Arezou Zaresani1, Anthony Scott2. 1. University of Manitoba, Institute for Labor Studies (IZA) and Tax and Transfer Policy Institute (TTPI), 15 Chancellors Circle, Fletcher Argue Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. arezou.zaresani@umanitoba.ca. 2. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated if the evidence on the success of the Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes in healthcare is changing as the schemes continue to evolve by updating a previous systematic review. METHODS: A meta-regression analysis using 116 studies evaluating P4P schemes published between January 2010 to February 2018. The effects of the research design, incentive schemes, use of incentives, and the size of the payment to revenue ratio on the proportion of statically significant effects in each study were examined. RESULTS: There was evidence of an increase in the range of countries adopting P4P schemes and weak evidence that the proportion of studies with statistically significant effects have increased. Factors hypothesized to influence the success of schemes have not changed. Studies evaluating P4P schemes which made payments for improvement over time, were associated with a lower proportion of statistically significant effects. There was weak evidence of a positive association between the incentives' size and the proportion of statistically significant effects. CONCLUSION: The evidence on the effectiveness of P4P schemes is evolving slowly, with little evidence that lessons are being learned concerning the design and evaluation of P4P schemes.
BACKGROUND: This study investigated if the evidence on the success of the Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes in healthcare is changing as the schemes continue to evolve by updating a previous systematic review. METHODS: A meta-regression analysis using 116 studies evaluating P4P schemes published between January 2010 to February 2018. The effects of the research design, incentive schemes, use of incentives, and the size of the payment to revenue ratio on the proportion of statically significant effects in each study were examined. RESULTS: There was evidence of an increase in the range of countries adopting P4P schemes and weak evidence that the proportion of studies with statistically significant effects have increased. Factors hypothesized to influence the success of schemes have not changed. Studies evaluating P4P schemes which made payments for improvement over time, were associated with a lower proportion of statistically significant effects. There was weak evidence of a positive association between the incentives' size and the proportion of statistically significant effects. CONCLUSION: The evidence on the effectiveness of P4P schemes is evolving slowly, with little evidence that lessons are being learned concerning the design and evaluation of P4P schemes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accountable care organization; Financial incentives; Meta-regression analysis; Pay for performance (P4P); Value-based healthcare
Authors: Damien de Walque; Paul J Gertler; Sergio Bautista-Arredondo; Ada Kwan; Christel Vermeersch; Jean de Dieu Bizimana; Agnès Binagwaho; Jeanine Condo Journal: J Health Econ Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: David A Asch; Andrea B Troxel; Walter F Stewart; Thomas D Sequist; James B Jones; AnneMarie G Hirsch; Karen Hoffer; Jingsan Zhu; Wenli Wang; Amanda Hodlofski; Antonette B Frasch; Mark G Weiner; Darra D Finnerty; Meredith B Rosenthal; Kelsey Gangemi; Kevin G Volpp Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cyrus Y Engineer; Elina Dale; Anubhav Agarwal; Arunika Agarwal; Olakunle Alonge; Anbrasi Edward; Shivam Gupta; Holly B Schuh; Gilbert Burnham; David H Peters Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Matt Sutton; Silviya Nikolova; Ruth Boaden; Helen Lester; Ruth McDonald; Martin Roland Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John W Peabody; Riti Shimkhada; Stella Quimbo; Orville Solon; Xylee Javier; Charles McCulloch Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 3.547