Dataset Information

Pay-for-performance as a cost-effective implementation strategy: results from a cluster randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been recommended as a promising strategy to improve implementation of high-quality care. This study examined the incremental cost-effectiveness of a P4P strategy found to be highly effective in improving the implementation and effectiveness of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an evidence-based treatment (EBT) for adolescent substance use disorders (SUDs). METHODS:Building on a $30 million national initiative to implement A-CRA in SUD treatment settings, urn randomization was used to assign 29 organizations and their 105 therapists and 1173 patients to one of two conditions (implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or IAU+P4P experimental condition). It was not possible to blind organizations, therapists, or all research staff to condition assignment. All treatment organizations and their therapists received a multifaceted implementation strategy. In addition to those IAU strategies, therapists in the IAU+P4P condition received US $50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (A-CRA competence) and US $200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes (target A-CRA). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which represent the difference between the two conditions in average cost per treatment organization divided by the corresponding average difference in effectiveness per organization, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the primary outcomes. RESULTS:At trial completion, 15 organizations were randomized to the IAU condition and 14 organizations were randomized to the IAU+P4P condition. Data from all 29 organizations were analyzed. Cluster-level analyses suggested the P4P strategy led to significantly higher average total costs compared to the IAU control condition, yet this average increase of 5% resulted in a 116% increase in the average number of months therapists demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ICER = $333), a 325% increase in the average number of patients who received the targeted dosage of treatment (ICER = $453), and a 325% increase in the number of days of abstinence per patient in treatment (ICER = $8.134). Further supporting P4P as a cost-effective implementation strategy, the cost per QALY was only $8681 (95% confidence interval $1191-$16,171). CONCLUSION:This study provides experimental evidence supporting P4P as a cost-effective implementation strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01016704 .

SUBMITTER: Garner BR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6033288 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pay-for-performance as a cost-effective implementation strategy: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Garner Bryan R BR Lwin Aung K AK Strickler Gail K GK Hunter Brooke D BD Shepard Donald S DS

Implementation science : IS 20180704 1

<h4>Background</h4>Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been recommended as a promising strategy to improve implementation of high-quality care. This study examined the incremental cost-effectiveness of a P4P strategy found to be highly effective in improving the implementation and effectiveness of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an evidence-based treatment (EBT) for adolescent substance use disorders (SUDs).<h4>Methods</h4>Building on a $30 million national initiative to imple ...[more]

PMID: 29973280

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo test whether pay for performance (P4P) is an effective method to improve adolescent substance use disorder treatment implementation and efficacy.DesignCluster randomized trial.SettingCommunity-based treatment organizations.ParticipantsTwenty-nine community-based treatment organizations, 105 therapists, and 986 adolescent patients (953 with complete data).InterventionCommunity-based treatment organizations were assigned to 1 of the following conditions: the implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or the P4P experimental condition. In addition to delivering the same evidence-based treatment (ie, using the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach [A-CRA]), each organization received standardized levels of funding, training, and coaching from the treatment developers. Therapists in the P4P condition received US $50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ie, A-CRA competence) and US $200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions (ie, target A-CRA) that has been found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes.Main outcome measuresOutcomes included ACRA competence (ie, a therapist-level implementation measure), target A-CRA (ie, a patient-level implementation measure), and remission status (ie, a patient-level treatment effectiveness measure).ResultsRelative to therapists in the IAU control condition, therapists in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to demonstrate A-CRA competence (24.0% vs 8.9%; event rate ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12- 4.48; P=.02). Relative to patients in the IAU control condition, patients in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to receive target A-CRA (17.3% vs 2.5%; odds ratio, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.53-17.62; P=.01). However, no significant differences were found between conditions with regard to patients' end-of-treatment remission status.ConclusionPay for performance can be an effective method of improving treatment implementation.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01016704

