Does Pay-For-Performance Program Increase Providers Adherence to Guidelines for Managing Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Taiwan?

Estimating the budget impact of a Tuberculosis strategic purchasing pilot study in Medan, Indonesia (2018-2019)

BACKGROUND

Indonesia has the world's second-highest tuberculosis (TB) burden, with 969,000 annual TB infections. In 2017, Indonesia faced significant challenges in TB care, with 18% of cases missed, 29% of diagnosed cases unreported, and 55.4% of positive results not notified. The government is exploring a new approach called "strategic purchasing" to improve TB detection and treatment rates and offer cost-effective service delivery.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyze the financial impact of implementing a TB purchasing pilot in the city of Medan and assess the project's affordability and value for money.

METHODS

We developed a budget impact model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using strategic purchasing to improve TB reporting and treatment success rates. We used using data from Medan's budget impact model and the Ministry of Health's guidelines to predict the total cost and the cost per patient.

RESULTS

The model showed that strategic purchasing would improve TB reporting by 63% and successful treatments by 64%. While this would lead to a rise in total spending on TB care by 60%, the cost per patient would decrease by 3%. This is because more care would be provided in primary healthcare settings, which are more cost-effective than hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

While strategic purchasing may increase overall spending, it could improve TB care in Indonesia by identifying more cases, treating them more effectively, and reducing the cost per patient. This could potentially lead to long-term cost savings and improved health outcomes.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

Background

Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.

Results

We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.

Conclusions

Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6.

The effect of a pay-for-performance program on health-related quality of life for patients with hepatitis in Taiwan

Purpose

Chronic viral hepatitis is a major global public health problem. The guidelines suggest the long-term performance of regular ongoing liver examinations to monitor liver inflammation and screen for hepatocellular carcinoma. However, the effects of regular liver examinations on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) have not been adequately evaluated. Therefore, this study evaluated the effects of regular ongoing examinations on the quality of life of patients with hepatitis.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted from October to December 2016 in four hospitals in northern Taiwan. A hepatitis pay-for-performance (P4P) program was launched in 2010 to ensure that hepatitis patients have regular ongoing liver examinations. The study group consisted of patients who joined and stayed in the program for more than one year. The study assessed HRQoL utilizing the five-level version of the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and the EuroQoL visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). The responses for the EQ-5D-5L in hepatitis patients were transformed into the EQ-5D index according to the Taiwanese population’s value set. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected by questionnaire, and descriptive statistics were presented. A two-part model and generalized linear model with a Poisson distribution and a log link function, respectively, were used to examine the associations of the EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS score with participation in the hepatitis P4P program. We applied propensity score weighting with inverse probability weighting to control for selection bias.

Results

In all, 508 patients (aged 57.6 ± 11.6 years; 60.8% male) were enrolled in this study. The mean (standard deviation, SD) reported EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS scores were 0.93 (0.12) and 75.1 (13.8), and the median (interquartile range, IQR) values were 1 (0.108) and 80 (15), respectively. The study group had a moderately significantly higher EQ-VAS score (mean ratio = 1.029, P < 0.001). However, the differences in the EQ-5D index scores between the study and control groups were not significant.

Conclusion

Patients with hepatitis partially benefited from receiving hepatitis P4P in Taiwan, which featured regular ongoing liver examinations, in that their EQ-VAS scores were enhanced but not their EQ-5D index scores.

The Linkages Between Reimbursement and Prevention: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Background: The benefits of prevention are widely recognized; ranging from avoiding disease onset to substantially reducing disease burden, which is especially relevant considering the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases. However, its delivery has encountered numerous obstacles in healthcare. While healthcare professionals play an important role in stimulating prevention, their behaviors can be influenced by incentives related to reimbursement schemes.

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to obtain a detailed description and explanation of how reimbursement schemes specifically impact primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention.

Methods: Our study takes a mixed-methods approach. Based on a rapid review of the literature, we include and assess 27 studies. Moreover, we conducted semi-structured interviews with eight Dutch healthcare professionals and two representatives of insurance companies, to obtain a deeper understanding of healthcare professionals' behaviors in response to incentives.

