Literature DB >> 26152649

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

Hui-Min Hsieh1, Shu-Ling Tsai2, Lih-Wen Mau3, Herng-Chia Chiu4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) Program implemented a Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Program (P4P) based on process-of-care measures in 2001. In late 2006, that P4P program was reformed to also include achievement of intermediate health outcomes. This study examined how the change in design affected patient risk selection. DESIGNS/STUDY POPULATIONS: Study populations were identified from a 2002 to 2003 period (Phase 1) and a 2007 to 2008 period (Phase 2), spanning pre- and postimplementation of reforms in the P4P incentive design. Phase 1 had 74,529 newly enrolled P4P patients and 215,572 non-P4P patients, and Phase 2 had 76,901 newly enrolled P4P patients and 299,573 non-P4P patients. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of changes in design on P4P patient selection. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Patients with greater disease severity and comorbidity were more likely to be excluded from the P4P program in both phases. Furthermore, the additional financial incentive for patients' intermediate outcomes moderately worsened patient risk selection.
CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers need to carefully monitor the care of the diabetes patients with more severe and complex disease statuses after the changes of P4P financial incentive design. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diabetes pay-for-performance; incentive design; patient risk selection; unintended consequences

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26152649      PMCID: PMC4799909          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12338

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  31 in total

1.  Using the lessons of behavioral economics to design more effective pay-for-performance programs.

Authors:  Ateev Mehrotra; Melony E S Sorbero; Cheryl L Damberg
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.229

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.  A longitudinal examination of a pay-for-performance program for diabetes care: evidence from a natural experiment.

Authors:  Shou-Hsia Cheng; Tai-Ti Lee; Chi-Chen Chen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  A pay-for-performance program for diabetes care in Taiwan: a preliminary assessment.

Authors:  Tai-Ti Lee; Shou-Hsia Cheng; Chi-Chen Chen; Mei-Shu Lai
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.229

5.  The unreliability of individual physician "report cards" for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease.

Authors:  T P Hofer; R A Hayward; S Greenfield; E H Wagner; S H Kaplan; W G Manning
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Differences in patient reports on the quality of care in a diabetes pay-for-performance program between 1 year enrolled and newly enrolled patients.

Authors:  Pei-Ching Chen; Yue-Chune Lee; Raymond Nienchen Kuo
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 2.038

7.  Burden of comorbid medical conditions and quality of diabetes care.

Authors:  Jewell H Halanych; Monika M Safford; Wendy C Keys; Sharina D Person; James M Shikany; Young-Il Kim; Robert M Centor; Jeroan J Allison
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-08-23       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Care patterns in Medicare and their implications for pay for performance.

Authors:  Hoangmai H Pham; Deborah Schrag; Ann S O'Malley; Beny Wu; Peter B Bach
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Hidden complexities in assessment of glycemic outcomes: are quality rankings aligned with treatment?

Authors:  Leonard M Pogach; Mangala Rajan; Miriam Maney; Chin-Lin Tseng; David C Aron
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Differences in the structure of outpatient diabetes care between endocrinologist-led and general physician-led services.

Authors:  Máire O'Donnell; Anna de Siún; Monica O'Mullane; Diarmuid Smith; Colin Bradley; Francis M Finucane; Sean F Dinneen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  3 in total

1.  Patient and provider factors associated with enrolment in the pre-end-stage renal disease pay-for-performance programme in Taiwan: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Hsiao-Yun Hu; Feng-Xuan Jian; Yun-Ju Lai; Yung-Feng Yen; Nicole Huang; Shang Jyh Hwang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Do patients bypass primary care for common health problems under a free-access system? Experience of Taiwan.

Authors:  Li-Lin Liang; Nicole Huang; Yi-Jung Shen; Annie Yu-An Chen; Yiing-Jenq Chou
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Diabetes pay-for-performance program can reduce all-cause mortality in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Fang-Ping Kung; Ching-Fang Tsai; Chin-Li Lu; Li-Chung Huang; Chieh-Hsiang Lu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.817

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.