Effect of Payment Incentives on Cancer Screening in Ontario Primary Care |
| |
Authors: | Tara Kiran Andrew S. Wilton Rahim Moineddin Lawrence Paszat Richard H. Glazier |
| |
Affiliation: | 1.Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;2.Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;3.Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada;4.Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;5.Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada |
| |
Abstract: | ![]()
PURPOSEThere is limited evidence for the effectiveness of pay for performance despite its widespread use. We assessed whether the introduction of a pay-for-performance scheme for primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada, was associated with increased cancer screening rates and determined the amounts paid to physicians as part of the program.METHODSWe performed a longitudinal analysis using administrative data to determine cancer screening rates and incentive costs in each fiscal year from 1999/2000 to 2009/2010. We used a segmented linear regression analysis to assess whether there was a step change or change in screening rate trends after incentives were introduced in 2006/2007. We included all Ontarians eligible for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening.RESULTSWe found no significant step change in the screening rate for any of the 3 cancers the year after incentives were introduced. Colon cancer screening was increasing at a rate of 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3% to 3.7%) per year before the incentives were introduced and 4.7% (95% CI, 3.7% to 5.7%) per year after. The cervical and breast cancer screening rates did not change significantly from year to year before or after the incentives were introduced. Between 2006/2007 and 2009/2010, $28.3 million, $31.3 million, and $50.0 million were spent on financial incentives for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively.CONCLUSIONSThe pay-for-performance scheme was associated with little or no improvement in screening rates despite substantial expenditure. Policy makers should consider other strategies for improving rates of cancer screening. |
| |
Keywords: | pay for performance cancer screening primary health care delivery of health care quality of health care |
|
|