Project description:In high-resource settings, 'pay-for-performance' (P4P) programs have generated interest as a potential mechanism to improve health service delivery and accountability. However, there has been little or no experimental evidence to guide the development or assess the effectiveness of P4P incentive programs in developing countries. In the developing world, P4P programs are likely to rely, at least initially, on external funding from donors. Under these circumstances, the sustainability of such programs is in doubt and needs assessment.We describe a cluster-randomized controlled trial underway in 18 health centers in western Kenya that is testing an innovative incentive strategy to improve management of an epidemiologically and economically important problem--diagnosis and treatment of malaria. The incentive scheme in this trial promotes adherence to Ministry of Health guidelines for laboratory confirmation of malaria before treatment, a priority area for the Ministry of Health. There are three important innovations that are unique to this study among those from other resource-constrained settings: the behavior being incentivized is quality of care rather than volume of service delivery; the incentives are applied at the facility-level rather than the individual level, thus benefiting facility infrastructure and performance overall; and the incentives are designed to be budget-neutral if effective.Linking appropriate case management for malaria to financial incentives has the potential to improve patient care and reduce wastage of expensive antimalarials. In our study facilities, on average only 25% of reported malaria cases were confirmed by laboratory diagnosis prior to the intervention, and the total treatment courses of antimalarials dispensed did not correspond to the number of cases reported. This study will demonstrate whether facility rather than individual incentives are compelling enough to improve case management, and whether these incentives lead to offsetting cost-savings as a result of reduced drug consumption.ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number NCT01809873.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improving the extent to which evidence-based practices (EBPs)-treatments that have been empirically shown to be efficacious or effective-are integrated within routine practice is a well-documented challenge across numerous areas of health. In 2014, the National Institute on Drug Abuse funded a type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial titled the substance abuse treatment to HIV Care (SAT2HIV) Project. Aim 1 of the SAT2HIV Project tests the effectiveness of a motivational interviewing-based brief intervention (MIBI) for substance use as an adjunct to usual care within AIDS service organizations (ASOs) as part of its MIBI Experiment. Aim 2 of the SAT2HIV Project tests the effectiveness of implementation and sustainment facilitation (ISF) as an adjunct to the Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) model for training staff in motivational interviewing as part of its ISF Experiment. The current paper describes the study protocol for the ISF Experiment. METHODS:Using a cluster randomized design, case management and leadership staff from 39 ASOs across the United States were randomized to receive either the ATTC strategy (control condition) or the ATTC + ISF strategy (experimental condition). The ATTC strategy is staff-focused and includes 10 discrete strategies (e.g., provide centralized technical assistance, conduct educational meetings, provide ongoing consultation). The ISF strategy is organization-focused and includes seven discrete strategies (e.g., use an implementation advisor, organize implementation team meetings, conduct cyclical small tests of change). Building upon the exploration-preparation-implementation-sustainment (EPIS) framework, the effectiveness of the ISF strategy is examined via three staff-level measures: (1) time-to-proficiency (i.e., preparation phase outcome), (2) implementation effectiveness (i.e., implementation phase outcome), and (3) level of sustainment (i.e., sustainment phase outcome). DISCUSSION:Although not without limitations, the ISF experiment has several strengths: a highly rigorous design (randomized, hypothesis-driven), high-need setting (ASOs), large sample size (39 ASOs), large geographic representation (23 states and the District of Columbia), and testing along multiple phases of the EPIS continuum (preparation, implementation, and sustainment). Thus, study findings will significantly improve generalizable knowledge regarding the best preparation, implementation, and sustainment strategies for advancing EBPs along the EPIS continuum. Moreover, increasing ASO's capacity to address substance use may improve the HIV Care Continuum. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03120598.

Project description:Despite compelling evidence of the benefits of treatment and well-accepted guidelines for treatment, hypertension is controlled in less than one-half of United States citizens.This randomized controlled trial tests whether explicit financial incentives promote the translation of guideline-recommended care for hypertension into clinical practice and improve blood pressure (BP) control in the primary care setting. Using constrained randomization, we assigned 12 Veterans Affairs hospital outpatient clinics to four study arms: physician-level incentive; group-level incentive; combination of physician and group incentives; and no incentives (control). All participants at the hospital (cluster) were assigned to the same study arm. We enrolled 83 full-time primary care physicians and 42 non-physician personnel. The intervention consisted of an educational session about guideline-recommended care for hypertension, five audit and feedback reports, and five disbursements of incentive payments. Incentive payments rewarded participants for chart-documented use of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications, BP control, and appropriate responses to uncontrolled BP during a prior four-month performance period over the 20-month intervention. To identify potential unintended consequences of the incentives, the study team interviewed study participants, as well as non-participant primary care personnel and leadership at study sites. Chart reviews included data collection on quality measures not related to hypertension. To evaluate the persistence of the effect of the incentives, the study design includes a washout period.We briefly describe the rationale for the interventions being studied, as well as the major design choices. Rigorous research designs such as the one described here are necessary to determine whether performance-based payment arrangements such as financial incentives result in meaningful quality improvements.http://www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00302718.

