant therapy (AT), and (4) minimally adequate antidepressant therapy (MAAT). Sex/gender differences in these indicators before (January 2005–December 2007) and after (January 2008–December 2012) the introduction of physician incentives were estimated using interrupted time series analysis.

Results: Preintervention, the percentage of individuals with depression who received CP was higher among males (CP: 58.4%, MACP: 13.6%) than females (CP: 57.1%, MACP: 10.9%). In contrast, the percentage who received AT was higher among females (AT: 57.7%, MAAT: 47.4%) than males (AT: 53.6%, MAAT: 41.9%). These statistically significant sex/gender differences remain unchanged postintervention.

Conclusions: Sex/gender differences in depression care persist despite the introduction of physician incentives.

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.

Better and fulfilling healthcare at lower costs: The need to manage health systems as complex adaptive systems

Rising healthcare costs are major concerns in most high-income countries. Yet, political measures to reduce costs have so far remained futile and have damaged the best interests of patients and citizen. We therefore explored the possibilities to analyze healthcare systems as a socially constructed complex adaptive system (CAS) and found that by their very nature such CAS tend not to respond as expected to top-down interventions. As CAS have emergent behaviors, the focus on their drivers - purpose, economy and behavioral norms - requires particular attention. First, the importance of understanding the purpose of health care as improvement of health and its experience has been emphasized by two recent complementary re-definitions of health and disease. The economic models underpinning today's healthcare - profit maximization - have shifted the focus away from its main purpose. Second, although economic considerations are important, they must serve and not dominate the provision of healthcare delivery. Third, expected health professionals' behavioral norms - to first consider the health and wellbeing of patients - have been codified in the universally accepted Declaration of Geneva 2017. Considering these three aspects it becomes clear that complex adaptive healthcare systems need mindful top-down/bottom-up leadership that supports the nature of innovation for health care driven by local needs. The systemic focus on improving people's health will then result in significant cost reductions.

Does payment for performance increase performance inequalities across health providers? A case study of Tanzania

The impact of payment-for-performance (P4P) schemes in the health sector has been documented, but there has been little attention to the distributional effects of P4P across health facilities. We examined the distribution of P4P payouts over time and assessed whether increased service coverage due to P4P differed across facilities in Tanzania. We used two service outcomes that improved due to P4P [facility-based deliveries and provision of antimalarials during antenatal care (ANC)], to also assess whether incentive design matters for performance inequalities. We used data from 150 facilities from intervention and comparison areas in January 2012 and 13 months later. Our primary data were gathered through facility survey and household survey, while data on performance payouts were obtained from the programme administrator. Descriptive inequality measures were used to examine the distribution of payouts across facility subgroups. Difference-in-differences regression analyses were used to identify P4P differential effects on the two service coverage outcomes across facility subgroups. We found that performance payouts were initially higher among higher-level facilities (hospitals and health centres) compared with dispensaries, among facilities with more medical commodities and among facilities serving wealthier populations, but these inequalities declined over time. P4P had greater effects on coverage of institutional deliveries among facilities with low baseline performance, serving middle wealth populations and located in rural areas. P4P effects on antimalarials provision during ANC was similar across facilities. Performance inequalities were influenced by the design of incentives and a range of facility characteristics; however, the nature of the service being targeted is also likely to have affected provider response. Further research is needed to examine in more detail the effects of incentive design on outcomes and researchers should be encouraged to report on design aspects in their evaluations of P4P and systematically monitor and report subgroup effects across providers.

Economic Dimensions of Health Inequities: The Role of Implementation Research

Health inequities are well-documented, but their economic dimensions have received less attention. In this report, we describe four economic dimensions of health inequities in the United States. First, we describe an economic conceptual framework that connects poverty and health inequities at both individual and population levels and conveys the concept of reverse causality, where poverty worsens health inequities and health inequities worsen poverty. This framework can help us understand the key elements of health inequity and its drivers. Second, we describe economic measurements used for quantifying the economic burden of health inequalities and summarize the empirical findings from studies. Third, we review the evidence on the return-on-investment of economic interventions that are aimed at reducing health inequities. Finally, we highlight the importance of cross disciplinary perspectives from economics and implementation research in effectively delivering interventions that can mitigate health inequities.

