The effect of performance-based financial incentives on improving patient care experiences: a statewide evaluation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Patient experience measures are central to many pay-for-performance (P4P) programs nationally, but the effect of performance-based financial incentives on improving patient care experiences has not been assessed.Methods
The study uses Clinician & Group CAHPS data from commercially insured adult patients (n = 124,021) who had visits with 1,444 primary care physicians from 25 California medical groups between 2003 and 2006. Medical directors were interviewed to assess the magnitude and nature of financial incentives directed at individual physicians and the patient experience improvement activities adopted by groups. Multilevel regression models were used to assess the relationship between performance change on patient care experience measures and medical group characteristics, financial incentives, and performance improvement activities.Results
Over the course of the study period, physicians improved performance on the physician-patient communication (0.62 point annual increase, p < 0.001), care coordination (0.48 point annual increase, p < 0.001), and office staff interaction (0.22 point annual increase, p = 0.02) measures. Physicians with lower baseline performance on patient experience measures experienced larger improvements (p < 0.001). Greater emphasis on clinical quality and patient experience criteria in individual physician incentive formulas was associated with larger improvements on the care coordination (p < 0.01) and office staff interaction (p < 0.01) measures. By contrast, greater emphasis on productivity and efficiency criteria was associated with declines in performance on the physician communication (p < 0.01) and office staff interaction (p < 0.001) composites.Conclusions
In the context of statewide measurement, reporting, and performance-based financial incentives, patient care experiences significantly improved. In order to promote patient-centered care in pay for performance and public reporting programs, the mechanisms by which program features influence performance improvement should be clarified.
SUBMITTER: Rodriguez HP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2787940 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to understand the extent to which financial incentives such as Payment by Results and other payment mechanisms motivate kidney centres in England to change their practices.DesignThe study followed a qualitative design. Data collection involved 32 in-depth semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, focusing on their subjective experience of payment structures.ParticipantsParticipants were kidney healthcare professionals, clinical directors, kidney centre managers and finance managers. Healthcare commissioners from different parts of England were also interviewed.SettingParticipants worked at five kidney centres from across England. The selection was based on the prevalence of home haemodialysis, ranging from low (<3%), medium (5-8%) and high (>8%) prevalence, with at least one centre in each one of these categories at the time of selection.ResultsWhile the tariff for home haemodialysis is not a clear incentive for its adoption due to uncertainty about operational costs, Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) targets and the Best Practice Tariff for vascular access were seen by our case study centres as a motivator to change practices.ConclusionsThe impact of financial incentives designed at a policy level is influenced by the understanding of cost and benefits at the local operational level. In a situation where costs are unclear, incentives which are based on the improvement of profit margins have a smaller impact than incentives which provide an additional direct payment, even if this extra financial support is relatively small.
| S-EPMC3927715 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFinancial incentives can improve medication adherence and cardiovascular disease risk, but the optimal design to promote sustained adherence after incentives are discontinued is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether 6-month interventions involving different financial incentives to encourage statin adherence reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline to 12 months.Design, setting, and participantsThis 4-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 to July 2018 among several large US insurer or employer populations and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The study population included adults with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C control, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Data analysis was performed from July 2017 to June 2019.InterventionsThe interventions lasted 6 months during which all participants received daily medication reminders and an electronic pill bottle. Statin adherence was measured by opening the bottle. For participants randomized to the 3 intervention groups, adherence was rewarded with financial incentives. The sweepstakes group involved incentives for daily adherence. In the deadline sweepstakes group, incentives were reduced if participants were adherent only after a reminder. The sweepstakes plus deposit contract group split incentives between daily adherence and a monthly deposit reduced for each day of nonadherence.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months.ResultsAmong 805 participants randomized (199 in the simple daily sweepstakes group, 204 in the deadline sweepstakes group, 201 in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group, and 201 in the control group), the mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.3) years; 519 participants (64.5%) were women, 514 (63.9%) had diabetes, and 273 (33.9%) had cardiovascular disease. The mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 143.2 (42.5) mg/dL. Measured adherence at 6 months (defined as the proportion of 180 days with electronic pill bottle opening) in the control group (0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) was lower than that in the simple sweepstakes group (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), the deadline sweepstakes group (0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) (P < .001 for each incentive group vs control). LDL-C levels were measured for 636 participants at 12 months. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control).Conclusions and relevanceCompared with the control group, different financial incentives improved measured statin adherence but not LDL-C levels. This result points to the importance of directly measuring health outcomes, rather than simply adherence, in trials aimed at improving health behaviors.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.