Project description:Inappropriate treatment of non-malaria fevers with artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) is a growing concern, particularly in light of emerging artemisinin resistance, but it is a behavior that has proven difficult to change. Pay for performance (P4P) programs have generated interest as a mechanism to improve health service delivery and accountability in resource-constrained health systems. However, there has been little experimental evidence to establish the effectiveness of P4P in developing countries. We tested a P4P strategy that emphasized parasitological diagnosis and appropriate treatment of suspected malaria, in particular reduction of unnecessary consumption of ACTs.A random sample of 18 health centers was selected and received a refresher workshop on malaria case management. Pre-intervention baseline data was collected from August to September 2012. Facilities were subsequently randomized to either the comparison (n?=?9) or intervention arm (n?=?9). Between October 2012 and November 2013, facilities in the intervention arm received quarterly incentive payments based on seven performance indicators. Incentives were for use by facilities rather than as payments to individual providers. All non-pregnant patients older than 1 year of age who presented to a participating facility and received either a malaria test or artemether-lumefantrine (AL) were eligible to be included in the analysis. Our primary outcome was prescription of AL to patients with a negative malaria diagnostic test (n?=?11,953). Our secondary outcomes were prescription of AL to patients with laboratory-confirmed malaria (n?=?2,993) and prescription of AL to patients without a malaria diagnostic test (analyzed at the cluster level, n?=?178 facility-months).In the final quarter of the intervention period, the proportion of malaria-negative patients in the intervention arm who received AL was lower than in the comparison arm (7.3% versus 10.9%). The improvement from baseline to quarter 4 in the intervention arm was nearly three times that of the comparison arm (ratio of adjusted odds ratios for baseline to quarter 4?=?0.36, 95% CI: 0.24-0.57). The rate of prescription of AL to patients without a test was five times lower in the intervention arm (adjusted incidence rate ratio?=?0.18, 95% CI: 0.07-0.48). Prescription of AL to patients with confirmed infection was not significantly different between the groups over the study period.Facility-based incentives coupled with training may be more effective than training alone and could complement other quality improvement approaches.This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01809873) on 11 March 2013.

Project description:BackgroundTheory-based methods to support the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBPs) are critical to improving mental health outcomes. Implementation strategy costs can be substantial, and few have been rigorously evaluated. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to identify the most cost-effective approach to deploying implementation strategies to enhance the uptake of Life Goals, a mental health EBP.MethodsWe used data from a previously conducted randomized trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of Replicating Effective Programs (REP) combined with external and/or internal facilitation among sites non-responsive to REP. REP is a low-level strategy that includes EBP packaging, training, and technical assistance. External facilitation (EF) involves external expert support, and internal facilitation (IF) augments EF with protected time for internal staff to support EBP implementation. We developed a decision tree to assess 1-year costs and outcomes for four implementation strategies: (1) REP only, (2) REP+EF, (3) REP+EF add IF if needed, (4) REP+EF/IF. The analysis used a 1-year time horizon and assumed a health payer perspective. Our outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).ResultsOur results indicate that REP+EF add IF is the most cost-effective option with an ICER of $593/QALY. The REP+EF/IF and REP+EF only conditions are dominated (i.e., more expensive and less effective than comparators). One-way sensitivity analyses indicate that results are sensitive to utilities for REP+EF and REP+EF add IF. The PSA results indicate that REP+EF, add IF is the optimal strategy in 30% of iterations at the threshold of $100,000/QALY.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the most cost-effective implementation support begins with a less intensive, less costly strategy initially and increases as needed to enhance EBP uptake. Using this approach, implementation support resources can be judiciously allocated to those clinics that would most benefit. Our results were not robust to changes in the utility measure. Research is needed that incorporates robust and relevant utilities in implementation studies to determine the most cost-effective strategies. This study advances economic evaluation of implementation by assessing costs and utilities across multiple implementation strategy combinations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02151331 , 05/30/2014.

Dataset Information

Pay-for-performance as a cost-effective implementation strategy: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Publications

Pay-for-performance as a cost-effective implementation strategy: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets