Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khedmati Morasae E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9052704 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Local Primary Care Incentive Scheme: A Difference-in-Differences Study.
Khedmati Morasae Esmaeil E Rose Tanith C TC Gabbay Mark M Buckels Laura L Morris Colette C Poll Sharon S Goodall Mark M Barnett Rob R Barr Ben B
Medical care research and review : MCRR 20210729 3
National financial incentive schemes for improving the quality of primary care have come under criticism in the United Kingdom, leading to calls for localized alternatives. This study investigated whether a local general practice incentive-based quality improvement scheme launched in 2011 in a city in the North West of England was associated with a reduction in all-cause emergency hospital admissions. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the change in emergency admission rates ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:As part of UCLA Health’s commitment to developing a premier integrated health system built on a foundation of physician-led, team-based primary care, the Department of Medicine (DOM) recently implemented a new performance based incentive plan called the Primary Care Clinical Excellence (PCCE) Incentive Plan. This incentive plan was developed to motivate providers to improve health maintenance screening rates.
The UCLA Health DOM Quality team is leading the implementation and evaluation of this new incentive plan across our primary care network. In addition, the DOM Quality team has partnered with the UCLA Anderson School of Management to study the most efficacious ways to frame and communicate performance based incentives.
Understanding the factors that motivate physicians to deliver the highest quality primary care will provide pivotal insights into the successful implementation of performance based programs nationwide. The investigators believe that physicians who receive communication built on behavioral principles will demonstrate more motivation towards and success at meeting national primary care screening guidelines.
| 2327674 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundPayments for recorded evidence of quality of clinical care in UK general practices were introduced in 2004.AimTo examine the relationship between changes in recorded quality of care for four common chronic conditions from, 2003 to 2005, and the payment of incentives.Design of studyRetrospective observational study comparing incentivised and non-incentivised indicators of quality of care.SettingEighteen general practices in England.MethodMedical records were examined for 1156 patients. The percentage of eligible quality indicators achieved for each patient was assessed in 2003 and 2005. Twenty-one quality indicators referred to asthma and hypertension: six subject to and 15 not subject to incentive payments. Another 15 indicators referred to depression and osteoarthritis which were not subject to incentive payments.ResultsA significant increase occurred for the six indicators linked to incentive payments: from 75% achieved in 2003 to 91% in 2005 (change = 16%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10 to 22%, P <0.01). A significant increase also occurred for 15 other indicators linked to 'incentivised conditions'; 53 to 64% (change = 11%, 95% CI = 6 to 15%, P <0.01). The 'non-incentivised conditions' started at a lower achievement level, and did not increase significantly: 35 to 36% (change = 2%, 95% CI = -1 to 4%, P = 0.19).ConclusionThe introduction of financial incentives was associated with substantial apparent quality improvement for incentivised conditions. For non-incentivised conditions, quality did not appear to improve. Patients with non-incentivised conditions may be at risk of poorer quality care.
| S-EPMC2078183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:It is not known whether equity-oriented primary care investment that seeks to scale up the delivery of effective care in disadvantaged communities can reduce health inequality within high-income settings that have pre-existing universal primary care systems. We provide some non-randomised controlled evidence by comparing health inequality trends between two similar jurisdictions-one of which implemented equity-oriented primary care investment in the mid-to-late 2000s as part of a cross-government strategy for reducing health inequality (England), and one which invested in primary care without any explicit equity objective (Ontario, Canada). METHODS:We analysed whole-population data on 32,482 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 1,500 people) in England, and 18,961 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 700 people) in Ontario. We examined trends in mortality amenable to healthcare by decile groups of neighbourhood deprivation within each jurisdiction. We used linear models to estimate absolute and relative gaps in amenable mortality between most and least deprived groups, considering the gradient between these extremes, and evaluated difference-in-difference comparisons between the two jurisdictions. RESULTS:Inequality trends were comparable in both jurisdictions from 2004-6 but diverged from 2007-11. Compared with Ontario, the absolute gap in amenable mortality in England fell between 2004-6 and 2007-11 by 19.8 per 100,000 population (95% CI: 4.8 to 34.9); and the relative gap in amenable mortality fell by 10 percentage points (95% CI: 1 to 19). The biggest divergence occurred in the most deprived decile group of neighbourhoods. DISCUSSION:In comparison to Ontario, England succeeded in reducing absolute socioeconomic gaps in mortality amenable to healthcare from 2007 to 2011, and preventing them from growing in relative terms. Equity-oriented primary care reform in England in the mid-to-late 2000s may have helped to reduce socioeconomic inequality in health, though other explanations for this divergence are possible and further research is needed on the specific causal mechanisms.
