0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Reviews |

IMPROVING PATIENT CARE

Does Performance-Based Remuneration for Individual Health Care Practitioners Affect Patient Care?: A Systematic Review

Sherilyn K.D. Houle, BSP; Finlay A. McAlister, MD, MSc; Cynthia A. Jackevicius, MSc, PharmD; Anderson W. Chuck, PhD, MPH; and Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, MSc
[+] Article and Author Information

From University of Alberta, University of Alberta Hospital, and Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California.

Grant Support: Ms. Houle is supported in her PhD studies through the Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration (funded by Alberta Innovates Health Solutions), Hypertension Canada, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. McAlister has career salary support from Alberta Innovates Health Solutions and the Capital Health Chair in Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

Potential Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed. Disclosure forms are available at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M12-1059.

Reproducible Research Statement: Study protocol: Available from Ms. Houle (sherilyn.houle@ualberta.ca). Statistical code: Not applicable. Data set: Available upon agreement with the authors (contact Ms. Houle).

Requests for Single Reprints: Finlay A. McAlister, MD, MSc, 2F1.21 WMC, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R7, Canada; e-mail, Finlay.McAlister@ualberta.ca.

Current Author Addresses: Ms. Houle and Dr. Tsuyuki: EPICORE Centre, 220 College Plaza, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2C8, Canada.

Dr. McAlister: 2F1.21 WMC, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R7, Canada.

Dr. Jackevicius: College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, 309 East Second Street, Pomona, CA 91766.

Dr. Chuck: Institute of Health Economics, Suite 1200, 10405 Jasper Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4, Canada.

Author Contributions: Conception and design: S.K.D. Houle, F.A. McAlister, C.A. Jackevicius, A.W. Chuck, R.T. Tsuyuki.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: S.K.D. Houle, F.A. McAlister, C.A. Jackevicius, R.T. Tsuyuki.

Drafting of the article: S.K.D. Houle, F.A. McAlister.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: S.K.D. Houle, F.A. McAlister, C.A. Jackevicius, A.W. Chuck, R.T. Tsuyuki.

Final approval of the article: S.K.D. Houle, F.A. McAlister, A.W. Chuck, R.T. Tsuyuki.

Administrative, technical, or logistic support: F.A. McAlister.

Collection and assembly of data: S.K.D. Houle, F.A. McAlister, C.A. Jackevicius.


Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(12):889-899. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-12-201212180-00009
Text Size: A A A

Background: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is increasingly touted as a means to improve health care quality.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of P4P remuneration targeting individual health care providers.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, OpenSIGLE, Canadian Evaluation Society Unpublished Literature Bank, New York Academy of Medicine Library Grey Literature Collection, and reference lists were searched up until June 2012.

Study Selection: Two reviewers independently identified original research papers (randomized, controlled trials; interrupted time series; uncontrolled and controlled before–after studies; and cohort comparisons).

Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted the data.

Data Synthesis: The literature search identified 4 randomized, controlled trials; 5 interrupted time series; 3 controlled before–after studies; 1 nonrandomized, controlled study; 15 uncontrolled before–after studies; and 2 uncontrolled cohort studies. The variation in study quality, target conditions, and reported outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Uncontrolled studies (15 before–after studies, 2 cohort comparisons) suggested that P4P improves quality of care, but higher-quality studies with contemporaneous controls failed to confirm these findings. Two of the 4 randomized trials were negative, and the 2 statistically significant trials reported small incremental improvements in vaccination rates over usual care (absolute differences, 8.4 and 7.8 percentage points). Of the 5 interrupted time series, 2 did not detect any improvements in processes of care or clinical outcomes after P4P implementation, 1 reported initial statistically significant improvements in guideline adherence that dissipated over time, and 2 reported statistically significant improvements in blood pressure control in patients with diabetes balanced against statistically significant declines in hemoglobin A1c control.

Limitation: Few methodologically robust studies compare P4P with other payment models for individual practitioners; most are small observational studies of variable quality.

Conclusion: The effect of P4P targeting individual practitioners on quality of care and outcomes remains largely uncertain. Implementation of P4P models should be accompanied by robust evaluation plans.

Primary Funding Source: None.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure.

Summary of evidence search and selection.

* Totals of exclusion characteristics exceed number of studies excluded because of the presence of multiple exclusion criteria within a single study.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2.

Risk of bias across all included studies.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)