| S-EPMC7547367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To examine whether adding either small, variable financial incentives or optional group sessions improves weight losses in a community-based, Internet behavioral program.Participants (N?=?268) from Shape Up Rhode Island 2012, a 3-month Web-based community wellness initiative, were randomized to: Shape Up+Internet behavioral program (SI), Shape Up+Internet program+incentives (SII), or Shape Up+Internet program+group sessions (SIG).At the end of the 3-month program, SII achieved significantly greater weight losses than SI (SII: 6.4% [5.1-7.7]; SI: 4.2% [3.0-5.6]; P?=?0.03); weight losses in SIG were not significantly different from the other two conditions (SIG: 5.8% [4.5-7.1], P's???0.10). However, at the 12-month no-treatment follow-up visit, both SII and SIG had greater weight losses than SI (SII: 3.1% [1.8-4.4]; SIG: 4.5% [3.2-5.8]; SI: 1.2% [-0.1-2.6]; P's???0.05). SII was the most cost-effective approach at both 3 (SII: $34/kg; SI: $34/kg; SIG: $87/kg) and 12 months (SII: $64/kg; SI: $140/kg; SIG: $113/kg).Modest financial incentives enhance weight losses during a community campaign, and both incentives and optional group meetings improved overall weight loss outcomes during the follow-up period. However, the use of the financial incentives is the most cost-effective approach.
| S-EPMC4448964 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review are to identify studies that assess the effectiveness of patient-directed financial incentive interventions to improve asthma management behaviours, determine overall effectiveness of financial incentives, identify design characteristics of effective interventions and assess the impact on longer-term outcomes in the context of asthma.DesignSystematic review with narrative synthesis.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science) and grey literature sources (NHS Digital, CORE, ProQuest, Clinical Trials Register and EU Clinical Trials Register) were searched in November 2021 and updated March 2023.Eligiblity criteriaEligible articles assessed financial incentives to improve asthma management behaviours (attendance at appointments, medication adherence, tobacco smoke/allergen exposure, inhaler technique and asthma education) for patients with asthma or parents/guardians of children with asthma. Eligible study design included randomised controlled, controlled or quasi-randomised trials and retrospective/prospective cohort, case-controlled or pilot/feasibility studies.SynthesisA narrative synthesis was conducted; eligible studies were grouped by asthma management behaviours and financial incentive framework domains.ResultsWe identified 4268 articles; 8 met the inclusion criteria. The studies were from the USA (n=7) and the UK (n=1). Asthma management behaviours included attendance at appointments (n=4), reduction in smoke exposure (n=1) and medication adherence (n=3). Five studies demonstrated positive behaviour change, four of which were significant (attendance at appointments (n=3) showed significant differences between intervention and control: 73% and 49% in one study, 46.3% and 28.9% in another, and 35.7% and 18.9%, respectively; medication adherence (n=1) showed significant change from 80% during intervention to 33% post intervention). These four significant studies used 'positive gain', 'certain', 'fixed' financial incentives of smaller magnitude, given for 'all' instances of behaviour.ConclusionThere is some evidence that patient-directed financial incentives improve asthma management behaviours. However, in view of the wide heterogeneity in study design and measured outcomes, determining overall effectiveness was challenging.Prospero registration numberCRD42021266679.
| S-EPMC10387620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigate whether physicians' financial incentives influence health care supply, technology diffusion, and resulting patient outcomes. In 1997, Medicare consolidated the geographic regions across which it adjusts physician payments, generating area-specific price shocks. Areas with higher payment shocks experience significant increases in health care supply. On average, a 2 percent increase in payment rates leads to a 3 percent increase in care provision. Elective procedures such as cataract surgery respond much more strongly than less discretionary services. Non-radiologists expand their provision of MRIs, suggesting effects on technology adoption. We estimate economically small health impacts, albeit with limited precision.
