Pay for performance in emergency medicine

One of the latest market-based solutions to the rising costs and quality gaps in health care is pay for performance. Pay for performance is the use of financial incentives to promote the delivery of designated standards of care. Pay for performance represents a dramatic change in the reimbursement of providers, from fixed rates or fees, to variable compensation based on the quality of care. This article serves as an introduction to pay for performance. I discuss the goals and structure of pay for performance plans and their limitations and potential consequences in the health care arena. A particular focus is provided on pay-for-performance initiatives affecting the emergency department either directly by contracting at the group level or indirectly through hospital reward programs. I also provide a strategy to guide constructive engagement by emergency physicians in the pay-for-performance movement.     

Pay for performance: Is it the best way to improve control of hypertension?

Pay-for-performance schemes provide financial incentives to health care providers for achieving specified performance targets, and therefore seek to explicitly link physician pay to the quality of care provided for patients. This article provides an overview of the essential elements of pay-for-performance schemes and how these relate to the treatment of hypertension. It also reviews the evidence for the effectiveness of pay-for-performance schemes and analyzes new data from a program in the United Kingdom that provides financial incentives for family practitioners caring for 6 million hypertensive patients. Although several pay-for-performance schemes have proved effective at improving quality of care, few to date have addressed patients with hypertension. Findings from the UK pay-for-performance scheme suggest that generous financial incentives are associated with high levels of achievement for aspects of care for hypertensive patients, but much of this achievement may be attributable to other quality improvement initiatives.     

Performance measurement in the small office practice: challenges and potential solutions

Great strides have been made in the creation of programs aimed at improving the safety and quality of health care in the United States, including measurement systems and corresponding standards in the ambulatory setting that are used for public reporting or pay-for-performance. The diversity of physician practices in the United States makes measurement challenging. In many parts of the country, substantial proportions of both primary care and specialist physicians continue to practice in solo or small group practices. This article reviews the practice landscape in the United States; describes performance measurement challenges in small practice settings, including financial and staffing implications; discusses statistical issues that affect assessment of practice quality; and describes potential solutions to the issues raised. Challenges of performance measurement in small practice settings include lack of infrastructure and health information technology, lack of support staff, and increased burden. These issues are compounded by the difficulty of assessing a smaller number of patients spread over multiple payers. To overcome some of these challenges, design and measure selection recommendations for the performance assessment system are presented and practice-level and health plan-level interventions are suggested that might facilitate the inclusion of small practice settings in performance assessment programs. Because a high proportion of U.S. physicians practice in small settings, programs and policies based on physician performance measurement should incorporate features that facilitate the inclusion of these physicians.     

Payment for quality: guiding principles and recommendations: principles and recommendations from the American Heart Association's Reimbursement, Coverage, and Access Policy Development Workgroup

Payment-for-quality programs are emerging in the wake of rising healthcare costs and a demonstrated need for quality improvement in healthcare delivery in the United States. These programs, also known as "pay-for-performance" or "pay-for-value" programs, attempt to realign financial incentives with the quality of care delivered. The American Heart Association's Reimbursement, Coverage, and Access Policy Development Workgroup provides in this statement a set of principles and recommendations for the development, implementation, and evaluation of these programs. The statement also suggests future areas for research around the realignment of financial incentives to improve both the quality of care delivered and patient outcomes.     

Pay-for-Performance: Impact on Diabetes

Pay-for-performance schemes explicitly link provider remuneration to the quality of care provided, with the aims of modifying provider behavior and improving patient outcomes. If successful, pay-for-performance schemes could drive improvements in quality and efficiency of care. However, financial incentives could also erode providers’ intrinsic motivation, narrow their focus, promote unethical behavior, and ultimately increase health care inequalities. Evidence from schemes implemented to date suggests that carefully designed pay-for-performance schemes that align sufficient rewards with clinical priorities can produce modest but significant improvements in processes of diabetic care and intermediate outcomes. There is limited evidence, however, on whether improvements in processes of care result in improved outcomes, in terms of patient satisfaction, reduced complications, and greater longevity. The lack of adequate control groups has limited research findings to date, and more robust studies are needed to explore both the potential long-term benefits of pay-for-performance schemes and their unintended consequences.     

