Chronic care improvement in primary care: evaluation of an integrated pay-for-performance and practice-based care coordination program among elderly patients with diabetes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To examine the effects of an intervention comprising (1) a practice-based care coordination program, (2) augmented by pay for performance (P4P) for meeting quality targets, and (3) complemented by a third-party disease management on quality of care and resource use for older adults with diabetes.Data sources/study setting
Claims files of a managed care organization (MCO) for 20,943 adults aged 65 and older with diabetes receiving care in Alabama, Tennessee, or Texas, from January 2004 to March 2007.Study design
A quasi-experimental, longitudinal study in which pre- and postdata from 1,587 patients in nine intervention primary care practices were evaluated against 19,356 patients in MCO comparison practices (>900). Five incentivized quality measures, two nonincentivized measures, and two resource-use measures were investigated. We examined trends and changes in trends from baseline to follow-up, contrasting intervention and comparison group member results.Principal findings
Quality of care generally improved for both groups during the study period. Only slight differences were seen between the intervention and comparison group trends and changes in trends over time.Conclusions
This study did not generate evidence supporting a beneficial effect of an on-site care coordination intervention augmented by P4P and complemented by third-party disease management on diabetes quality or resource use.
SUBMITTER: Fagan PJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3026957 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNot enough is known about the association between practice size and clinical outcomes in primary care. We examined this association between 1997 and 2005, in addition to the impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework, a pay-for-performance incentive scheme introduced in the United Kingdom in 2004, on diabetes management.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective open-cohort study using data from the General Practice Research Database. We enrolled 422 general practices providing care for 154,945 patients with diabetes. Our primary outcome measures were the achievement of national treatment targets for blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels and total cholesterol.ResultsWe saw improvements in the recording of process of care measures, prescribing and achieving intermediate outcomes in all practice sizes during the study period. We saw improvement in reaching national targets after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. These improvements significantly exceeded the underlying trends in all practice sizes for achieving targets for cholesterol level and blood pressure, but not for HbA(1c) level. In 1997 and 2005, there were no significant differences between the smallest and largest practices in achieving targets for blood pressure (1997 odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.16; 2005 OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06 in 2005), cholesterol level (1997 OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16; 2005 OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.40) and glycated hemoglobin level (1997 OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.14; 2005 OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19).InterpretationWe found no evidence that size of practice is associated with the quality of diabetes management in primary care. Pay-for-performance programs appear to benefit both large and small practices to a similar extent.
| S-EPMC3168664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInternational interest in pay-for-performance (P4P) initiatives to improve quality of health care is growing. Current programs vary in the methods of performance measurement, appraisal and reimbursement. One may assume that involvement of health care professionals in the goal setting and methods of quality measurement and subsequent payment schemes may enhance their commitment to and motivation for P4P programs and therefore the impact of these programs. We developed a P4P program in which the target users were involved in decisions about the P4P methods.MethodsFor the development of the P4P program a framework was used which distinguished three main components: performance measurement, appraisal and reimbursement. Based on this framework design choices were discussed in two panels of target users using an adapted Delphi procedure. The target users were 65 general practices and two health insurance companies in the South of the Netherlands.ResultsPerformance measurement was linked to the Dutch accreditation program based on three domains (clinical care, practice management and patient experience). The general practice was chosen as unit of assessment. Relative standards were set at the 25th percentile of group performance. The incentive for clinical care was set twice as high as the one for practice management and patient experience. Quality scores were to be calculated separately for all three domains, and for both the quality level and the improvement of performance. The incentive for quality level was set thrice as high as the one for the improvement of performance. For reimbursement, quality scores were divided into seven levels. A practice with a quality score in the lowest group was not supposed to receive a bonus. The additional payment grew proportionally for each extra group. The bonus aimed at was on average 5% to 10% of the practice income.ConclusionsDesigning a P4P program for primary care with involvement of the target users gave us an insight into their motives, which can help others who need to discuss similar programs. The resulting program is in line with target users' views and assessments of relevance and applicability. This may enhance their commitment to the program as was indicated by the growing number of voluntary participants after a successfully performed field test during the procedure. The elements of our framework can be very helpful for others who are developing or evaluating a P4P program.
