Literature DB >> 18635432

Exclusion of patients from pay-for-performance targets by English physicians.

Tim Doran1, Catherine Fullwood, David Reeves, Hugh Gravelle, Martin Roland.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the English pay-for-performance program, physicians use a range of criteria to exclude individual patients from the quality calculations that determine their pay. This process, which is called exception reporting, is intended to safeguard patients against inappropriate treatment by physicians seeking to maximize their income. However, exception reporting may allow physicians to inappropriately exclude patients for whom targets have been missed (a practice known as gaming).
METHODS: We analyzed data extracted automatically from clinical computing systems for 8105 family practices in England (96% of all practices), data from the U.K. Census, and data on practice characteristics from the U.K. Department of Health. We determined the rate of exception reporting for 65 clinical activities and the association between this rate and the characteristics of patients and medical practices.
RESULTS: From April 2005 through March 2006, physicians excluded a median of 5.3% of patients (interquartile range, 4.0 to 6.9) from the quality calculations. Physicians were most likely to exclude patients from indicators that were related to providing treatments and achieving target levels of intermediate outcomes; they were least likely to exclude patients from indicators that were related to routine checks and measurements and to offers of treatment. The characteristics of patients and practices explained only 2.7% of the variance in exception reporting. We estimate that exception reporting accounted for approximately 1.5% of the cost of the pay-for-performance program.
CONCLUSIONS: Exception reporting brings substantial benefits to pay-for-performance programs, providing that the process is used appropriately. In England, rates of exception reporting have generally been low, with little evidence of widespread gaming. 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18635432     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0800310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  54 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

2.  Pay for performance in primary care in England and California: comparison of unintended consequences.

Authors:  Ruth McDonald; Martin Roland
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  The problem with usual care.

Authors:  David Mant
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Examining clinical decision support integrity: is clinician self-reported data entry accurate?

Authors:  Anurag Gupta; Ali S Raja; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Setting standards at the forefront of delivery system reform: aligning care coordination quality measures for multiple chronic conditions.

Authors:  Eva H DuGoff; Sydney Dy; Erin R Giovannetti; Bruce Leff; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  J Healthc Qual       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.095

6.  Effects of Changes in Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Incentive Designs on Patient Risk Selection.

Authors:  Hui-Min Hsieh; Shu-Ling Tsai; Lih-Wen Mau; Herng-Chia Chiu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Care transitions as opportunities for clinicians to use data exchange services: how often do they occur?

Authors:  Robert S Rudin; Claudia A Salzberg; Peter Szolovits; Lynn A Volk; Steven R Simon; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 8.  Challenges in assessing the process-outcome link in practice.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Brian Doyle; Cheryl L Damberg; Kanaka Shetty; David A Ganz; Neil S Wenger; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  The unintended consequences of quality improvement.

Authors:  Naomi S Bardach; Michael D Cabana
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.856

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.