Financial implications of a model heart failure disease management program for providers, hospital, healthcare systems, and payer perspectives

Although heart failure disease management (HFDM) programs improve patient outcomes, the implementation of these programs has been limited because of financial barriers. We undertook the present study to understand the economic incentives and disincentives for adoption of disease management strategies from the perspectives of a physician (group), a hospital, an integrated health system, and a third-party payer. Using the combined results of a group of randomized controlled trials and a set of financial assumptions from a single academic medical center, a financial model was developed to compute the expected costs before and after the implementation of a HFDM program by 3 provider types (physicians, hospitals, and health systems), as well as the costs incurred from a payer perspective. The base-case model showed that implementation of HFDM results in a net financial loss to all potential providers of HFDM. Implementation of HFDM as described in our base-case analysis would create a net loss of US dollars 179,549 in the first year for a physician practice, US dollars 464,132 for an integrated health system, and US dollars 652,643 in the first year for a hospital. Third-party payers would be able to save US dollars 713,661 annually for the care of 350 patients with heart failure in a HFDM program. In conclusion, although HFDM programs may provide patients with improved clinical outcomes and decreased hospitalizations that save third-party payers money, limited financial incentives are currently in place for healthcare providers and hospitals to initiate these programs.     

Self-efficacy remains a vital factor in reducing the risk of dialysis in type 2 diabetes care

Studies have provided promising outcomes of the pay-for-performance (P4P) program or with good continuity of care levels in diabetes control.We investigate the different exposures in continuity of care (COC) with their providers and those who participate in the P4P program and its effects on the risk of diabetes diabetic nephropathy in the future.We obtained COC and P4P information from the annual database, to which we applied a hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in 3 levels adjusted to account for other covariates as well as the effects of hospital clustering and accumulating time.Newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in 2003At the individual level, those with a higher Diabetes Complications Severity Index (DCSI) score have a higher likelihood of diabetic nephropathy than those with a lower DCSI (OR, 1.46), whereas contrasting results were obtained for the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (odds ratio[OR], 0.88). Patients who visited family physicians, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists showed a lower likelihood of diabetic nephropathy (OR, 0.664, 0.683, and 0.641, respectively), whereas those who continued to visit neurologists showed an increased risk of diabetic nephropathy by 4 folds. At the hospital level, patients with diabetes visiting primary care clinics had a lower risk of diabetic nephropathy with an OR of 0.584 than those visiting hospitals of other higher levels. Regarding the repeat time level, the patients who had a higher COC score and participated in the P4P program had a reduced diabetic nephropathy risk with an OR of 0.339 and 0.775, respectively.Diabetes control necessitates long-term care involving the patients’ healthcare providers for the management of their conditions to reduce the risk of diabetic nephropathy. Indeed, most contributing factors are related to patients, but we cannot eliminate the optimal outcomes related to good relationships with healthcare providers and participation in the P4P program.     

Association Between Quality of Care and the Sociodemographic Composition of Physicians�� Patient Panels: A Repeat Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pay-for-performance programs could worsen health disparities if providers who care for disadvantaged patients face systematic barriers to providing high-quality care. Risk adjustment that includes sociodemographic factors could mitigate the financial incentive to avoid disadvantaged patients.

OBJECTIVE

To test for associations between quality of care and the composition of a physician??s patient panel.

DESIGN

Repeat cross-sectional analysis

PARTICIPANTS

Nationally representative sample of US primary care physicians responding to a panel telephone survey in 2000?C2001 and 2004?C2005

MAIN MEASURES

Quality of primary care as measured by provision of eight recommended preventive services (diabetic monitoring [hemoglobin A1c testing, eye examinations, cholesterol testing and urine protein analysis], cancer screening [screening colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy and mammography], and vaccinations against influenza and pneumococcus) documented in Medicare claims data and the association between quality and the sociodemographic composition of physicians?? patient panels.