| S-EPMC3352266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPractice facilitation has proven to be effective at improving care delivery. Practice facilitators are healthcare professionals who work with and support other healthcare providers. To the best of our knowledge, very few studies have explored the perspective of facilitators. The objective of this study was to gain insight into the barriers that facilitators face during the facilitation process and to identify approaches used to overcome these barriers to help practices move towards positive change.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with four practice facilitators who worked with 84 primary care practices in Eastern Ontario, Canada over a period of five years (2007-2012). The transcripts were analyzed independently by three members of the research team using an open coding technique. A qualitative data analysis using immersion/crystallization technique was applied to interpret the interview transcripts.ResultsCommon barriers identified by the facilitators included accessibility to the practice (e.g., difficulty scheduling meetings, short meetings), organizational behaviour (team organization, team conflicts, etc.), challenges with practice engagement (e.g., lack of interest, lack of trust), resistance to change, and competing priorities. To help practices move towards positive change the facilitators had to tailor their approach, integrate themselves, be persistent with practices, and exhibit flexibility.ConclusionsThe consensus on redesigning and transforming primary care in North America and around the world is rapidly growing. Practice facilitation has been pivotal in materializing the transformation in the way primary care practices deliver care. This study provides an exclusive insight into facilitator approaches which will assist the design and implementation of small- and large-scale facilitation interventions.
| S-EPMC3931473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Incentive-based pay-for-performance (P4P) models have been introduced during the last 2 decades as a mechanism to improve the delivery of evidence-based care that ensures clinical quality and improves health outcomes. There is mixed evidence that P4P has a positive effect on health outcomes and researchers cite lack of engagement from health care professionals as a limiting factor. This qualitative metasynthesis of existing qualitative research was conducted to integrate health care professionals' perceptions of P4P in clinical practice. Four themes emerged during the research process: positive perceptions of the value of performance measurement and associated financial incentives; negative perceptions of the performance measurement and associated financial incentives; perceptions of how P4P programs influence the quality/appropriateness of care; and perceptions of the influence of P4P program on professional roles and workplace dynamics. Identifying factors that influence health care professionals' perceptions about this type of value-based payment model will guide future research.
| S-EPMC7249558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health worldwide. As the healthcare sector's use of antibiotics is an important contributor to the development of resistance, it is crucial that physicians only prescribe antibiotics when needed and that they choose narrow-spectrum antibiotics, which act on fewer bacteria types, when possible. Inappropriate use of antibiotics is nonetheless widespread, not least for respiratory tract infections (RTI), a common reason for antibiotics prescriptions. We examine if pay-for-performance (P4P) presents a way to influence primary care physicians' choice of antibiotics. During 2006-2013, 8 Swedish healthcare authorities adopted P4P to make physicians select narrow-spectrum antibiotics more often in the treatment of children with RTI. Exploiting register data on all purchases of RTI antibiotics in a difference-in-differences analysis, we find that P4P significantly increased the share of narrow-spectrum antibiotics. There are no signs that physicians gamed the system by issuing more prescriptions overall.
| S-EPMC5836891 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:This study was conducted to investigate the challenges faced in the implementation of the pay-for-performance system in Iran's family physician program. Study design:Qualitative. Place and duration of study:The study was conducted with 32 key informants at the family physician program at the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences between May 2018 and June 2018. Method: This is a qualitative study. A purposeful sampling method was used with only one inclusion criterion for participants: five years of experience in the family physician program. The researchers conducted 17 individual and group non-structured interviews and examined participants' perspectives on the challenges faced in the implementation of the pay-for-performance system in the family physician program. Content analysis was conducted on the obtained data. Results:This study identified 7 themes, 14 sub-themes, and 46 items related to the challenges in the implementation of pay-for-performance systems in Iran's family physician program. The main themes are: workload, training, program cultivation, payment, assessment and monitoring, information management, and level of authority. Other sub-challenges were also identified. Conclusion:The study results demonstrate some notable challenges faced in the implementation of the pay-for-performance system. This information can be helpful to managers and policymakers.