| S-EPMC4144420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Financial Incentives (FIs) for green buildings are a major component of energy policy planning and play a vital role in the promotion of sustainable development and carbon mitigation strategies. Despite the presence of numerous FIs in Canada, there is still a lack of understanding on their distribution and effectiveness. This review first investigates the FIs available for residential and commercial buildings in Canada, and then performs a comprehensive review of studies related to FIs' effectiveness evaluation. It is found that FIs for buildings in Canada can be distributed into four categories: tax, loans, grants, and rebates. Among these, rebates from utility providers are the most common and are administered in all provinces. In addition to these, special incentives are available for three end-users (low-income, aboriginal people, landlords and tenants) and for three types of buildings (heritage, non-profit and energy rated). A clear contrast is observed on FIs offered in three regulatory regimes (Federal, provincial and municipal). Four provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec) are leading in green building efforts. The in-depth literature review was also used to develop an understanding on the criteria used in effectiveness evaluation and the factors impacting effectiveness. Based on the findings of different studies on FIs effectiveness, a generic approach for evaluation of FIs is proposed that can help in deploying successful FIs programs. The results of this review are of importance to the policymakers, government authorities, and utilities engaged in designing and improving FIs for energy efficient buildings.
| S-EPMC7443396 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMailing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits to patients' homes has been shown to boost colorectal cancer screening rates, but response rates remain limited, and organized programs typically require repeated outreach attempts. Behavioral economics has shown that offering salient financial incentives to patients may increase participation in preventive health.ObjectiveTo compare the impact of different financial incentives for mailed FIT outreach.Design, setting, and participantsThis 4-parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included patients aged 50 to 75 years who had an established primary care clinician, at least 2 visits in the prior 2 years, and were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and not up-to-date. This study was conducted at urban primary care practices at an academic health system from December 2015 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March 2018 to September 2018.InterventionsEligible patients received a letter from their primary care clinician that included a mailed FIT kit and instructions for use. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive (1) no financial incentive; (2) an unconditional $10 incentive included with the mailing; (3) a $10 incentive conditional on FIT completion; or (4) a conditional lottery with a 1-in-10 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion.Main outcomes and measuresFecal immunochemical test completion within 2 and 6 months of initial outreach.ResultsA total of 897 participants were randomized, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 52-62 years); 56% were women, and 69% were black. The overall completion rate across all arms was 23.5% at 2 months. The completion rate at 2 months was 26.0% (95% CI, 20.4%-32.3%) in the no incentive arm, 27.2% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.6%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 23.2% (95% CI, 17.9%-29.3%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 17.7% (95% CI, 13.0%-23.3%) in the lottery incentive arm. None of the arms with an incentive were statistically superior to the arm without incentive. The overall FIT completion rate across all arms was 28.9% at 6 months, and there was also no difference by arm. The completion rate at 6 months was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.6%-39.3%) in the no incentive arm, 31.7% (95% CI, 25.7%-38.2%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1%-33.1%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 24.3% (95% CI, 18.9%-30.5%) in the lottery incentive arm.Conclusions and relevanceMailed FIT resulted in high colorectal cancer screening response rates in this population, but different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not incrementally increase FIT completion rates. The incentive value may have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02594150.
