BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is increasingly touted as a means to improve health care quality. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of P4P remuneration targeting individual health care providers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, OpenSIGLE, Canadian Evaluation Society Unpublished Literature Bank, New York Academy of Medicine Library Grey Literature Collection, and reference lists were searched up until June 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently identified original research papers (randomized, controlled trials; interrupted time series; uncontrolled and controlled before-after studies; and cohort comparisons). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the data. DATA SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 4 randomized, controlled trials; 5 interrupted time series; 3 controlled before-after studies; 1 nonrandomized, controlled study; 15 uncontrolled before-after studies; and 2 uncontrolled cohort studies. The variation in study quality, target conditions, and reported outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Uncontrolled studies (15 before-after studies, 2 cohort comparisons) suggested that P4P improves quality of care, but higher-quality studies with contemporaneous controls failed to confirm these findings. Two of the 4 randomized trials were negative, and the 2 statistically significant trials reported small incremental improvements in vaccination rates over usual care (absolute differences, 8.4 and 7.8 percentage points). Of the 5 interrupted time series, 2 did not detect any improvements in processes of care or clinical outcomes after P4P implementation, 1 reported initial statistically significant improvements in guideline adherence that dissipated over time, and 2 reported statistically significant improvements in blood pressure control in patients with diabetes balanced against statistically significant declines in hemoglobin A1c control. LIMITATION: Few methodologically robust studies compare P4P with other payment models for individual practitioners; most are small observational studies of variable quality. CONCLUSION: The effect of P4P targeting individual practitioners on quality of care and outcomes remains largely uncertain. Implementation of P4P models should be accompanied by robust evaluation plans. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is increasingly touted as a means to improve health care quality. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of P4P remuneration targeting individual health care providers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, OpenSIGLE, Canadian Evaluation Society Unpublished Literature Bank, New York Academy of Medicine Library Grey Literature Collection, and reference lists were searched up until June 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently identified original research papers (randomized, controlled trials; interrupted time series; uncontrolled and controlled before-after studies; and cohort comparisons). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the data. DATA SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 4 randomized, controlled trials; 5 interrupted time series; 3 controlled before-after studies; 1 nonrandomized, controlled study; 15 uncontrolled before-after studies; and 2 uncontrolled cohort studies. The variation in study quality, target conditions, and reported outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Uncontrolled studies (15 before-after studies, 2 cohort comparisons) suggested that P4P improves quality of care, but higher-quality studies with contemporaneous controls failed to confirm these findings. Two of the 4 randomized trials were negative, and the 2 statistically significant trials reported small incremental improvements in vaccination rates over usual care (absolute differences, 8.4 and 7.8 percentage points). Of the 5 interrupted time series, 2 did not detect any improvements in processes of care or clinical outcomes after P4P implementation, 1 reported initial statistically significant improvements in guideline adherence that dissipated over time, and 2 reported statistically significant improvements in blood pressure control in patients with diabetes balanced against statistically significant declines in hemoglobin A1c control. LIMITATION: Few methodologically robust studies compare P4P with other payment models for individual practitioners; most are small observational studies of variable quality. CONCLUSION: The effect of P4P targeting individual practitioners on quality of care and outcomes remains largely uncertain. Implementation of P4P models should be accompanied by robust evaluation plans. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Authors: Marc D Samsky; Andrew P Ambrosy; Erik Youngson; Li Liang; Padma Kaul; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Finlay A McAlister Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Naomi S Bardach; Jason J Wang; Samantha F De Leon; Sarah C Shih; W John Boscardin; L Elizabeth Goldman; R Adams Dudley Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Laura A Petersen; Kate Simpson; Kenneth Pietz; Tracy H Urech; Sylvia J Hysong; Jochen Profit; Douglas A Conrad; R Adams Dudley; LeChauncy D Woodard Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yuhua Bao; Thomas G McGuire; Ya-Fen Chan; Ashley A Eggman; Andrew M Ryan; Martha L Bruce; Harold Alan Pincus; Erin Hafer; Jürgen Unützer Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.229