Literature DB >> 15515994

The influence of year-end bonuses on colorectal cancer screening.

Brian S Armour1, Carol Friedman, M Melinda Pitts, Jennifer Wike, Linda Alley, Jeff Etchason.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of physician bonus eligibility on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, controlling for patient and primary care physician characteristics. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective study using managed care plan claims data from 2000 and 2001.
METHODS: Data on 50-year-old commercially insured patients in a managed care health plan were linked to enrollment and provider files. The data included information on 6749 patients (3058 in 2000 and 3691 in 2001). Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the association between CRC screening receipt and physician bonus eligibility.
RESULTS: From 2000 to 2001, CRC screening use increased from 23.4% to 26.4% (P < .01). Results from the multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the probability that a patient received a CRC screening was approximately 3 percentage points higher in the bonus year, 2001 (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Bonuses targeted at individual physicians were associated with increased use of CRC screening tests. However, more research is needed to examine the effect of performance-based incentives on resource use and the quality of medical care. Specifically, there is a need to determine whether explicit financial incentives are effective in reducing racial disparities in the quality of patient care. This has particular relevance for CRC screening given that black patients are less likely to be screened, they have higher CRC incidence and mortality rates compared with other racial groups, and screening has been shown to be more cost effective in this population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15515994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Manag Care        ISSN: 1088-0224            Impact factor:   2.229


  8 in total

1.  Measuring Success in Health Care Value-Based Purchasing Programs: Findings from an Environmental Scan, Literature Review, and Expert Panel Discussions.

Authors:  Cheryl L Damberg; Melony E Sorbero; Susan L Lovejoy; Grant R Martsolf; Laura Raaen; Daniel Mandel
Journal:  Rand Health Q       Date:  2014-12-30

Review 2.  Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.

Authors:  Rebecca Anhang Price; Jane Zapka; Heather Edwards; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

Review 3.  Designing an effective pay-for-performance system in the Korean National Health Insurance.

Authors:  Hyoung-Sun Jeong
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2012-05-31

Review 4.  Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care.

Authors:  Pieter Van Herck; Delphine De Smedt; Lieven Annemans; Roy Remmen; Meredith B Rosenthal; Walter Sermeus
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-08-23       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  A framework for tailoring clinical guidelines to comorbidity at the point of care.

Authors:  R Scott Braithwaite; John Concato; Chung Chou Chang; Mark S Roberts; Amy C Justice
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-11-26

6.  The payoff time: a flexible framework to help clinicians decide when patients with comorbid disease are not likely to benefit from practice guidelines.

Authors:  R Scott Braithwaite; David Fiellin; Amy C Justice
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 7.  Lessons from healthcare providers' attitudes toward pay-for-performance: what should purchasers consider in designing and implementing a successful program?

Authors:  Jin Yong Lee; Sang-Il Lee; Min-Woo Jo
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2012-05-31

Review 8.  Interventions to improve care related to colorectal cancer among racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review.

Authors:  Keith Naylor; James Ward; Blase N Polite
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 5.128

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.