| S-EPMC6583304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:While the proportion of adults who smoke cigarettes has declined substantially in the past decade, socioeconomic disparities in cigarette smoking remain. Few interventions have targeted low socioeconomic status (SES) and minority smokers in primary care settings. Objective:To evaluate a multicomponent intervention to promote smoking cessation among low-SES and minority smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants:For this prospective, unblinded, randomized clinical trial conducted between May 1, 2015, and September 4, 2017, adults 18 years and older who spoke English, smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day in the past week, were contemplating or preparing to quit smoking, and had a primary care clinician were recruited from general internal medicine and family medicine practices at 1 large safety-net hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Interventions:Patients were randomized to a control group that received an enhancement of usual care (n = 175 participants) or to an intervention group that received up to 4 hours of patient navigation delivered over 6 months in addition to usual care, as well as financial incentives for biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months following enrollment (n = 177 participants). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome determined a priori was biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 12 months. Results:Among 352 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 50.0 [11.0] years; 191 women [54.3%]; 197 participants who identified as non-Hispanic black [56.0%]; 40 participants who identified as Hispanic of any race [11.4%]), all were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months following enrollment, 21 participants [11.9%] in the navigation and incentives group, compared with 4 participants [2.3%] in the control group, had quit smoking (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.9-17.1; number needed to treat, 10.4; P < .001). In prespecified subgroup analyses, the intervention was particularly beneficial for older participants (19 [19.8%] vs 1 [1.0%]; P < .001), women (17 [16.8%] vs 2 [2.2%]; P < .001), participants with household yearly income of $20 000 or less (15 [15.5%] vs 3 [3.1%]; P = .003), and nonwhite participants (21 [15.2%] vs 4 [3.0%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study of adult daily smokers at 1 large urban safety-net hospital, patient navigation and financial incentives for smoking cessation significantly increased the rates of smoking cessation. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02351609.
| S-EPMC5820724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPoorer patient views of mental health inpatient treatment predict both further admissions and, for those admitted involuntarily, longer admissions. As advocated in the UK Francis report, we investigated the hypothesis that improving staff training improves patients' views of ward care.MethodCluster randomised trial with stepped wedge design in 16 acute mental health wards randomised (using the ralloc procedure in Stata) by an independent statistician in three waves to staff training. A psychologist trained ward staff on evidence-based group interventions and then supported their introduction to each ward. The main outcome was blind self-report of perceptions of care (VOICE) before or up to 2 years after staff training between November 2008 and January 2013.ResultsIn total, 1108 inpatients took part (616 admitted involuntarily under the English Mental Health Act). On average 51.6 staff training sessions were provided per ward. Involuntary patient's perceptions of, and satisfaction with, mental health wards improved after staff training (N582, standardised effect -0·35, 95% CI -0·57 to -0·12, p = 0·002; interaction p value 0·006) but no benefit to those admitted voluntarily (N469, -0.01, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.22, p = 0.955) and no strong evidence of an overall effect (N1058, standardised effect -0.18 s.d., 95% CI -0.38 to 0.01, p = 0.062). The training costs around £10 per patient per week. Resource allocation changed towards patient perceived meaningful contacts by an average of £12 (95% CI -£76 to £98, p = 0.774).ConclusionStaff training improved the perceptions of the therapeutic environment in those least likely to want an inpatient admission, those formally detained. This change might enhance future engagement with all mental health services and prevent the more costly admissions.
| S-EPMC5757411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Uptake of health checks for cardiovascular risk assessment in primary care in England is lower than anticipated. The question-behavior effect (QBE) may offer a simple, scalable intervention to increase health check uptake. Purpose:The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced invitation methods employing the QBE, with or without a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, at increasing uptake of health checks. Methods:We conducted a three-arm randomized trial including all patients at 18 general practices in two London boroughs, who were invited for health checks from July 2013 to December 2014. Participants were randomized to three trial arms: (i) Standard health check invitation letter only; (ii) QBE questionnaire followed by standard invitation letter; or (iii) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by standard invitation letter. In intention to treat analysis, the primary outcome of completion of health check within 6 months of invitation, was evaluated using a p value of .0167 for significance. Results:12,459 participants were randomized. Health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 (97%) with outcome data collected. Health check uptake within 6 months of invitation was: standard invitation, 590 / 4,095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 / 3,988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 / 3,969 (15.85%). Difference following QBE questionnaire, 1.43% (95% confidence interval -0.12 to 2.97%, p = .070); following QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 1.52% (-0.03 to 3.07%, p = .054). Conclusions:Uptake of health checks following a standard invitation was low and not significantly increased through enhanced invitation methods using the QBE.
| S-EPMC6361284 | biostudies-literature