Promoting Health Equity And Eliminating Disparities Through Performance Measurement And Payment

Current approaches to health care quality have failed to reduce health care disparities. Despite dramatic increases in the use of quality measurement and associated payment policies, there has been no notable implementation of measurement strategies to reduce health disparities. The National Quality Forum developed a road map to demonstrate how measurement and associated policies can contribute to eliminating disparities and promote health equity. Specifically, the road map presents a four-part strategy whose components are identifying and prioritizing areas to reduce health disparities, implementing evidence-based interventions to reduce disparities, investing in the development and use of health equity performance measures, and incentivizing the reduction of health disparities and achievement of health equity. To demonstrate how the road map can be applied, we present an example of how measurement and value-based payment can be used to reduce racial disparities in hypertension among African Americans.

Who benefits from increased service utilisation? Examining the distributional effects of payment for performance in Tanzania

BACKGROUND

Payment for performance (P4P) strategies, which provide financial incentives to health workers and/or facilities for reaching pre-defined performance targets, can improve healthcare utilisation and quality. P4P may also reduce inequalities in healthcare use and access by enhancing universal access to care, for example, through reducing the financial barriers to accessing care. However, P4P may also enhance inequalities in healthcare if providers cherry-pick the easier-to-reach patients to meet their performance targets. In this study, we examine the heterogeneity of P4P effects on service utilisation across population subgroups and its implications for inequalities in Tanzania.

METHODS

We used household data from an evaluation of a P4P programme in Tanzania. We surveyed about 3000 households with women who delivered in the last 12 months prior to the interview from seven intervention and four comparison districts in January 2012 and a similar number of households in 13 months later. The household data were used to generate the population subgroups and to measure the incentivised service utilisation outcomes. We focused on two outcomes that improved significantly under the P4P, i.e. institutional delivery rate and the uptake of antimalarials for pregnant women. We used a difference-in-differences linear regression model to estimate the effect of P4P on utilisation outcomes across the different population subgroups.

RESULTS

P4P led to a significant increase in the rate of institutional deliveries among women in poorest and in middle wealth status households, but not among women in least poor households. However, the differential effect was marginally greater among women in the middle wealth households compared to women in the least poor households (p = 0.094). The effect of P4P on institutional deliveries was also significantly higher among women in rural districts compared to women in urban districts (p = 0.028 for differential effect), and among uninsured women than insured women (p = 0.001 for differential effect). The effect of P4P on the uptake of antimalarials was equally distributed across population subgroups.

CONCLUSION

P4P can enhance equitable healthcare access and use especially when the demand-side barriers to access care such as user fees associated with drug purchase due to stock-outs have been reduced.

The role of spoken language in cardiovascular health inequalities: a cross-sectional study of people with non-English language preference

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic and ethnic factors are established determinants of cardiovascular health inequalities. The role of low proficiency in the majority language as a mediator of these inequalities is uncertain.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the association between non-English language preference and cardiovascular health inequalities in a community in London.

DESIGN & SETTING

Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of anonymised patient-level data collected from general practices in Lambeth, south London.

METHOD

Cardiovascular disease prevalence, monitoring, and risk-identification data were compared between non-English and English language groups using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the total number of patients registered at the 49 participating practices, 302 404 (83%) patients were aged ≥18 years. Preferred language was recorded by 69.4%: English 53.6%, Portuguese 3.2%, Spanish 2.6%, French 1.6%, Polish 1.4%, Somali 0.5%, and others 7.1%; 30.6% had no record of language preference. The non-English language preference group had a greater likelihood of coronary heart disease ([CHD], odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.34); diabetes mellitus ([DM], OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.43); obesity (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.13); and smoking (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.21), but no difference in the prevalence of hypertension or stroke. Cardiovascular monitoring was not less intense in this group. Portuguese-speakers (the largest non-English language preference group) had a greater likelihood of hypertension (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.30 to 1.57); DM (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.50 to 2.02); stroke (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.81); obesity (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.36 to 1.73); and smoking (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.25).

CONCLUSION

The non-English language preference group was associated with a greater risk of some aspects of cardiovascular disease than the English language preference group, probably reflecting shared cultural and behavioural risk. Non-English language preference was not associated with lower rates of cardiovascular monitoring, providing some evidence of equitable primary care access in this group.

