Dataset Information

Healthcare Digitalization and Pay-For-Performance Incentives in Smart Hospital Project Financing.

ABSTRACT: This study aims to explore the impact of healthcare digitalization on smart hospital project financing (PF) fostered by pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives. Digital platforms are a technology-enabled business model that facilitates exchanges between interacting agents. They represent a bridging link among disconnected nodes, improving the scalable value of networks. Application to healthcare public-private partnerships (PPPs) is significant due to the consistency of digital platforms with health issues and the complexity of the stakeholder's interaction. In infrastructural PPPs, public and private players cooperate, usually following PF patterns. This relationship is complemented by digitized supply chains and is increasingly patient-centric. This paper reviews the literature, analyzes some supply chain bottlenecks, addresses solutions concerning the networking effects of platforms to improve PPP interactions, and investigates the cost-benefit analysis of digital health with an empirical case. Whereas diagnostic or infrastructural technology is an expensive investment with long-term payback, leapfrogging digital applications reduce contingent costs. "Digital" savings can be shared by key stakeholders with P4P schemes, incentivizing value co-creation patterns. Efficient sharing may apply network theory to a comprehensive PPP ecosystem where stakeholding nodes are digitally connected. This innovative approach improves stakeholder relationships, which are re-engineered around digital platforms that enhance patient-centered satisfaction and sustainability. Digital technologies are useful even for infectious disease surveillance, like that of the coronavirus pandemic, for supporting massive healthcare intervention, decongesting hospitals, and providing timely big data.

SUBMITTER: Moro Visconti R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7177756 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare Digitalization and Pay-For-Performance Incentives in Smart Hospital Project Financing.

Moro Visconti Roberto R Morea Donato D

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200330 7

This study aims to explore the impact of healthcare digitalization on smart hospital project financing (PF) fostered by pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives. Digital platforms are a technology-enabled business model that facilitates exchanges between interacting agents. They represent a bridging link among disconnected nodes, improving the scalable value of networks. Application to healthcare public-private partnerships (PPPs) is significant due to the consistency of digital platforms with healt ...[more]

PMID: 32235517

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough pay-for-performance (P4P) has become a central strategy for improving quality in US healthcare, questions persist about the effectiveness of these programs. A key question is whether quality improvement that occurs as a result of P4P programs is sustainable, particularly if incentives are removed.ObjectiveTo investigate sustainability of performance levels following removal of performance-based incentives.Design, setting, and participantsObservational cohort study that capitalized on a P4P program within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) that included adoption and subsequent removal of performance-based incentives for selected inpatient quality measures. The study sample comprised 128 acute care VA hospitals where performance was assessed between 2004 and 2010.InterventionVA system managers set annual performance goals in consultation with clinical leaders, and report performance scores to medical centers on a quarterly basis. These scores inform performance-based incentives for facilities and their managers. Bonuses are distributed based on the attainment of these performance goals.MeasurementsSeven quality of care measures for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and pneumonia linked to performance-based incentives.ResultsSignificant improvements in performance were observed for six of seven quality of care measures following adoption of performance-based incentives and were maintained up to the removal of the incentive; subsequently, the observed performance levels were sustained.LimitationsThis is a quasi-experimental study without a comparison group; causal conclusions are limited.ConclusionThe maintenance of performance levels after removal of a performance-based incentive has implications for the implementation of Medicare's value-based purchasing initiative and other P4P programs. Additional research is needed to better understand human and system-level factors that mediate sustainability of performance-based incentives.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P.MethodsWe searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight.ResultsAmong 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence.DiscussionThere is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input.

Project description:Importance:The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) involves greater reductions in readmissions for hospitals receiving penalties compared with those not receiving penalties. However, the HRRP penalty is an imperfect measure of hospitals' marginal incentive to avoid a readmission for HRRP-targeted diagnoses. Objectives:To assess the association between hospitals' condition-specific incentives and readmission performance and to examine the responsiveness of hospitals to condition-specific incentives compared with aggregate penalty amounts. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare readmissions data from 2823 US short-term acute care hospitals participating in HRRP to compare 3-year (fiscal years 2016-2019) follow-up readmission performance according to tertiles of hospitals' baseline (2016) marginal incentives for each of 5 HRRP-targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and hip and/or knee surgery). Main Outcomes and Measures:Linear regression models were used to estimate mean change in follow-up readmission performance, measured using the excess readmissions ratio, with baseline condition-specific incentives and aggregate penalty amounts. Results:Of 2823 hospitals that participated in the HRRP from baseline to follow-up, 2280 (81%) had more than 1 excess readmission for 1 or more applicable condition and 543 (19%) did not have any excess readmissions. The mean (SD) financial incentive to reduce readmissions for incentivized hospitals ranged from $8762 ($3699) to $58?158 ($26?198) per 1 avoided readmission. Hospitals with greater incentives for readmission avoidance had greater decreases in readmissions compared with hospitals with smaller incentives (45% greater for pneumonia, 172% greater for acute myocardial infarction, 40% greater for hip and/or knee surgery, 32% greater for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 13% greater for heart failure), whereas hospitals with no incentives had increases in excess readmissions of 4% to 7% (median, 4% [percentage change for nonincentivized hospitals was 3.7% for pneumonia, 4.2% for acute myocardial infarction, 7.1% for hip and/or knee surgery, 3.7% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 3.7% for heart failure]; P?<?.001). During the study period, each additional $5000 in the incentive amount was associated with a 0.6- to 1.3-percentage point decrease, or up to a 26% decrease, in excess readmissions (P?<?.001). Regression to the mean explained approximately one-third of the results depending on the condition examined. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that improvements in readmission avoidance are more strongly associated with incentives from the HRRP than with aggregate penalty amounts, suggesting that the program has elicited sizeable changes. Worsened performance among hospitals with small or no incentives may indicate the need for reconsideration of the program's lack of financial rewards for high-performing hospitals.

