Literature DB >> 30204544

Provider Perspectives on Quality Payment Programs Targeting Diabetes in Primary Care Settings.

Laura F Garabedian1, Dennis Ross-Degnan1, James F Wharam1.   

Abstract

Public and private insurers increasingly use quality payment programs as a tool to improve quality of care in primary care settings. However, little is known about primary care providers' perspectives on whether and how quality payment programs improve diabetes quality of care. In this qualitative study, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 23 providers from March to June 2015. Transcripts were analyzed to identify key themes using the immersion-crystallization method. Almost all of the providers believed that insurers play a meaningful role in improving quality of care for diabetes patients. Most thought that insurers' efforts are more effective when channeled through providers and delivery systems rather than directed at patients. Providers generally believed that quality payment programs have had a positive impact on quality of diabetes care, although provider views were not evidence based. Providers in practices in which quality payment programs were believed to have had a positive impact stated that the programs provided financial incentives and resources for improved population health management systems and additional staff. Conversely, most providers did not believe that quality payment programs have had any impact via direct financial incentives to individual physicians. A few providers were skeptical about the impact of quality payment programs and noted negative consequences that they had observed. Providers recommended strategies to improve quality payment programs (eg, refine quality measures, provide regular feedback on quality and costs) and additional strategies that insurers could consider to address provider- and patient-level barriers to high-quality diabetes care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diabetes; qualitative research; quality payment program

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30204544      PMCID: PMC6555171          DOI: 10.1089/pop.2018.0093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Popul Health Manag        ISSN: 1942-7891            Impact factor:   2.459


  33 in total

1.  The response of physician groups to P4P incentives.

Authors:  Ateev Mehrotra; Steven D Pearson; Kathryn L Coltin; Ken P Kleinman; Janice A Singer; Barbra Rabson; Eric C Schneider
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.229

2.  "Pay-for-performance" as a quality improvement tool: perceptions and policy recommendations of physicians and program leaders.

Authors:  J Frank Wharam; Matthew B Frank; Ann-Marie Rosland; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Neil J Farber; Christine Sinsky; Lisa Rucker; Kimberly J Rask; Michael J Barry; M Kathleen Figaro
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2011 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 0.926

3.  Accountable care organizations: benefits and barriers as perceived by Rural Health Clinic management.

Authors:  Judith Ortiz; Angeline Bushy; Yue Zhou; Hong Zhang
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 1.759

Review 4.  For Medicare's New Approach To Physician Payment, Big Questions Remain.

Authors:  Billy Wynne
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Diabetes Outpatient Care and Acute Complications Before and After High-Deductible Insurance Enrollment: A Natural Experiment for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) Study.

Authors:  J Frank Wharam; Fang Zhang; Emma M Eggleston; Christine Y Lu; Stephen Soumerai; Dennis Ross-Degnan
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 6.  Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrea C Tricco; Noah M Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw; David Moher; Lucy Turner; James Galipeau; Ilana Halperin; Brigitte Vachon; Tim Ramsay; Braden Manns; Marcello Tonelli; Kaveh Shojania
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-06-09       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Hemoglobin A1c Targets for Glycemic Control With Pharmacologic Therapy for Nonpregnant Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Guidance Statement Update From the American College of Physicians.

Authors:  Amir Qaseem; Timothy J Wilt; Devan Kansagara; Carrie Horwitch; Michael J Barry; Mary Ann Forciea; Nick Fitterman; Kate Balzer; Cynthia Boyd; Linda L Humphrey; Alfonso Iorio; Jennifer Lin; Michael Maroto; Robert McLean; Reem Mustafa; Janice Tufte
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Controlling health care spending--the Massachusetts experiment.

Authors:  Zirui Song; Bruce E Landon
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Do clinical standards for diabetes care address excess risk for hypoglycemia in vulnerable patients? A systematic review.

Authors:  Seth A Berkowitz; Katherine Aragon; Jonas Hines; Hilary Seligman; Sei Lee; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  High quality care and ethical pay-for-performance: a Society of General Internal Medicine policy analysis.

Authors:  J Frank Wharam; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Neil J Farber; Christine Sinsky; Lisa Rucker; Kimberly J Rask; M Kathleen Figaro; Clarence Braddock; Michael J Barry; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.