Association of Practice-Level Social and Medical Risk With Performance in the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program

IMPORTANCE

Medicare recently launched the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (PVBM) Program, a mandatory pay-for-performance program for physician practices. Little is known about performance by practices that serve socially or medically high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare performance in the PVBM Program by practice characteristics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional observational study using PVBM Program data for payments made in 2015 based on performance of large US physician practices caring for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2013.

EXPOSURES

High social risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid) and high medical risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of mean Hierarchical Condition Category risk score among fee-for-service beneficiaries).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality and cost z scores based on a composite of individual measures. Higher z scores reflect better performance on quality; lower scores, better performance on costs.

RESULTS

Among 899 physician practices with 5 189 880 beneficiaries, 547 practices were categorized as low risk (neither high social nor high medical risk) (mean, 7909 beneficiaries; mean, 320 clinicians), 128 were high medical risk only (mean, 3675 beneficiaries; mean, 370 clinicians), 102 were high social risk only (mean, 1635 beneficiaries; mean, 284 clinicians), and 122 were high medical and social risk (mean, 1858 beneficiaries; mean, 269 clinicians). Practices categorized as low risk performed the best on the composite quality score (z score, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.28]) compared with each of the practices categorized as high risk (high medical risk only: z score, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.77 to -0.32]; high social risk only: z score, -0.86 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.54]; and high medical and social risk: -0.78 [95% CI, -1.04 to -0.51]) (P < .001 across groups). Practices categorized as high social risk only performed the best on the composite cost score (z score, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.33]), low risk had the next best cost score (z score, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.10]), then high medical and social risk (z score, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.57]), and then high medical risk only (z score, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99]) (P < .001 across groups). Total per capita costs were $9506 for practices categorized as low risk, $13 683 for high medical risk only, $8214 for high social risk only, and $11 692 for high medical and social risk. These patterns were associated with fewer bonuses and more penalties for high-risk practices.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

During the first year of the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program, physician practices that served more socially high-risk patients had lower quality and lower costs, and practices that served more medically high-risk patients had lower quality and higher costs.

Evaluation of community provision of a preventive cardiovascular programme - the National Health Service Health Check in reaching the under-served groups by primary care in England: cross sectional observational study

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of premature mortality and a major contributor of health inequalities in England. Compared to more affluent and white counterparts, deprived people and ethnic minorities tend to die younger due to preventable CVD associated with lifestyle. In addition, deprived, ethnic minorities and younger people are less likely to be served by CVD prevention services. This study assessed the effectiveness of community-based outreach providers in delivering England’s National Health Services (NHS) Health Check programme, a CVD preventive programme to under-served groups.

Methods

Between January 2008 and October 2013, community outreach providers delivered a preventive CVD programme to 50,573 individuals, in their local communities, in a single consultation without prescheduled appointments. Community outreach providers operated on evenings and weekends as well as during regular business hours in venues accessible to the general public. After exclusion criteria, we analysed and compared socio-demographic data of 43,177 Health Check attendees with the general population across 38 local authorities (LAs). We assessed variation between local authorities in terms of age, sex, deprivation and ethnicity structures using two sample t-tests and within local authority variation in terms of ethnicity and deprivation using Chi squared tests and two sample t-tests respectively.

Results

Using Index of Multiple Deprivation, the mean deprivation score of the population reached by community outreach providers was 6.01 higher (p < 0.05) than the general population. Screened populations in 29 of 38 LAs were significantly more deprived (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference among ethnic minority groups was observed between LAs. Nonetheless some LAs – namely Leicester, Thurrock, Sutton, South Tyneside, Portsmouth and Gateshead were very successful in recruiting ethnic minority groups. The mean proportion of men screened was 11.39% lower (p < 0.001) and mean proportion of 40–49 and 50–59 year olds was 9.98% and 3.58% higher (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.01 respectively) than the general population across 38 LAs.

Conclusions

Community-based outreach providers effectively reach under-served groups by delivering preventive CVD services to younger, more deprived populations, and a representative proportion of ethnic minority groups. If the programme is successful in motivating the under-served groups to improve lifestyle, it may reduce health inequalities therein.

Characterization and effectiveness of pay-for-performance in ophthalmology: a systematic review

Background

To identify, characterize and compare existing pay-for-performance approaches and their impact on the quality of care and efficiency in ophthalmology.