KEY RESULTS

Across eight quality measures, physicians?? quality of care was not consistently associated with the composition of their patient panel either in a single year or between time periods. For example, a substantial number (seven) of the eighteen significant associations seen between sociodemographic characteristics and the delivery of preventive services in the first time period were no longer seen in the second time period. Among sociodemographic characteristics, panel Medicaid eligibility was most consistently associated with differences in the delivery of preventive services between time points; among preventive services, the delivery of influenza vaccine was most likely to demonstrate disparities in both time points.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Medicare pay-for-performance program, a better understanding of the effect of effect of patient panel composition on physicians?? quality of care may be necessary before implementing routine statistical adjustment, since the association of quality and sociodemographic composition is small and inconsistent. In addition, we observed improvements between time periods among physicians with varying panel composition.     

Sustainability of Quality Improvement Following Removal of Pay-for-Performance Incentives

BACKGROUND

Although pay-for-performance (P4P) has become a central strategy for improving quality in US healthcare, questions persist about the effectiveness of these programs. A key question is whether quality improvement that occurs as a result of P4P programs is sustainable, particularly if incentives are removed.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate sustainability of performance levels following removal of performance-based incentives.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational cohort study that capitalized on a P4P program within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) that included adoption and subsequent removal of performance-based incentives for selected inpatient quality measures. The study sample comprised 128 acute care VA hospitals where performance was assessed between 2004 and 2010.

INTERVENTION

VA system managers set annual performance goals in consultation with clinical leaders, and report performance scores to medical centers on a quarterly basis. These scores inform performance-based incentives for facilities and their managers. Bonuses are distributed based on the attainment of these performance goals.

MEASUREMENTS

Seven quality of care measures for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and pneumonia linked to performance-based incentives.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in performance were observed for six of seven quality of care measures following adoption of performance-based incentives and were maintained up to the removal of the incentive; subsequently, the observed performance levels were sustained.

LIMITATIONS

This is a quasi-experimental study without a comparison group; causal conclusions are limited.

CONCLUSION

The maintenance of performance levels after removal of a performance-based incentive has implications for the implementation of Medicare’s value-based purchasing initiative and other P4P programs. Additional research is needed to better understand human and system-level factors that mediate sustainability of performance-based incentives.     

Pay-for-performance and accountability: related themes in improving health care

Value-based purchasing, or pay-for-performance, is a major emerging theme in U.S. health care. Forces enhancing adoption of pay-for-performance programs include continued increases in medical costs beyond overall economic growth, a body of evidence that the quality of health care provided to patients is not directly related to the volume of services received, increasing evidence to serve as a basis for the development of standards against which to measure clinical performance, and increasing acceptance by physician organizations and individual practitioners of the rationale underlying these efforts. In this context, employers, government payers, and health plans are establishing a wide variety of pay-for-performance programs. This article reviews the critical design features of such efforts, describes the current types of programs on offer, and comments on the implications of this emerging movement for the future of health care in the United States.     

The Diabetes Initiative of South Carolina and the 18th Annual Diabetes Fall Symposium for Health Care Professionals

The Diabetes Initiative of South Carolina (DSC) is charged with the development of guidelines for the management of diabetes and supporting adherence to evidence-based standards for education and care. The DSC is committed to lowering the burden of diabetes in the state through translation of evidence-based standards of clinical practice, and patient and community education centered on blood glucose control, blood pressure control, healthy eating, physical activity, and foot care. The DSC has developed many programs for the education of a variety of health professionals about diabetes and its complications. DSC has sponsored 18^th Annual Diabetes Fall Symposia for primary health care professionals featuring education on all aspects of diabetes mellitus. The intent of the program is to enhance the lifelong learning process of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dietitians and other health care professionals by providing educational opportunities and to advance the quality and safety of patient care.     

