Neeru Gupta1, Holly M Ayles2. 1. University of New Brunswick, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada. neeru.gupta@unb.ca. 2. University of New Brunswick, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although pay-for-performance (P4P) for diabetes care is increasingly common, evidence of its effectiveness in improving population health and health system sustainability is deficient. This information gap is attributable in part to the heterogeneity of healthcare financing, covered medical conditions, care settings, and provider remuneration arrangements within and across countries. We systematically reviewed the literature concentrating on whether P4P for physicians in primary and community care leads to better diabetes outcomes in single-payer national health insurance systems. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching ten databases (01/2000-04/2018) and scanning the reference lists of review articles and other global health literature. We included primary studies evaluating the effects of introducing P4P for diabetes care among primary care physicians in countries of universal health coverage. Outcomes of interest included patient morbidity, avoidable hospitalization, premature death, and healthcare costs. RESULTS: We identified 2218 reports; after exclusions, 10 articles covering 8 P4P interventions in 7 countries were eligible for analysis. Five studies, capturing records from 717,166 patients with diabetes, were graded as high-quality evaluations of P4P on health outcomes. Based on three quality studies, P4P can result in reduced risk of mortality over the longer term-when linked to performance metrics. However, studies from other jurisdictions, where P4P was not linked to specific patient-oriented objectives, yielded little or mixed evidence of positive health impacts. CONCLUSION: Evidence of the effectiveness of P4P depends on whether physicians' incentive payments are explicitly tied to performance metrics. However, the most appropriate indicators for performance monitoring remain in question. More research with rigorous evaluation in different settings is needed.
BACKGROUND: Although pay-for-performance (P4P) for diabetes care is increasingly common, evidence of its effectiveness in improving population health and health system sustainability is deficient. This information gap is attributable in part to the heterogeneity of healthcare financing, covered medical conditions, care settings, and provider remuneration arrangements within and across countries. We systematically reviewed the literature concentrating on whether P4P for physicians in primary and community care leads to better diabetes outcomes in single-payer national health insurance systems. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching ten databases (01/2000-04/2018) and scanning the reference lists of review articles and other global health literature. We included primary studies evaluating the effects of introducing P4P for diabetes care among primary care physicians in countries of universal health coverage. Outcomes of interest included patient morbidity, avoidable hospitalization, premature death, and healthcare costs. RESULTS: We identified 2218 reports; after exclusions, 10 articles covering 8 P4P interventions in 7 countries were eligible for analysis. Five studies, capturing records from 717,166 patients with diabetes, were graded as high-quality evaluations of P4P on health outcomes. Based on three quality studies, P4P can result in reduced risk of mortality over the longer term-when linked to performance metrics. However, studies from other jurisdictions, where P4P was not linked to specific patient-oriented objectives, yielded little or mixed evidence of positive health impacts. CONCLUSION: Evidence of the effectiveness of P4P depends on whether physicians' incentive payments are explicitly tied to performance metrics. However, the most appropriate indicators for performance monitoring remain in question. More research with rigorous evaluation in different settings is needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diabetes mellitus; National health insurance; Pay-for-performance; Physician practice; Systematic review
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; David Atkins; Jan Brozek; Gunn Vist; Philip Alderson; Paul Glasziou; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Gerd Flodgren; Martin P Eccles; Sasha Shepperd; Anthony Scott; Elena Parmelli; Fiona R Beyer Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-07-06
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069