Methods

A systematic evidence-based review was conducted. English, French and German written literature published between 2000 and 2015 were searched in the following databases: Medline (via PubMed), NCBI web site, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Econlit and the Cochrane Library. Empirical as well as descriptive articles were included. Controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled studies as well as observational studies were included as empirical articles. Systematic characterization of identified pay-for-performance approaches (P4P approaches) was conducted according to the “Model for Implementing and Monitoring Incentives for Quality” (MIMIQ). Methodological quality of empirical articles was assessed according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists.

Results

Overall, 13 relevant articles were included. Eleven articles were descriptive and two articles included empirical analyses. Based on these articles, four different pay-for-performance approaches implemented in the United States were identified. With regard to quality and incentive elements, systematic comparison showed numerous differences between P4P approaches. Empirical studies showed isolated cost or quality effects, while a simultaneous examination of these effects was missing.

Conclusion

Research results show that experiences with pay-for-performance approaches in ophthalmology are limited. Identified approaches differ with regard to quality and incentive elements restricting comparability. Two empirical studies are insufficient to draw strong conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of these approaches.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2333-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of a Pay-for-Performance Program on Care for Black Patients with Hypertension: Important Answers in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the effect of a pay-for-performance intervention on the quality of hypertension care provided to black patients and determine whether it produced risk selection.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING

Primary data collected between 2007 and 2009 from Veterans Affairs physicians and their primary care panels.

STUDY DESIGN

Nested study within a cluster randomized controlled trial of three types of financial incentives and no incentives (control). We compared the proportion of physicians' black patients meeting hypertension performance measures for baseline and final performance periods. We measured risk selection by comparing the proportion of patients who switched providers, patient visit frequency, and panel turnover. Due to limited power, we prespecified in the analysis plan combining the three incentive groups and oversampling black patients.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD

Data collected electronically and by chart review.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The proportion of black patients who achieved blood pressure control or received an appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure in the final period was 6.3 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 0.8-11.7 percent) greater for physicians who received an incentive than for controls. There was no difference between intervention and controls in the proportion of patients who switched providers, visit frequency, or panel turnover.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A pay-for-performance intervention improved blood pressure control or appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure in black patients and did not produce risk selection.

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.

Impact of Provider Incentives on Quality and Value of Health Care

The use of financial incentives to improve quality in health care has become widespread. Yet evidence on the effectiveness of incentives suggests that they have generally had limited impact on the value of care and have not led to better patient outcomes. Lessons from social psychology and behavioral economics indicate that incentive programs in health care have not been effectively designed to achieve their intended impact. In the United States, Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provide evidence on how variations in the design of incentive programs correspond with differences in effect. As financial incentives continue to be used as a tool to increase the value and quality of health care, improving the design of programs will be crucial to ensure their success.

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.

Is the distribution of care quality provided under pay-for-performance equitable? Evidence from the Advancing Quality programme in England

BACKGROUND

The limited number of existing previous studies of the distribution of quality under NHS Pay-for-performance (P4P) by income deprivation have not analysed the relationship at the individual level and have been restricted to assessing P4P in the primary care setting. In this study, we set out to examine how achievement of P4P 'quality measures' for which NHS hospitals were paid was distributed by income deprivation.

METHODS

Design: Retrospective analysis of performance data reported by hospitals, examining how the probability of receiving 23 indicators varied by patients' area deprivation using logistic regression controlling for age and gender.

SAMPLE

We use anonymised observational data on 73,002 patients admitted to hospitals in the North West of England between October 2008 and March 2010 for the following five reasons: acute myocardial infarction; coronary artery bypass grafting; heart failure; hip and knee replacement; and pneumonia.

RESULTS

The relationship between quality and deprivation varies depending on the point of delivery in the treatment pathway, and on whether delivered for conditions in scheduled or unscheduled care. For diagnostic tests on arrival, receipt of quality was: pro-rich in scheduled care and pro-poor in unscheduled care. Receipt of quality was pro-poor for pre-surgery measures in scheduled care. Receipt of quality at discharge was pro-rich.

CONCLUSION

Unlike in primary care, in secondary care quality is not systemically distributed by income deprivation under P4P. Whilst improvements in health inequalities are important system objectives; they may not necessarily be achieved by the adoption of P4P schemes in hospitals.

