Dataset Information

Investigating the impact of primary care payments on underdiagnosis in dementia: A difference-in-differences analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In England, two primary care incentive schemes were introduced to increase dementia diagnosis rates to two-thirds of expected levels. This study assesses the effectiveness of these schemes.

Methods

We used a difference-in-differences framework to analyse the individual and collective impacts of the incentive schemes: (1) Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18: facilitating timely diagnosis of and support for dementia) and (2) the Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The dataset included 7529 English general practices, of which 7142 were active throughout the 10-year study period (April 2006 to March 2016). We controlled for a range of factors, including a contemporaneous hospital incentive scheme for dementia. Our dependent variable was the percentage of expected cases that was recorded on practice dementia registers (the "rate").

Results

From March 2013 to March 2016, the mean rate rose from 51.8% to 68.6%. Both DES18 and DIS had positive and significant effects. In practices participating in the DES18 scheme, the rate increased by 1.44 percentage points more than the rate for non-participants; DIS had a larger effect, with an increase of 3.59 percentage points. These combined effects increased dementia registers nationally by an estimated 40 767 individuals. Had all practices fully participated in both schemes, the corresponding number would have been 48 685.

Conclusion

The primary care incentive schemes appear to have been effective in closing the gap between recorded and expected prevalence of dementia, but the hospital scheme had no additional discernible effect. This study contributes additional evidence that financial incentives can motivate improved performance in primary care.

SUBMITTER: Mason A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6704384 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Investigating the impact of primary care payments on underdiagnosis in dementia: A difference-in-differences analysis.

Mason Anne A Liu Dan D Kasteridis Panagiotis P Goddard Maria M Jacobs Rowena R Wittenberg Raphael R McGonigal Gerard G

International journal of geriatric psychiatry 20180530 8

<h4>Objective</h4>In England, two primary care incentive schemes were introduced to increase dementia diagnosis rates to two-thirds of expected levels. This study assesses the effectiveness of these schemes.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a difference-in-differences framework to analyse the individual and collective impacts of the incentive schemes: (1) Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18: facilitating timely diagnosis of and support for dementia) and (2) the Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The da ...[more]

PMID: 29851169

Similar Datasets

Project description:Health services across the world increasingly face pressures on the use of expensive hospital services. Better organisation and delivery of primary care has the potential to manage demand and reduce costs for hospital services, but routine primary care services are not open during evenings and weekends. Extended access (evening and weekend opening) is hypothesized to reduce pressure on hospital services from emergency department visits. However, the existing evidence-base is weak, largely focused on emergency out-of-hours services, and analysed using a before-and after-methodology without effective comparators.Throughout 2014, 56 primary care practices (346,024 patients) in Greater Manchester, England, offered 7-day extended access, compared with 469 primary care practices (2,596,330 patients) providing routine access. Extended access included evening and weekend opening and served both urgent and routine appointments. To assess the effects of extended primary care access on hospital services, we apply a difference-in-differences analysis using hospital administrative data from 2011 to 2014. Propensity score matching techniques were used to match practices without extended access to practices with extended access. Differences in the change in "minor" patient-initiated emergency department visits per 1,000 population were compared between practices with and without extended access. Populations registered to primary care practices with extended access demonstrated a 26.4% relative reduction (compared to practices without extended access) in patient-initiated emergency department visits for "minor" problems (95% CI -38.6% to -14.2%, absolute difference: -10,933 per year, 95% CI -15,995 to -5,866), and a 26.6% (95% CI -39.2% to -14.1%) relative reduction in costs of patient-initiated visits to emergency departments for minor problems (absolute difference: -£767,976, -£1,130,767 to -£405,184). There was an insignificant relative reduction of 3.1% in total emergency department visits (95% CI -6.4% to 0.2%). Our results were robust to several sensitivity checks. A lack of detailed cost reporting of the running costs of extended access and an inability to capture health outcomes and other health service impacts constrain the study from assessing the full cost-effectiveness of extended access to primary care.The study found that extending access was associated with a reduction in emergency department visits in the first 12 months. The results of the research have already informed the decision by National Health Service England to extend primary care access across Greater Manchester from 2016. However, further evidence is needed to understand whether extending primary care access is cost-effective and sustainable.