Project description:Most evaluations of pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives have focused on large-group practices. Thus, the effect of P4P in small practices, where many US residents receive care, is largely unknown. Furthermore, whether electronic health records (EHRs) with chronic disease management capabilities support small-practice response to P4P has not been studied.To assess the effect of P4P incentives on quality in EHR-enabled small practices in the context of an established quality improvement initiative.A cluster-randomized trial of small (<10 clinicians) primary care clinics in New York City from April 2009 through March 2010. A city program provided all participating clinics with the same EHR software with decision support and patient registry functionalities and quality improvement specialists offering technical assistance.Incentivized clinics were paid for each patient whose care met the performance criteria, but they received higher payments for patients with comorbidities, who had Medicaid insurance, or who were uninsured (maximum payments: $200/patient; $100,000/clinic). Quality reports were given quarterly to both the intervention and control groups.Comparison of differences in performance improvement, from the beginning to the end of the study, between control and intervention clinics for aspirin or antithrombotic prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol control, and smoking cessation interventions. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to account for clustering of patients within clinics, with a treatment by time interaction term assessing the statistical significance of the effect of the intervention.Participating clinics (n?=?42 for each group) had similar baseline characteristics, with a mean of 4592 (median, 2500) patients at the intervention group clinics and 3042 (median, 2000) at the control group clinics. Intervention clinics had greater adjusted absolute improvement in rates of appropriate antithrombotic prescription (12.0% vs 6.1%, difference: 6.0% [95% CI, 2.2% to 9.7%], P?=?.001 for interaction term), blood pressure control (no comorbidities: 9.7% vs 4.3%, difference: 5.5% [95% CI, 1.6% to 9.3%], P?=?.01 for interaction term; with diabetes mellitus: 9.0% vs 1.2%, difference: 7.8% [95% CI, 3.2% to 12.4%], P?=?.007 for interaction term; with diabetes mellitus or ischemic vascular disease: 9.5% vs 1.7%, difference: 7.8% [95% CI, 3.0% to 12.6%], P?=?.01 for interaction term), and in smoking cessation interventions (12.4% vs 7.7%, difference: 4.7% [95% CI, -0.3% to 9.6%], P?=?.02 for interaction term). Intervention clinics performed better on all measures for Medicaid and uninsured patients except cholesterol control, but no differences were statistically significant.Among small EHR-enabled clinics, a P4P incentive program compared with usual care resulted in modest improvements in cardiovascular care processes and outcomes. Because most proposed P4P programs are intended to remain in place more than a year, further research is needed to determine whether this effect increases or decreases over time.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00884013.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fair financial contribution in healthcare financing is one of the main goals and challengeable subjects in the evaluation of world health system functions. This study aimed to investigate the equity in healthcare financing in Shiraz, Iran in 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This was a cross- sectional survey conducted on the Shiraz, Iran households. A sample of 740 households (2357 persons) was selected from 11 municipal districts using the multi-stage sampling method (stratified sampling method proportional to size, cluster sampling and systematic random sampling methods). The required data were collected using the Persian format of "World Health Survey" questionnaire. The collected data were analyzed using Stata14.0 and Excel 2007. The Gini coefficient and concentration and Kakwani indices were calculated for health insurance premiums (basic and complementary), inpatient and outpatient services costs, out of pocket payments and, totally, health expenses. RESULTS:The Gini coefficient was obtained based on the studied population incomes equal to 0.297. Also, the results revealed that the concentration index and Kakwani index were, respectively, 0.171 and - 0.125 for basic health insurance premiums, 0.259 and - 0.038 for health insurance complementary premiums, 0.198 and - 0.099 for total health insurance premiums, 0.126 and - 0.170 for outpatient services costs, 0.236 and - 0.061 for inpatient services costs, 0.174 and - 0.123 for out of pocket payments (including the sum of costs related to the inpatient and outpatient services) and 0.185 and - 0.112 for the health expenses (including the sum of out of pocket payments and health insurance premiums). CONCLUSION:The results showed that the healthcare financing in Shiraz, Iran was regressive and there was vertical inequity and, accordingly, it is essential to making more efforts in order to implement universal insurance coverage, redistribute incomes in the health sector to support low-income people, strengthening the health insurance schemes, etc.

Dataset Information

Healthcare Digitalization and Pay-For-Performance Incentives in Smart Hospital Project Financing.

Publications

Healthcare Digitalization and Pay-For-Performance Incentives in Smart Hospital Project Financing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets