Lauren Lapointe-Shaw1, Muhammad Mamdani2, Jin Luo2, Peter C Austin2, Noah M Ivers2, Donald A Redelmeier2, Chaim M Bell2. 1. Department of Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw, Mamdani, Redelmeier, Bell), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Mamdani, Luo, Austin, Ivers, Redelmeier, Bell); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Ivers), University of Toronto; Sinai Health System (Bell); Women's College Hospital (Ivers), Toronto, Ont. lauren.lapointe.shaw@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Department of Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw, Mamdani, Redelmeier, Bell), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Mamdani, Luo, Austin, Ivers, Redelmeier, Bell); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Ivers), University of Toronto; Sinai Health System (Bell); Women's College Hospital (Ivers), Toronto, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Timely follow-up after hospital discharge may decrease readmission to hospital. Financial incentives to improve follow-up have been introduced in the United States and Canada, but it is unknown whether they are effective. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of an incentive program on timely physician follow-up after hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted an interventional time series analysis of all medical and surgical patients who were discharged home from hospital between Apr. 1, 2002, and Jan. 30, 2015, in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a supplemental billing code for physician follow-up within 14 days of discharge from hospital, introduced in 2006. The primary outcome was an outpatient visit within 14 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes were 7-day follow-up and a composite of emergency department visits, nonelective hospital readmission and death within 14 days. RESULTS: We included 8 008 934 patient discharge records. The incentive code was claimed in 31% of eligible visits by 51% of eligible physicians, and cost $17.5 million over the study period. There was no change in the average monthly rate of outcomes in the year before the incentive was introduced compared with the year following introduction: 14-day follow-up (66.5% v. 67.0%, overall p = 0.5), 7-day follow-up (44.9% v. 44.9%, overall p = 0.5) and composite outcome (16.7% v. 16.9%, overall p = 0.2). INTERPRETATION: Despite uptake by physicians, a financial incentive did not alter follow-up after hospital discharge. This lack of effect may be explained by features of the incentive or by extra-physician barriers to follow-up. These barriers should be considered by policymakers before introducing similar initiatives.
BACKGROUND: Timely follow-up after hospital discharge may decrease readmission to hospital. Financial incentives to improve follow-up have been introduced in the United States and Canada, but it is unknown whether they are effective. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of an incentive program on timely physician follow-up after hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted an interventional time series analysis of all medical and surgical patients who were discharged home from hospital between Apr. 1, 2002, and Jan. 30, 2015, in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a supplemental billing code for physician follow-up within 14 days of discharge from hospital, introduced in 2006. The primary outcome was an outpatient visit within 14 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes were 7-day follow-up and a composite of emergency department visits, nonelective hospital readmission and death within 14 days. RESULTS: We included 8 008 934 patient discharge records. The incentive code was claimed in 31% of eligible visits by 51% of eligible physicians, and cost $17.5 million over the study period. There was no change in the average monthly rate of outcomes in the year before the incentive was introduced compared with the year following introduction: 14-day follow-up (66.5% v. 67.0%, overall p = 0.5), 7-day follow-up (44.9% v. 44.9%, overall p = 0.5) and composite outcome (16.7% v. 16.9%, overall p = 0.2). INTERPRETATION: Despite uptake by physicians, a financial incentive did not alter follow-up after hospital discharge. This lack of effect may be explained by features of the incentive or by extra-physician barriers to follow-up. These barriers should be considered by policymakers before introducing similar initiatives.
Authors: Ernest Shen; Sandra Y Koyama; Dan N Huynh; Heather L Watson; Brian Mittman; Michael H Kanter; Huong Q Nguyen Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Adrian F Hernandez; Melissa A Greiner; Gregg C Fonarow; Bradley G Hammill; Paul A Heidenreich; Clyde W Yancy; Eric D Peterson; Lesley H Curtis Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Therese A Stukel; Richard H Glazier; Susan E Schultz; Jun Guan; Brandon M Zagorski; Peter Gozdyra; David A Henry Journal: Open Med Date: 2013-05-14
Authors: Kristin K Clemens; Alexandra M Ouédraogo; Britney Le; James Voogt; Melissa MacDonald; Rebecca Stranberg; Justin W Yan; E Scott Krayenhoff; Jason Gilliland; Cheryl Forchuk; Rafique Van Uum; Salimah Z Shariff Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2022-08-18
Authors: John A Staples; Guiping Liu; Jeffrey R Brubacher; Ahmer Karimuddin; Jason M Sutherland Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stephanie T Lumpkin; Paula D Strassle; Jason P Fine; Timothy S Carey; Karyn B Stitzenberg Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.412
Authors: Harsukh Benipal; Anne Holbrook; J Michael Paterson; James Douketis; Gary Foster; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 2.692