Creating the Business Case for Achieving Health Equity

Health care organizations have increasingly acknowledged the presence of health care disparities across race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, but significantly fewer have made health equity for diverse patients a true priority. Lack of financial incentives is a major barrier to achieving health equity. To create a business case for equity, governmental and private payors can: 1) Require health care organizations to report clinical performance data stratified by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. 2) Incentivize preventive care and primary care. Implement more aggressive shared savings plans, update physician relative value unit fee schedules, and encourage partnerships across clinical and non-clinical sectors. 3) Incentivize the reduction of health disparities with equity accountability measures in payment programs. 4) Align equity accountability measures across public and private payors. 5) Assist safety-net organizations. Provide adequate Medicaid reimbursement, risk-adjust clinical performance scores for sociodemographic characteristics of patients, provide support for quality improvement efforts, and calibrate cuts to Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments to the pace of health insurance expansion. 6) Conduct demonstration projects to test payment and delivery system reform interventions to reduce disparities. Commitment to social justice is essential to achieve health equity, but insufficient without a strong business case that makes interventions financially feasible.

Would German physicians opt for pay-for-performance programs? A willingness-to-accept experiment in a large general practitioners' sample

BACKGROUND

Implementing pay-for-performance (P4P) programs is a non-trivial task. As evaluation studies showed, P4P programs often failed to improve performance quality. A crucial element for the successful implementation of P4P is to gain acceptance with health care providers.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to determine, if (and at what bonus rate) German general practitioners (GPs) would participate in a P4P program. We further examined differences between respondents who would participate in a P4P program (participants) versus respondents who would not participate (non-participants).

METHODS

A mail survey was conducted among 2493 general practitioners (GPs) in Lower Saxony (with a response rate of 36.2%). The questionnaire addressed attitudes toward P4P and included a willingness to accept experiment concerning P4P implementation.

RESULTS

The participation rate increased from 28% (at a bonus of 2.5%) to 50% (at a bonus of 20%). Participants showed better performance in target achievement and expected higher gains from P4P than non-participants. Major attitude differences were found in assessing feasibility of P4P, incentivizing performance and unintended consequences. The crucial factor for (not) accepting P4P might be the sense of (un)fairness of P4P.

CONCLUSION

To convince GPs to participate in P4P, better evidence for the effectiveness of P4P is required. To address the concerns of GPs, future endeavors should be directed to tailoring P4P programs. Finally, program implementation must be well communicated and thoroughly discussed with health care providers.

How Financial and Reputational Incentives Can Be Used to Improve Medical Care

OBJECTIVES

Narrative review of the impact of pay-for-performance (P4P) and public reporting (PR) on health care outcomes, including spillover effects and impact on disparities.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The impact of P4P and PR is dependent on the underlying payment system (fee-for-service, salary, capitation) into which these schemes are introduced. Both have the potential to improve care, but they can also have substantial unintended consequences. Evidence from the behavioral economics literature suggests that individual physicians will vary in how they respond to incentives. We also discuss issues to be considered when including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or patient-reported experience measures into P4P and PR schemes.

CONCLUSION

We provide guidance to payers and policy makers on the design of P4P and PR programs so as to maximize their benefits and minimize their unintended consequences. These include involving clinicians in the design of the program, taking into account the payment system into which new incentives are introduced, designing the structure of reward programs to maximize the likelihood of intended outcomes and minimize the likelihood of unintended consequences, designing schemes that minimize the risk of increasing disparities, providing stability of incentives over some years, and including outcomes that are relevant to patients' priorities. In addition, because of the limitations of PR and P4P as effective interventions in their own right, it is important that they are combined with other policies and interventions intended to improve quality to maximize their likely impact.

Financial incentive schemes in primary care

Pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes have become increasingly common in primary care, and this article reviews their impact. It is based primarily on existing systematic reviews. The evidence suggests that P4P schemes can change health professionals' behavior and improve recorded disease management of those clinical processes that are incentivized. P4P may narrow inequalities in performance comparing deprived with nondeprived areas. However, such schemes have unintended consequences. Whether P4P improves the patient experience, the outcomes of care or population health is less clear. These practical uncertainties mirror the ethical concerns of many clinicians that a reductionist approach to managing markers of chronic disease runs counter to the humanitarian values of family practice. The variation in P4P schemes between countries reflects different historical and organizational contexts. With so much uncertainty regarding the effects of P4P, policy makers are well advised to proceed carefully with the implementation of such schemes until and unless clearer evidence for their cost-benefit emerges.

