OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact on smoking status documentation of a payer-sponsored pay-for-performance (P4P) incentive that targeted a minority of an integrated healthcare delivery system's patients. STUDY DESIGN: Three commercial insurers simultaneously adopted P4P incentives to document smoking status of their members with 3 chronic diseases. The healthcare system responded by adding a smoking status reminder to all patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We measured change in smoking status documentation before (2008-2009) and after (2010-2011) P4P implementation by patient P4P eligibility. METHODS: The P4P-eligible patients were compared primarily with a subset of non-P4P-eligible patients who resembled P4P-eligible patients and also with all non-P4P-eligible patients. Multivariate models adjusted for patient and provider characteristics and accounted for provider-level clustering and preimplementation trends. RESULTS: Documentation increased from 48% of 207,471 patients before P4P to 71% of 227,574 patients after P4P. Improvement from 56% to 83% occurred among P4P-eligible patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-4.5) and from 56% to 80% among the comparable subset of non-P4P-eligible patients (AOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.3-3.9). The difference in improvement between groups was significant (AOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: A P4P incentive targeting a minority of a healthcare system's patients stimulated adoption of a system wide EHR reminder and improved smoking status documentation overall. Combining a P4P incentive with an EHR reminder might help healthcare systems improve treatment delivery for smokers and meet "meaningful use" standards for EHRs.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact on smoking status documentation of a payer-sponsored pay-for-performance (P4P) incentive that targeted a minority of an integrated healthcare delivery system's patients. STUDY DESIGN: Three commercial insurers simultaneously adopted P4P incentives to document smoking status of their members with 3 chronic diseases. The healthcare system responded by adding a smoking status reminder to all patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We measured change in smoking status documentation before (2008-2009) and after (2010-2011) P4P implementation by patientP4P eligibility. METHODS: The P4P-eligible patients were compared primarily with a subset of non-P4P-eligible patients who resembled P4P-eligible patients and also with all non-P4P-eligible patients. Multivariate models adjusted for patient and provider characteristics and accounted for provider-level clustering and preimplementation trends. RESULTS: Documentation increased from 48% of 207,471 patients before P4P to 71% of 227,574 patients after P4P. Improvement from 56% to 83% occurred among P4P-eligible patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-4.5) and from 56% to 80% among the comparable subset of non-P4P-eligible patients (AOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.3-3.9). The difference in improvement between groups was significant (AOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: A P4P incentive targeting a minority of a healthcare system's patients stimulated adoption of a system wide EHR reminder and improved smoking status documentation overall. Combining a P4P incentive with an EHR reminder might help healthcare systems improve treatment delivery for smokers and meet "meaningful use" standards for EHRs.
Authors: S J Cohen; A G Christen; B P Katz; C A Drook; B J Davis; D M Smith; G K Stookey Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1987-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anne M Joseph; Steven S Fu; Bruce Lindgren; Alexander J Rothman; Molly Kodl; Harry Lando; Brandon Doyle; Dorothy Hatsukami Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-11-28
Authors: Jeffrey L Schnipper; Jeffrey A Linder; Matvey B Palchuk; D Tony Yu; Kerry E McColgan; Lynn A Volk; Ruslana Tsurikova; Andrea J Melnikas; Jonathan S Einbinder; Blackford Middleton Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Anthony Scott; Peter Sivey; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Lisa Willenberg; Lucio Naccarella; John Furler; Doris Young Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-09-07
Authors: V J Strecher; M S O'Malley; V G Villagra; E E Campbell; J J Gonzalez; T G Irons; R D Kenney; R C Turner; C S Rogers; M F Lyles Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 1991 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: G R Kruse; E Park; J E Haberer; L Abroms; N N Shahid; S E Howard; Y Chang; J S Haas; N A Rigotti Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: David A Siegel; S Jane Henley; Jennifer M Wike; A Blythe Ryerson; Christopher J Johnson; Judy R Rees; Lori A Pollack Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Noah R Gubner; Denise D Williams; Ellen Chen; David Silven; Janice Y Tsoh; Joseph Guydish; Maya Vijayaraghavan Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2019-05-22