Results: Nor fee-for-service (FFS) nor salary can be unambiguously linked to higher or lower provision of preventive services. However, results suggest that FFS's widely reported incentive to increase production might work in favor of preventive services such as immunizations but provide less incentives for chronic disease management. Salary's incentive toward prevention will be (partially) determined by provider-organization's characteristics and reimbursement. Pay-for-performance (P4P) is not always necessarily translated into better health outcomes, effective prevention, or adequate chronic disease management. P4P is considered disruptive by professionals and our results expose how it can lead professionals to resort to (over)medicalization in order to achieve targets. Relatively new forms of reimbursement such as population-based payment may incentivize professionals to adapt the delivery of care to facilitate the delivery of some forms of prevention.

Conclusion: There is not one reimbursement scheme that will stimulate all levels of prevention. Certain types of reimbursement work well for certain types of preventive care services. A volume incentive could be beneficial for prevention activities that are easy to specify. Population-based capitation can help promote preventive activities that require efforts that are not incentivized under other reimbursements, for instance activities that are not easily specified, such as providing education on lifestyle factors related to a patient's (chronic) disease.

Effectiveness of Nationwide COPD Pay-for-Performance Program on COPD Exacerbations in Taiwan

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It has also imposed a substantial economic and social burden on the health care system. In Taiwan, a nationwide COPD pay-for-performance (P4P) program was designed to improve the quality of COPD-related care by introducing financial incentives for health care providers and employing a multidisciplinary team to deliver guideline-based, integrated care for patients with COPD, reducing adverse outcomes, especially COPD exacerbation. However, the results of a survey of the effectiveness of the pay-for-performance program in COPD management were inconclusive. To address this knowledge gap, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the COPD P4P program in Taiwan.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance claims database and nationwide COPD P4P enrollment program records from June 2016 to December 2018. Patients with COPD were classified into P4P and non-P4P groups. Patients in the P4P group were matched at a ratio of 1:1 based on age, gender, region, accreditation level, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and inhaled medication prescription type to create the non-P4P group. A difference-in-difference analysis was used to evaluate the influence of the P4P program on the likelihood of COPD exacerbation, namely COPD-related emergency department (ED) visit, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or hospitalization.

Results

The final sample of 14,288 patients comprised 7144 in each of the P4P and non-P4P groups. The prevalence of COPD-related ED visits, ICU admissions, and hospitalizations was higher in the P4P group than in the non-P4P group 1 year before enrollment. After enrollment, the P4P group exhibited a greater decrease in the prevalence of COPD-related ED visits and hospitalizations than the non-P4P group (ED visit: −2.98%, p<0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.277 to −0.086; hospitalization: −1.62%, p<0.05, 95% CI: −0.232 to −0.020), whereas no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of the changes in the prevalence of COPD-related ICU admissions.

Conclusion

The COPD P4P program exerted a positive net effect on reducing the likelihood of COPD exacerbation, namely COPD-related ED visits and hospitalizations. Future studies should examine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the COPD P4P program.

Addressing Barriers to On-site HIV and HCV Testing Services in Methadone Maintenance Treatment Programs in the United States: Findings From a National Multisite Qualitative Study

CONTEXT

Few substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs provide on-site human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and/or hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing, despite evidence that these tests are cost-effective.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) programs that offer on-site HIV/HCV testing have integrated testing services, and the challenges related to offering on-site HIV/HCV testing.

DESIGN

We used the 2014 National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey to identify outpatient SUD treatment programs that reported offering on-site HIV/HCV testing to 75% or more of their clients. We stratified the sample to identify programs based on combinations of funding source, type of drug treatment offered, and Medicaid-managed care arrangements. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with leadership and staff in 2017-2018 using a directed content analysis approach to identify dominant themes.

SETTING

Seven MMT programs located in 6 states in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen leadership and staff from 7 MMT programs with on-site HIV/HCV testing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Themes related to integration of on-site HIV/HCV testing.

RESULTS

Methadone maintenance treatment programs identified 3 domains related to the integration of HIV/HCV testing on-site at MMT programs: (1) payment and billing, (2) internal and external stakeholders, and (3) medical and SUD treatment coordination. Programs identified the absence of state policies that facilitate medical billing and inconsistent grant funding as major barriers. Testing availability was limited by the frequency at which external organizations could provide services on-site, the reliability of those external relationships, and MMT staffing. Poor electronic health record systems and privacy policies that prevent medical information sharing between medical and SUD treatment providers also limited effective care coordination.