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background

This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities.

Aims

The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice.

Methods

We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff.

Findings

Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely.

Future Research

Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Does a local financial incentive scheme reduce inequalities in the delivery of clinical care in a socially deprived community? A longitudinal data analysis

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with inequalities in health care and outcomes. Despite concerns that the Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme in the UK would exacerbate inequalities in primary care delivery, gaps closed over time. Local schemes were promoted as a means of improving clinical engagement by addressing local health priorities. We evaluated equity in achievement of target indicators and practice income for one local scheme.

METHODS

We undertook a longitudinal survey over four years of routinely recorded clinical data for all 83 primary care practices. Sixteen indicators were developed that covered five local clinical and public health priorities: weight management; alcohol consumption; learning disabilities; osteoporosis; and chlamydia screening. Clinical indicators were logit transformed from a percentage achievement scale and modelled allowing for clustering of repeated measures within practices. This enabled our study of target achievements over time with respect to deprivation. Practice income was also explored.

RESULTS

Higher practice deprivation was associated with poorer performance for five indicators: alcohol use registration (OR 0.97; 95 % confidence interval 0.96,0.99); recorded chlamydia test result (OR 0.97; 0.94,0.99); osteoporosis registration (OR 0.98; 0.97,0.99); registration of repeat prednisolone prescription (OR 0.98; 0.96,0.99); and prednisolone registration with record of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan/referral (OR 0.92; 0.86,0.97); practices in deprived areas performed better for one indicator (registration of osteoporotic fragility fracture (OR 1.26; 1.04,1.51). The deprivation-achievement gap widened for one indicator (registered females aged 65-74 with a fracture referred for a DEXA scan; OR 0.97; 0.95,0.99). Two other indicators indicated a similar trend over two years before being withdrawn (registration of fragility fracture and over-75 s with a fragility fracture assessed and treated for osteoporosis risk). For one indicator the deprivation-achievement gap reduced over time (repeat prednisolone prescription (OR 1.01; 1.01,1.01). Larger practices and those serving more affluent areas earned more income per patient than smaller practices and those serving more deprived areas (t = -3.99; p =0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Any gaps in achievement between practices were modest but mostly sustained or widened over the duration of the scheme. Given that financial rewards may not reflect the amount of work undertaken by practices serving more deprived patients, future pay-for-performance schemes also need to address fairness of rewards in relation to workload.

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.

Using provider performance incentives to increase HIV testing and counseling services in Rwanda

Paying for performance provides financial rewards to medical care providers for improvements in performance measured by utilization and quality of care indicators. In 2006, Rwanda began a pay for performance scheme to improve health services delivery, including HIV/AIDS services. Using a prospective quasi-experimental design, this study examines the scheme's impact on individual and couples HIV testing. We find a positive impact of pay for performance on HIV testing among married individuals (10.2 percentage points increase). Paying for performance also increased testing by both partners by 14.7 percentage point among discordant couples in which only one of the partners is an AIDS patient.

Who gets a family physician through centralized waiting lists?

Background

North American patients are experiencing difficulties in securing affiliations with family physicians. Centralized waiting lists are increasingly being used in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to improve access. In 2011, the Canadian province of Quebec introduced new financial incentives for family physicians’ enrolment of orphan patients through centralized waiting lists, the Guichet d’accès aux clientèles orphelines, with higher payments for vulnerable patients. This study analyzed whether any significant changes were observed in the numbers of patient enrolments with family physicians’ after the introduction of the new financial incentives. Prior to then, financial incentives had been offered for enrolment of vulnerable patients only and there were no incentives for enrolling non-vulnerable patients. After 2011, financial incentives were also offered for enrolment of non-vulnerable patients, while those for enrolment of vulnerable patients were doubled.

Methods

A longitudinal quantitative analysis spanning a five-year period (2008–2013) was performed using administrative databases covering all patients enrolled with family physicians through centralized waiting lists in the province of Quebec (n = 494,697 patients). Mixed regression models for repeated-measures were used.

Results

The number of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists more than quadrupled after the changes in financial incentives. Most of this increase involved non-vulnerable patients. After the changes, 70% of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists were non-vulnerable patients, most of whom had been referred to the centralized waiting lists by the physician who enrolled them, without first being registered in those lists or having to wait because of their priority level.