Design and acceptability of patient-oriented computerized diabetes care reminders for use at the point of care

Despite the widespread availability of guidelines for caring for patients with diabetes and decades of research on computerized reminder systems, large gaps in quality remain in diabetes care remain and computerized reminder systems are rarely used for patients with diabetes. We set out to develop and test the feasibility of a system that would overcome many of the barriers preventing the widespread use of point-of-care computerized reminders to improve diabetes care. Five primary care physicians and 32 patients with type 2 diabetes pilot tested the system. We set out to design and measure the preliminary acceptability of patient-oriented point of care computerized diabetes care reminders. The main findings of our study were that (1) the reports were well accepted by both patients and providers and (2) survey and audiotape data suggest that they may be helpful at improving the quality of outpatient care for patients with diabetes.     

Putting prevention into daily practice

The future holds promise for expanding and effectively implementing preventive therapies to reduce cardiovascular risk. These preventive concepts are supported by sound science and strong evidence from multiple randomized, clinical trials. To be successful, the health care system must continue to provide financial resources to support physicians and other health care providers in preventive cardiovascular efforts. In the long run, this support should result in a decrease in the need for expensive high-technology, acute-care interventions. Health care provider teams involving physicians, nurses, and other providers will be necessary to ensure the success of these measures, and they must be integrated into the expanding network of inpatient and outpatient delivery systems. Finally, programs to train fellows, residents, and medical students in preventive skills will provide the basis for expanded application of cardiovascular risk therapies and will contribute to the ultimate widespread success in decreasing the morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease.     

Patient and provider perceptions of care for diabetes: results of the cross-national DAWN Study

Aims/hypothesis We assessed country-level and individual-level patterns in patient and provider perceptions of diabetes care. Methods The study used a cross-sectional design with face-to-face or telephone interviews of diabetic patients and healthcare providers in 13 countries from Asia, Australia, Europe and North America. Participants were randomly selected adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n=5,104), and randomly selected diabetes-care providers, including primary-care physicians (n=2,070), diabetes specialist physicians (n=635) and nurses (n=1,122). Multivariate analysis was used to examine the relationships between outcomes and both country and respondent characteristics, and the interaction between these two factors. Results Providers rated chronic-care systems and remuneration for chronic care as mediocre. Patients reported that ease of access to care was high, but not without financial barriers. Patients reported moderate levels of collaboration among providers, and providers indicated that several specialist disciplines were not readily available to them. Patients reported high levels of collaboration with providers in their own care. Provider endorsement of primary prevention strategies for type 2 diabetes was high. Patients with fewer socio-economic resources and more diabetes complications had lower access (and/or higher barriers) to care and lower quality of patient–provider collaboration. Countries differed significantly for all outcomes, and the relationships between respondent characteristics and outcomes varied by country. Conclusions/interpretation There is much need for improvement in applying the chronic-care model to the treatment and prevention of diabetes in all of the countries studied. Each country must develop its own priorities for improving diabetes care and comparison with other countries can help identify strengths as well as weaknesses.     

The future of capitation The physician role in managing change in practice

Capitation-based reimbursement significantly influences the practice of medicine. As physicians, we need to assure that payment models do not jeopardize the care we provide when we accept higher levels of personal financial risk. In this paper, we review the literature relevant to capitation, consider the interaction of financial incentives with physician and medical risk, and conclude that primary care physicians need to work to assure that capitated systems incorporate checks and balances which protect both patients and providers. We offer the following proposals for individuals and groups considering capitated contracts: (1) reimbursement for primary care physicians should recognize both individual patient encounters and the administrative work of patient care management; (2) reimbursement for subspecialists should recognize both access to subspecialty knowledge and expertise as well as patient care encounters, but in some situations, subspecialists may provide the majority of care to individual patients and will be reimbursed as primary care providers; (3) groups of physicians should accept financial risk for patient care only if they have the tools and resources to manage the care; (4) physicians sharing risk for patient care should meet regularly to discuss care and resource management; and (5) physicians must disclose the financial relationships they have with health plans and medical care organizations, and engage patients and communities in discussions about resource allocation. As a payment model, capitation offers opportunities for primary care physicians to influence the future of health care by improving the management of resources at a local level.     

