Literature DB >> 17605700

Pay for performance in health care: strategic issues for Australian experiments.

Ian A Scott1.   

Abstract

In response to persisting quality problems in clinical practice, policymakers in various countries, including Australia, are experimenting with pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes that tie a portion of provider payments to performance on measures of quality. Rigorous studies of P4P efficacy are relatively few, with many focused on preventive care in ambulatory settings and many suggesting only modest gains in performance. Several key issues need to be considered in determining the optimal design and implementation methods for P4P programs, including: the choice of clinical practice area; the size of financial incentives and who should receive them; the selection of quality measures and performance thresholds that determine incentive eligibility; data collection methods; and the best mix of financial and non-financial incentives. A proposed framework to guide Australian initiatives in P4P emphasises early clinician involvement in development, a phased approach from "pay-for-participation" in performance measurement to P4P within several pilot demonstration programs, and investment in clinical information technology.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17605700     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01111.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  7 in total

Review 1.  Economic evaluation of pay-for-performance in health care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Martin Emmert; Frank Eijkenaar; Heike Kemter; Adelheid Susanne Esslinger; Oliver Schöffski
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-10

2.  Pay-for-performance challenges in family physician program.

Authors:  F Gharibi; E Dadgar
Journal:  Malays Fam Physician       Date:  2020-07-06

3.  Hospital performance, the local economy, and the local workforce: findings from a US National Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Jan Blustein; William B Borden; Melissa Valentine
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 11.069

4.  Design choices made by target users for a pay-for-performance program in primary care: an action research approach.

Authors:  Kirsten Kirschner; Jozé Braspenning; J E Annelies Jacobs; Richard Grol
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 2.497

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

Authors:  Liz Glidewell; Robert West; Julia E C Hackett; Paul Carder; Tim Doran; Robbie Foy
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 2.497

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

Authors:  Richard Lowrie; Alex McConnachie; Andrea E Williamson; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Marie Forrest; Norman Lannigan; Stewart W Mercer; Frances S Mair
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 8.775

7.  Reliability of patient responses in pay for performance schemes: analysis of national General Practitioner Patient Survey data in England.

Authors:  Martin Roland; Marc Elliott; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Josephine Barbiere; Richard A Parker; Patten Smith; Peter Bower; John Campbell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-09-29
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.