Conclusion

Centralized waiting lists linked to financial incentives increased the number of family physicians’ patient enrolments. However, although vulnerable patients were supposed to be given precedence, physicians favoured enrolment of healthier patients over those with greater health needs and higher assessed priority. These results suggest that introducing financial incentives without appropriate regulations may lead to opportunistic use of the incentive system with unintended policy consequences.

Management commitments and primary care: another lesson from Costa Rica for the world?

Maintained dedication to primary care has fostered a public health delivery system with exceptional outcomes in Costa Rica. For more than a decade, management commitments have been part of Costa Rican health reform. We assessed the effect of the Costa Rican management commitments on access and quality of care and on compliance with their intended objectives. We constructed seven hypotheses on opinions of primary care providers. Through a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach, we tested these hypotheses and interpreted the research findings. Management commitments consume an excessive proportion of consultation time, inflate recordkeeping, reduce comprehensiveness in primary care consultations, and induce a disproportionate consumption of hospital emergency services. Their formulation relies on norms in need of optimization, their control on unreliable sources. They also affect professionalism. In Costa Rica, management commitments negatively affect access and quality of care and pose a threat to the public service delivery system. The failures of this pay-for-performance-like initiative in an otherwise well-performing health system cast doubts on the appropriateness of pay-for-performance for health systems strengthening in less advanced environments.

Need and disparities in primary care management of patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND

An aging population means that chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, are becoming more prevalent and demands for care are rising. Members of primary care teams should organize and coordinate patient care with a view to improving quality of care and impartial adherence to evidence-based practices for all patients. The aims of the present study were: to ascertain the prevalence of diabetes in an Italian population, stratified by age, gender and citizenship; and to identify the rate of compliance with recommended guidelines for monitoring diabetes, to see whether disparities exist in the quality of diabetes patient management.

METHODS

A population-based analysis was performed on a dataset obtained by processing public health administration databases. The presence of diabetes and compliance with standards of care were estimated using appropriate algorithms. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was applied to assess factors affecting compliance with standards of care.

RESULTS

1,948,622 Italians aged 16+ were included in the study. In this population, 105,987 subjects were identified as having diabetes on January 1st, 2009. The prevalence of diabetes was 5.43% (95% CI 5.33-5.54) overall, 5.87% (95% CI 5.82-5.92) among males, and 5.05% (95% CI 5.00-5.09) among females. HbA1c levels had been tested in 60.50% of our diabetic subjects, LDL cholesterol levels in 57.50%, and creatinine levels in 63.27%, but only 44.19% of the diabetic individuals had undergone a comprehensive assessment during one year of care. Statistical differences in diabetes care management emerged relating to gender, age, diagnostic latency period, comorbidity and citizenship.

CONCLUSIONS

Process management indicators need to be used not only for the overall assessment of health care processes, but also to monitor disparities in the provision of health care.

Impacts of pay for performance on the quality of primary care

Increasingly, financial incentives are being used in health care as a result of increasing demand for health care coupled with fiscal pressures. Financial incentive schemes are one approach by which the system may incentivize providers of health care to improve productivity and/or adapt to better quality provision. Pay for performance (P4P) is an example of a financial incentive which seeks to link providers’ payments to some measure of performance. This paper provides a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of P4P, gives an overview of the health P4P evidence base, and provide a detailed case study of a particularly large scheme from the English National Health Service. Lessons are then drawn from the evidence base. Overall, we find that the evidence for the effectiveness of P4P for improving quality of care in primary care is mixed. This is to some extent due to the fact that the P4P schemes used in primary care are also mixed. There are many different schemes that incentivize different aspects of care in different ways and in different settings, making evaluation problematic. The Quality and Outcomes Framework in the United Kingdom is the largest example of P4P in primary care. Evidence suggests incentivized quality initially improved following the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework, but this was short-lived. If P4P in primary care is to have a long-term future, the question about scheme effectiveness (perhaps incorporating the identification and assessment of potential risk factors) needs to be answered robustly. This would require that new schemes be designed from the onset to support their evaluation: control and treatment groups, coupled with before and after data.