| S-EPMC5705159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe General Medical Services primary care contract for the United Kingdom financially rewards performance in 19 clinical areas, through the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Little is known about how best to determine the size of financial incentives in pay for performance schemes. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that performance indicators with larger population health benefits receive larger financial incentives.MethodsWe performed cross sectional analyses to quantify associations between the size of financial incentives and expected health gain in the 2004 and 2006 versions of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. We used non-parametric two-sided Spearman rank correlation tests. Health gain was measured in expected lives saved in one year and in quality adjusted life years. For each quality indicator in an average sized general practice we tested for associations first, between the marginal increase in payment and the health gain resulting from a one percent point improvement in performance and second, between total payment and the health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment.ResultsEvidence for lives saved or quality adjusted life years gained was found for 28 indicators accounting for 41% of the total incentive payments. No statistically significant associations were found between the expected health gain and incentive gained from a marginal 1% increase in performance in either the 2004 or 2006 version of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. In addition no associations were found between the size of financial payment for achievement of an indicator and the expected health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment measured in lives saved or quality adjusted life years.ConclusionsIn this subgroup of indicators the financial incentives were not aligned to maximise health gain. This disconnection between incentive and expected health gain risks supporting clinical activities that are only marginally effective, at the expense of more effective activities receiving lower incentives. When designing pay for performance programmes decisions about the size of the financial incentive attached to an indicator should be informed by information on the health gain to be expected from that indicator.
| S-EPMC3365874 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5012704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn 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.MethodsWe 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").ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionThe 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.
| S-EPMC6704384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects).Difference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individual-level results by risk score.Single clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS).At the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation.Practice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care.Primary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only).At the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient non-elective admissions (-0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; -1.17 to -0.09. ES: -0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends.The intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and cost-effectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.
| S-EPMC4838740 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundReal-world adherence to clinical practice guidelines is often poor, resulting in sub-standard patient care and unnecessary healthcare costs. This study evaluates the effect of a guideline-implementation intervention for the management of low back pain (LBP) in general practice-the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach-on LBP-related injury insurance claims, healthcare utilisation, and costs of treatment.DesignData were extracted from comprehensive nationwide New Zealand injury insurance claims records. Data were analysed using a 'triple-difference' (difference-in-difference-in-differences) method to isolate the causal effect of FREE training on LBP claims activity, comparing the difference in general practitioner (GP) LBP claims and associated activity before and after training with their non-musculoskeletal injury claims for the same periods (assumed to be unaffected by training), relative to the same comparisons for GPs not trained in the FREE approach.ResultsTraining GPs in the FREE approach resulted in significant reductions in the number of LBP injury claims lodged (- 19%, 95% CI -34 to -5), the use of physiotherapy (-30%, 95% CI - 42 to - 18) and imaging (- 27%, 95% CI - 46 to - 8%), and the healthcare costs (- 21%, 95% CI - 41 to - 1) of LBP injury. Changes in claims for earnings' compensation (- 10%, 95% CI - 34 to 13) were not significant.ConclusionsA brief guideline-implementation intervention following best-practice LBP management and guideline-implementation strategies achieved significant reductions, persisting over at least 6 to18 months, in healthcare utilisation consistent with improved delivery of guideline-concordant care.
| S-EPMC9734860 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6704561 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA cluster randomised controlled trial of a financial incentive for breastfeeding conducted in areas with low breastfeeding rates in the UK reported a statistically significant increase in breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks. In this paper we report an analysis of interviews with women eligible for the scheme, exploring their experiences and perceptions of the scheme and its impact on breastfeeding to support the interpretation of the results of the trial.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were carried out with 35 women eligible for the scheme during the feasibility and trial stages. All interviews were recorded and verbatim transcripts analysed using a Framework Analysis approach.ResultsWomen reported that their decisions about infant feeding were influenced by the behaviours and beliefs of their family and friends, socio-cultural norms and by health and practical considerations. They were generally positive about the scheme, and felt valued for the effort involved in breastfeeding. The vouchers were frequently described as a reward, a bonus and something to look forward to, and helping women keep going with their breastfeeding. They were often perceived as compensation for the difficulties women encountered during breastfeeding. The scheme was not thought to make a difference to mothers who were strongly against breastfeeding. However, women did believe the scheme would help normalise breastfeeding, influence those who were undecided and help women to keep going with breastfeeding and reach key milestones e.g. 6 weeks or 3 months.ConclusionsThe scheme was acceptable to women, who perceived it as rewarding and valuing them for breastfeeding. Women reported that the scheme could raise awareness of breastfeeding and encourage its normalisation. This provides a possible mechanism of action to explain the results of the trial.Trial registrationThe trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number 44898617 , https://www.isrctn.com.
| S-EPMC5759235 | biostudies-literature