Medical 'pay for performance' programs help improve care -- but not always, study finds

November 23, 2009

Like everybody, health care professionals enjoy a pay raise for a job well done. But in some instances, financial incentives for health care performance may actually backfire.

A new UCLA study shows that patient-care performance ratings for 25 medical groups across California improved significantly following the launch of a statewide pay-for-performance program in 2004 — but not when incentives focused on doctors' productivity.

Reporting in the December edition of the , Hector P. Rodriguez, assistant professor in the department of health services at the UCLA School of Public Health, and colleagues found evidence that certain kinds of for the purpose of improving patient care, in combination with public reporting of medical group performance ratings, have a positive effect on patient care experiences. However, they also found that some types of incentives may have a negative overall impact on how patients experienced their care.

The researchers analyzed how medical group performance ratings changed over time and found that ratings in specific measures representing three broad categories — physician communication, care coordination and office-staff interactions — improved substantially during the period after the start of the Integrated Healthcare Association's (IHA) pay-for-performance program. Incentives for addressing the quality of patient-clinician interaction and the overall experience of patient care tended to result in improved performance in those three areas, especially when the additional funds were used broadly by medical groups to positively reinforce a patient-centered work culture.

However, the greatest improvements were seen within those groups which placed less emphasis on physician productivity and greater emphasis on clinical quality and patient
experience. And within groups where financial incentives were paid directly to physicians — rather than being used more broadly — the researchers found that placing too much emphasis on physician productivity actually had a negative impact on the experiences patients had when visiting their primary care doctor.

"As the Obama administration and Congress continue to grapple with health care reform, these findings provide timely information about the kinds of things medical groups can do — and can avoid doing — with financial incentives in order to improve the quality of patient health care experiences," said Rodriguez, the lead author of the study.

For the study, researchers looked at information collected from 124,021 patients of 1,444 primary care physicians at 25 California medical groups between 2003 and 2006 and conducted interviews with group medical directors to determine how financial incentives were used. All 25 groups, which represent six insurers, were awarded financial incentives for achievements in the broad categories of clinical care processes, patient care experiences and office-based information systems, in accordance with the IHA program, which was launched in 2004 with the goal of improving health care quality in California.

Medical groups were free to use the additional funds in various ways, with some groups paying incentives directly to physicians, and others using the incentives more broadly, with a focus on organizational priorities. The groups also participated in a public reporting program in which ratings in two of the three broad categories were released annually to the public in the form of a " report card" comparing the performance of the medical groups and insurers to one another.

"The current House bill being debated includes the establishment of a Center for Quality Improvement to identify and implement the best practices in the delivery of care," Rodriguez said. "Our study results suggest that the nature of financial incentives can affect the provision of patient-centered care. Therefore, quality improvement and reimbursement reform efforts should integrate patient-reported experiences of care as a central metric for evaluating reform effects."

Source: University of California - Los Angeles

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Study shows that people most affected by alcohol also most impacted by sleep deprivation

July 17, 2018
A team of researchers from the German Aerospace Center and Forschungszentrum Jülich has found that people who are most susceptible to alcohol intoxication are also most susceptible to cognitive problems due to sleep deprivation. ...

As we get parched, cognition can easily sputter, dehydration study says

July 17, 2018
Anyone lost in a desert hallucinating mirages knows that extreme dehydration discombobulates the mind. But just two hours of vigorous yard work in the summer sun without drinking fluids could be enough to blunt concentration, ...

Jury still out on probiotics

July 17, 2018
(HealthDay)—Probiotics have become a trendy dietary supplement, with more and more people popping bacteria-laden capsules to try to improve their gut health.

Self-control and obesity: Gender matters in children

July 16, 2018
A toddler's self-regulation—the ability to change behavior in different social situations—may predict whether he or she will be obese come kindergarten, but the connection appears to be much different for girls than for ...

1 in 9 U.S. adults over 45 reports memory problems

July 13, 2018
(HealthDay)—If you're middle-aged and you think you're losing your memory, you're not alone, a new U.S. government report shows.

Antioxidant benefits of sleep

July 12, 2018
Understanding sleep has become increasingly important in modern society, where chronic loss of sleep has become rampant and pervasive. As evidence mounts for a correlation between lack of sleep and negative health effects, ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.