How might healthcare systems influence speed of cancer diagnosis: a narrative review

Striking differences exist in outcomes for cancer between developed countries with comparable healthcare systems. We compare the healthcare systems of 3 countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), 3 UK jurisdictions (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), 3 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario) and 2 Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria) using a framework which assesses the possible contribution of primary care systems to a range of health outcomes, drawing on key characteristics influencing population health.

For many of the characteristics we investigated there are no significant differences between those countries with poorer cancer outcomes (England and Denmark) and the rest. In particular, regulation, financing, the existence of patient lists, the GP gatekeeping role, direct access to secondary care, the degree of comprehensiveness of primary care services, the level of cost sharing and the type of primary care providers within healthcare systems were not specifically and consistently associated with differences between countries. Factors that could have an influence on patient and professional behaviour, and consequently contribute to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer cancer outcomes in some countries, include centralisation of services, free movement of patients between primary care providers, access to secondary care, and the existence of patient list systems.

It was not possible to establish a causal correlation between healthcare system characteristics and cancer outcomes. Further studies should explore in greater depth the associations between single health system factors and cancer outcomes, recognising that in complex systems where context is all-important, it will be difficult to establish causal relationships. Better understanding of the interaction between healthcare system variables and patient and professional behaviour may generate new hypotheses for further research.

•

We examined cancer outcomes in six developed countries with comparable healthcare systems.

•

Clear differences exist in cancer outcomes between countries with comparable healthcare systems.

•

Centralisation, movement of patients between providers, access to secondary care, and list systems appear influential.

•

Better understanding of interactions between system variables and patient and professional behaviour may improve outcomes.

Short-term incentive schemes for hospital managers

Orientation: Short-term incentives, considered to be an extrinsic motivation, are commonly used to motivate performance. This study explored hospital managers’ perceptions of short term incentives in maximising performance and retention.Research purpose: The study explored the experiences, views and perceptions of private hospital managers in South Africa regarding the use of short-term incentives to maximise performance and retention, as well as the applicability of the findings to public hospitals.Motivation for the study: Whilst there is an established link between performance reward schemes and organisational performance, there is little understanding of the effects of short term incentives on the performance and retention of hospital managers within the South African context.Research design, approach, and method: The study used a qualitative research design: interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 19 hospital managers, and a thematic content analysis was performed.Main findings: Short-term incentives may not be the primary motivator for hospital managers, but they do play a critical role in sustaining motivation. Participants indicated that these schemes could also be applicable to public hospitals.Practical/managerial implications: Hospital managers are inclined to be more motivated by intrinsic than extrinsic factors. However, hospital managers (as middle managers) also seem to be motivated by short-term incentives. A combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators should thus be used to maximise performance and retention.Contribution/value-add: Whilst the study sought to explore hospital managers’ perceptions of short-term incentives, it also found that an adequate balance between internal and external motivators is key to implementing an effective short-term incentive scheme.

Feasibility and effectiveness in clinical practice of a multifactorial intervention for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: the 2-year interim analysis of the MIND.IT study: a cluster randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of an intensive, multifactorial cardiovascular risk reduction intervention in a clinic-based setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial, with the diabetes clinic as the unit of randomization. Clinics were randomly assigned to either continue their usual care (n = 5) or to apply an intensive intervention aimed at the optimal control of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and hyperglycemia (n = 4). To account for clustering, mixed model regression techniques were used to compare differences in CVD risk factors and HbA1c. Analyses were performed both by intent to treat and as treated per protocol.

RESULTS

Nine clinics completed the study; 1,461 patients with type 2 diabetes and no previous cardiovascular events were enrolled. After 2 years, participants in the interventional group had significantly lower BMI, HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels and significantly higher HDL cholesterol level than did the usual care group. The proportion of patients reaching the treatment goals was systematically higher in the interventional clinics (35% vs. 24% for LDL cholesterol, P = 0.1299; 93% vs. 82% for HDL cholesterol, P = 0.0005; 80% vs. 64% for triglycerides, P = 0.0002; 39% vs. 22% for HbA1c, P = 0.0259; 13% vs. 5% for blood pressure, P = 0.1638). The analysis as treated per protocol confirmed these findings, showing larger and always significant differences between the study arms for all targets.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifactorial intensive intervention in type 2 diabetes is feasible and effective in clinical practice and it is associated with significant and durable improvement in HbA1c and CVD risk profile.