CONCLUSION

Effective and sustainable integration of on-site HIV/HCV testing by MMT programs in the United States will require more consistent funding, improved billing options, technical assistance, electronic health record system enhancement and coordination, and policy changes related to privacy.

Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

This study investigated if the evidence on the success of the Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes in healthcare is changing as the schemes continue to evolve by updating a previous systematic review.

METHODS

A meta-regression analysis using 116 studies evaluating P4P schemes published between January 2010 to February 2018. The effects of the research design, incentive schemes, use of incentives, and the size of the payment to revenue ratio on the proportion of statically significant effects in each study were examined.

RESULTS

There was evidence of an increase in the range of countries adopting P4P schemes and weak evidence that the proportion of studies with statistically significant effects have increased. Factors hypothesized to influence the success of schemes have not changed. Studies evaluating P4P schemes which made payments for improvement over time, were associated with a lower proportion of statistically significant effects. There was weak evidence of a positive association between the incentives' size and the proportion of statistically significant effects.

CONCLUSION

The evidence on the effectiveness of P4P schemes is evolving slowly, with little evidence that lessons are being learned concerning the design and evaluation of P4P schemes.

Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

Awareness of, attitude toward, and willingness to participate in pay for performance programs among family physicians: a cross-sectional study

Background

The National Health Insurance Administration of Taiwan has introduced several pay-for-performance programs to improve the quality of healthcare. This study aimed to provide government with evidence-based research findings to help primary care physicians to actively engage in pay-for-performance programs.

Methods

We conducted a questionnaire survey among family physicians with age-stratified sampling from September 2016 to December 2017. The structured questionnaire consisted of items including the basic demographics of the surveyee and their awareness of and attitudes toward the strengths and/or weaknesses of the pay-for-performance programs, as well as their subjective norms, and the willingness to participate in the pay-for-performance programs. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to compare the differences between family physicians who participate in the pay-for-performance programs versus those who did not.

Results

A total of 543 family physicians completed the questionnaire. Among family physicians who participated in the pay-for-performance programs, more had joined the Family Practice Integrated Care Project [Odds ratio (OR): 2.70; 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.78 ~ 4.09], had a greater awareness of pay-for-performance programs (OR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.50 ~ 3.83), and a less negative attitude to pay-for-performance programs (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.31 ~ 0.80) after adjusting for age and gender. The major reasons for family physicians who decided to join the pay-for-performance programs included believing the programs help enhance the quality of healthcare (80.8%) and recognizing the benefit of saving health expenditure (63.4%). The causes of unwillingness to join in a pay-for-performance program among non-participants were increased load of administrative works (79.6%) and inadequate understanding of the contents of the pay-for-performance programs (62.9%).

Conclusions

To better motivate family physicians into P4P participation, hosting effective training programs, developing a more transparent formula for assessing financial risk, providing sufficient budget for healthcare quality improvement, and designing a reasonable profit-sharing plan to promote collaboration between different levels of medical institutions are all imperative.

The effect of a hepatitis pay-for-performance program on outcomes of patients undergoing antiviral therapy

Background

To examine the effect of a participatory pay-for-performance (P4P) program in Taiwan on health outcomes for patients with severe hepatitis B or C.

Methods

This study adopted 4-year panel data from the databases of the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) in Taiwan. Using the caliper matching method to match patients in the P4P (experimental) group with those in the potential comparison group on a one-to-one basis for the year 2010, we tracked patients up to the year 2013 and employed Cox proportional-hazards regression models to evaluate the effect on patient outcomes.

Results

The P4P group did not have a lower risk (HR = 0.44, P = 0.05) of hospital admission for severe hepatitis patients (i.e. need antiviral therapy). The risk of developing liver cirrhosis was also lower, but the reduction was not statistically significant (HR = 0.92, P = 0.77).

Conclusions

This study found that participatory-type P4P has not resulted in reduced hospital admission of hepatitis B or C patients who need antiviral therapy. The means by which the participatory P4P program could strengthen patient-centered care to achieve better patient health outcomes is discussed in detail.