The effect of explicit financial incentives on physician behavior

Managed care organizations use explicit financial incentives to influence physicians' use of resources. This has contributed to concerns regarding conflicts of interest for physicians and adverse effects on the quality of patient care. In light of recent publicized legislative and legal battles about this issue, we reviewed the literature and analyzed studies that examine the effect of these explicit financial incentives on the behavior of physicians. The method used to undertake the literature review followed the approach set forth in the Cochrane Collaboration handbook. Our literature review revealed a paucity of data on the effect of explicit financial incentives. Based on this limited evidence, explicit incentives that place individual physicians at financial risk appear to be effective in reducing physician resource use. However, the empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of bonus payments on physician resource use is mixed. Similarly, our review revealed mixed effects of the influence of explicit financial incentives on the quality of patient care. The effect of explicit financial incentives on physician behavior is complicated by a lack of understanding of the incentive structure by the managed care organization and the physician. The lack of a universally acceptable definition of quality renders it important that future researchers identify the term explicitly.     

Pediatric Pay-for-performance in Asthma: Who Pays?

Pay-for-performance is a term referring to a system that uses incentives to reward health care providers for producing an improvement in performance based on quality measures. It has become part of a growing movement to improve the quality of the health care system. The purpose of this article is to review and discuss pay-for-performance and how it relates to pediatrics and asthma.     

Pay-for-performance principles that promote patient-centered care: an ethics manifesto

Pay-for-performance programs are growing, but little evidence exists on their effectiveness or on their potential unintended consequences and effects on the patient-physician relationship. Pay-for-performance has the potential to help improve the quality of care, if it can be aligned with the goals of medical professionalism. Initiatives that provide incentives for a few specific elements of a single disease or condition, however, may neglect the complexity of care for the whole patient, especially the elderly patient with multiple chronic conditions. Such programs could also result in the deselection of patients, "playing to the measures" rather than focusing on the patient as a whole, and misalignment of perceptions between physicians and patients. The primary focus of the quality movement in health care should not be on "pay for" or "performance" based on limited measures, but rather on the patient. The American College of Physicians hopes to move the pay-for-performance debate forward with a patient-centered focus--one that puts the needs and interests of the patient first--as these programs evolve.     

Leadership in creating accountable care organizations

General internists need to take an active leadership position in the creation of accountable care organizations (ACOs). The basic idea behind ACOs is relatively simple. Physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers will continue to be paid fee-for-service by the Medicare program, but if they can work together to better manage people with chronic conditions, reduce avoidable complications, reduce unnecessary specialty referrals, and improve transfer of beneficiaries as they transition from one care provider to another; then there is the possibility of shared savings with the Medicare program. ACOs are likely to alter existing referral patterns among general internists and specialty physicians and engender debates over how to allocate any financial savings. They are scheduled to begin operation on January 2012. As ACOs are established, general internists should review the operation of the care management and disease management programs. They should understand the financial arrangements and quality indicators that the ACOs establish. They should be involved in identifying the patients that would benefit from better care management. They should identify changes in care processes and payment reforms that would improve the care for these patients. ACOs represent an opportunity for general internists to change the way medical care is delivered.     

Antiplatelet therapy for postdischarge medical management of acute coronary syndrome

Postdischarge management of patients with acute coronary syndrome is often suboptimal, despite their high risk of a subsequent event. Updated American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines emphasize the need for aggressive modification of risk factors and treatment with antiplatelet, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering agents commenced in-hospital and continued long-term. Antiplatelet therapy involving aspirin and clopidogrel is the mainstay of secondary risk reduction. Increased adherence to medication and risk factor modification at discharge has been demonstrated with acute care quality improvement initiatives. Extension of these initiatives to postdischarge care will provide data on medication adherence post acute coronary syndrome and functional outcomes in the community setting. Successful secondary prevention of cardiovascular events requires implementation of evidence-based guidelines by physicians, and adherence to pharmacotherapy and lifestyle modifications by patients. Primary care physicians are well placed to influence adherence through their ongoing relationships with patients and can save lives by implementing secondary risk reduction measures after discharge.