| S-EPMC7430307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To identify primary care practice characteristics associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening performance, controlling for patient-level factors. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary care director survey (1999-2000) of 155 VA primary care clinics linked with 38,818 eligible patients' sociodemographics, utilization, and CRC screening experience using centralized administrative and chart-review data (2001). STUDY DESIGN: Practices were characterized by degrees of centralization (e.g., authority over operations, staffing, outside-practice influence); resources (e.g., sufficiency of nonphysician staffing, space, clinical support arrangements); and complexity (e.g., facility size, academic status, managed care penetration), adjusting for patient-level covariates and contextual factors. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Chart-based evidence of CRC screening through direct colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or consecutive fecal occult blood tests, eliminating cases with documented histories of CRC, polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and health care utilization, patients were significantly more likely to be screened for CRC if their primary care practices had greater autonomy over the internal structure of care delivery (p<.04), more clinical support arrangements (p<.03), and smaller size (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in primary care clinical support arrangements and local autonomy over operational management and referral procedures are associated with significantly lower CRC screening performance. Competition with hospital resource demands may impinge on the degree of internal organization of their affiliated primary care practices.
| S-EPMC1955248 | biostudies-other
Project description:Practice facilitation is widely recognized as a promising method for achieving large-scale practice redesign. Little is known, however, about the cost of providing practice facilitation to small primary practices from the prospective of an organization providing facilitation activities.We report practice facilitation costs on 19 practices in South Texas that were randomized to receive facilitation activities. The study design assured that each practice received at least 6 practice facilitation visits during the intervention year. We examined only the variable cost associated with practice facilitation activities. Fixed or administrative costs of providing facilitation actives were not captured. All facilitator activities (time, mileage, and materials) were self-reported by the practice facilitators and recorded in spreadsheets.The median total variable cost of all practice facilitation activities from start-up through monitoring, including travel and food, was $9,670 per practice (ranging from $8,050 to $15,682). Median travel and food costs were an additional $2,054 but varied by clinic. Approximately 50% of the total cost is attributable to practice assessment and start-up activities, with another 31% attributable to practice facilitation visits. Sensitivity analysis suggests that a 24-visit practice facilitation protocol increased estimated median total variable costs of all practice facilitation activities only by $5,428, for a total of $15,098.We found that, depending on the facilitators wages and the intensity of the intervention, the cost of practice facilitation ranges between $9,670 and $15,098 per practice per year and have the potential to be cost-neutral from a societal prospective if practice facilitation results in 2 fewer hospitalizations per practice per year.
| S-EPMC3659136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntroduced in 2004, the United Kingdom's (UK) Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is the world's largest primary-care pay-for-performance programme. Given some evidence of the benefits and the substantial costs associated with the QOF, it remains unclear whether the programme is cost-effective. Therefore, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of continuing versus stopping the QOF.MethodsWe developed a lifetime simulation model to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for a UK population cohort aged 40-74 years (n = 27,070,862) exposed to the QOF and for a counterfactual scenario without exposure. Based on a previous retrospective cross-country analysis using data from 1994 to 2010, we assumed the benefits of the QOF to be a change in age-adjusted mortality of -3.68 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval -8.16 to 0.80). We used cost-effectiveness thresholds of £30,000/QALY, £20,000/QALY and £13,000/QALY to determine the optimal strategy in base-case and sensitivity analyses.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, continuing the QOF increased population-level QALYs and health-care costs yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £49,362/QALY. The ICER remained >£30,000/QALY in scenarios with and without non-fatal outcomes or increased drug costs, and under differing assumptions about the duration of QOF benefit following its hypothetical discontinuation. The ICER for continuing the programme fell below £30,000/QALY when QOF incentive payments were 36% lower (while preserving QOF mortality benefits), and in scenarios where the QOF resulted in substantial reductions in health-care spending or non-fatal cardiovascular disease events. Continuing the QOF was cost-effective in 18%, 3% and 0% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis iterations using thresholds of £30,000/QALY, £20,000/QALY and £13,000/QALY, respectively.ConclusionsCompared to stopping the QOF and returning all associated incentive payments to the National Health Service, continuing the QOF is not cost-effective. To improve population health efficiently, the UK should redesign the QOF or pursue alternative interventions.
| S-EPMC6114231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Successful coordination of specialty care requires understanding the perspectives of patients, primary care providers, and specialists-that is, the specialty care "triad." This study used qualitative methods to compare these perspectives in an integrated health care system, using diabetes specialty care as an exemplar. Primary care providers and endocrinologists relied on interclinician relationships to coordinate care. Clinicians rarely included patients or other staff in their conceptualization of specialty care coordination. Patients often assumed responsibility for specialty care coordination but struggled to succeed. We identified several opportunities to improve coordination across the triad. In an integrated medical system, the shared organizational structure can facilitate these efforts.
| S-EPMC5726433 | biostudies-literature