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems, globally, are attempting to strengthen primary care to promote a population-health management approach to care provision, incentivising prevention and self-management. This paper evaluates the "Enhanced Primary Care" model implemented in a geographical region in England. Enhanced Primary Care introduces a new non-medical role, health coaches, to the traditional primary care team to provide additional support for patients with chronic conditions. We evaluate effects of health coaching on patient outcomes using a quasi-experiment.MethodsWe estimate the programme's effects on health status (EQ-5D-5L, physical functioning, psychological wellbeing, and resilience), health behaviour (smoking habit), experience of care (person-centeredness and continuity of care), and health care (primary care) utilisation using data from 3.5 million respondents to the national GP Patient Surveys between 2013 and 2017. We use a weighted difference-in-differences design to compare changes in outcomes over time between intervention practices and comparable control practices in the rest of England. We conduct our main analysis on multimorbid patients and additional analysis on all patients to assess population-level effects.ResultsFor multimorbid patients, we find reductions in psychological wellbeing (short and medium term) of -0.0174 (95% confidence interval?-0.0283 to -0.0065), relative difference?-2% from the pre-intervention mean; and person-centeredness (short term) of -0.0356 (-0.0530 to -0.0183), -4%. We find no significant effects on other outcome measures. For population-level effects, in the short term we find reductions in primary care utilisation of -0.0331 (-0.0448 to -0.0214), -5%. All other outcomes are not consistently statistically significant.ConclusionsOur results show that there is very little effect of health coaching on patient experience and outcomes in the short-to-medium term (up to 14?months). Introduction of Enhanced Primary Care was associated with slightly lower psychological wellbeing and person-centeredness amongst multimorbid patients (it might be initially difficult for patients to adjust to the model). However, it was also associated with a decline in primary care visits at the population-level (potentially freeing up practitioner time for more complex patients). The results raise important questions regarding primary care workforce changes advocated in the NHS Long Term Plan, and the time horizon of any benefits of prevention strategies.

Project description:Introduction:Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is a condition in which one or more parathyroid glands secrete excess amounts of parathyroid hormone (PTH). In short, PHPT is characterized by hypercalcemia/hypercalciuria with concurrent elevated PTH levels. This condition is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, psychiatric disturbances, and renal complications. As of now, the disease typically runs a long course before being identified and treated. At present, surgery is the only viable treatment option for patients with this disease. Publications from other tertiary centers have identified a large-scale underdiagnosis of PHPT. The aim of this study is to determine if similar trends exist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). Moreover, this study was seen as a first step to developing a machine learning strategy to diagnose PHPT in large clinical data sets. Methods:To evaluate for potential underdiagnosis of PHPT at UAMS, all patients from 2006 to 2018 with hypercalcemia and/or hypercalciuria (excluding those with known malignancies or other possible causes of excess serum calcium) were identified in electronic medical records. Then, it was evaluated whether these hypercalcemic/hypercalciuric patients received subsequent measurement of PTH levels necessary to confirm the diagnosis of HPT. Results:At UAMS between 2006 and 2018, 28?831 patients were identified as having hypercalcemia and/or hypercalciuria. Of these patients, only 7984 ever had subsequent PTH levels tested. Therefore, 20?847 (72.3%) of these patients never had PTH labs drawn. Conclusions:These findings may represent a significant patient population in which PHPT remains undiagnosed due to lack of follow-up. PHPT is often a silent disease with an insidious onset. At the point of diagnosis, typically the treatment is surgical removal of the offending parathyroid gland(s) (parathyroidectomy). Identification of underdiagnosis is the first step for subsequent improvement in the diagnosis of PHPT. Detection of this disease in its earlier stages may open the door for medical and lifestyle interventions, thereby decreasing long-term sequelae of the disease, such as osteoporosis, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

Project description:BackgroundPay-for-performance (P4P) programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care have been widely implemented globally. Despite intuitive appeal, evidence on the effectiveness of P4P is mixed, potentially due to differences in how schemes are designed. We exploited municipality variation in the design features of Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ) to examine whether performance bonuses given to family health team workers were associated with changes in the quality of care and whether the size of bonus mattered.Methods and findingsFor this quasi-experimental study, we used a difference-in-differences approach combined with matching. We compared changes over time in the quality of care delivered by family health teams between (bonus) municipalities that chose to use some or all of the PMAQ money to provide performance-related bonuses to team workers with (nonbonus) municipalities that invested the funds using traditional input-based budgets. The primary outcome was the PMAQ score, a quality of care index on a scale of 0 to 100, based on several hundred indicators (ranging from 598 to 660) of health care delivery. We did one-to-one matching of bonus municipalities to nonbonus municipalities based on baseline demographic and economic characteristics. On the matched sample, we used ordinary least squares regression to estimate the association of any bonus and size of bonus with the prepost change over time (between November 2011 and October 2015) in the PMAQ score. We performed subgroup analyses with respect to the local area income of the family health team. The matched analytical sample comprised 2,346 municipalities (1,173 nonbonus municipalities; 1,173 bonus municipalities), containing 10,275 family health teams that participated in PMAQ from the outset. Bonus municipalities were associated with a 4.6 (95% CI: 2.7 to 6.4; p < 0.001) percentage point increase in the PMAQ score compared with nonbonus municipalities. The association with quality of care increased with the size of bonus: the largest bonus group saw an improvement of 8.2 percentage points (95% CI: 6.2 to 10.2; p < 0.001) compared with the control. The subgroup analysis showed that the observed improvement in performance was most pronounced in the poorest two-fifths of localities. The limitations of the study include the potential for bias from unmeasured time-varying confounding and the fact that the PMAQ score has not been validated as a measure of quality of care.ConclusionsPerformance bonuses to family health team workers compared with traditional input-based budgets were associated with an improvement in the quality of care.

Dataset Information

Investigating the impact of primary care payments on underdiagnosis in dementia: A difference-in-differences analysis.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Investigating the impact of primary care payments on underdiagnosis in dementia: A difference-in-differences analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure