Dataset Information

Performance bonuses and the quality of primary health care delivered by family health teams in Brazil: A difference-in-differences analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pay-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 findings

For 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.

Conclusions

Performance bonuses to family health team workers compared with traditional input-based budgets were associated with an improvement in the quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Fardousi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9262241 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany governments have introduced pay-for-performance programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care. Evidence on whether these programmes reduce or exacerbate disparities in health care is scarce. In this study, we aimed to assess socioeconomic inequalities in the performance of family health teams under Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ).MethodsFor this longitudinal study, we analysed data on the quality of care delivered by family health teams participating in PMAQ over three rounds of implementation: round 1 (November, 2011, to March, 2013), round 2 (April, 2013, to September, 2015), and round 3 (October, 2015, to December, 2019). The primary outcome was the percentage of the maximum performance score obtainable by family health teams (the PMAQ score), based on several hundred (ranging from 598 to 914) indicators of health-care delivery. Using census data on household income of local areas, we examined the PMAQ score by income ventile. We used ordinary least squares regressions to examine the association between PMAQ scores and the income of each local area across implementation rounds, and we did an analysis of variance to assess geographical variation in PMAQ score.FindingsOf the 40 361 family health teams that were registered as ever participating in PMAQ, we included 13 934 teams that participated in the three rounds of PMAQ in our analysis. These teams were located in 11 472 census areas and served approximately 48 million people. The mean PMAQ score was 61·0% (median 61·8, IQR 55·3-67·9) in round 1, 55·3% (median 56·0, IQR 47·6-63·4) in round 2, and 61·6% (median 62·7, IQR 54·4-69·9) in round 3. In round 1, we observed a positive socioeconomic gradient, with the mean PMAQ score ranging from 56·6% in the poorest group to 64·1% in the richest group. Between rounds 1 and 3, mean PMAQ performance increased by 7·1 percentage points for the poorest group and decreased by 0·8 percentage points for the richest group (p<0·0001), with the gap between richest and poorest narrowing from 7·5 percentage points (95% CI 6·5 to 8·5) to -0·4 percentage points over the same period (-1·6 to 0·8).InterpretationExisting income inequalities in the delivery of primary health care were eliminated during the three rounds of PMAQ, plausibly due to a design feature of PMAQ that adjusted financial payments for socioeconomic inequalities. However, there remains an important policy agenda in Brazil to address the large inequities in health.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Newton Fund, and CONFAP (Conselho Nacional das Fundações Estaduais de Amparo à Pesquisa).

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.BackgroundDespite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.MethodsA qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.FindingsA total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Project description:BackgroundIndonesia has been shifting from ensuring access to health services towards improving service quality. Accreditation has been used as quality assurance (QA) mechanism, first in hospitals and subsequently in primary health care facilities, including Puskesmas (community health centres). QA provides measures of whether services meet quality targets, but quality improvement (QI) is needed to make change and achieve improvements. QI is a cyclical process with cycles of problem identification, solution testing and observation. We investigated the factors which influenced the process of QI based on experience of maternal health QI teams in three Puskesmas in Cianjur district, West Java province, Indonesia.MethodsQualitative data were collected using 28 in-depth interviews at two points of time: pre- (April 2016) and post- QI intervention (April 2017), involving national, provincial, district and Puskesmas managers; and Puskesmas QI team members. Thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted.ResultsWe found four main factors contributed to the process of QI: 1) leadership, including awareness and attitude of leader(s) towards QI, involvement of leader(s) in the QI process and decision-making in budget allocation for QI; 2) staff enthusiasm and multidisciplinary collaboration; 3) a culture where QI is integrated in existing responsibilities; and 4) the ongoing Puskesmas accreditation process, which increased the value of QI to the organisation.ConclusionMaking QI a success in the decentralised Indonesian system requires action at four levels. At individual level, leadership attributes can create an internal quality environment and drive organisational cultural change. At team level, staff enthusiasm and collaboration can be triggered through engaging and tasking everyone in the QI process and having a shared vision of what quality should look like. At organisational level, QI should be integrated in planned activities, ensuring financial and human resources. Lastly, QI can be encouraged when it is implemented by the wider health system as part of national accreditation programmes.

Project description:ImportanceMobile integrated health care (MIH) is a new model of community-based health care to provide on-site urgent or nonurgent care. Niagara emergency medical services (NEMS) started MIH in 2018 to serve the Niagara region of Ontario, Canada. However, its economic impact is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare time on task and cost between MIH and ambulance delivered by NEMS from a public payer's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was an analysis of the NEMS databases regarding responses to emergency calls by the NEMS from 2016 to 2019. Emergency calls serviced by MIH in 2018 to 2019 were used as an intervention cohort. Propensity score matching was used to identify a 1:1 matched cohort of calls serviced by regular ambulance response for the same period and 2 years prior. Statistical analyses were performed from January to April 2020.ExposuresMIH compared with matched ambulance services.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were the time on task (including time on scene and time at hospital) and costs. Costs were calculated in 2019 Canadian dollars using cost per minute and compared with the 3 ambulance cohorts.ResultsIn 2018 to 2019, there were 1740 calls serviced by MIH for which a matched ambulance cohort was identified for the same period and 2 years prior. The mean (SD) time on task was 72.7 (51.0) minutes for MIH, compared with 84.1 (52.0) minutes, 84.3 (54.1) minutes, and 79.4 (42.0) minutes for matched ambulance in 2018 to 2019, 2017 to 2018, and 2016 to 2017, respectively. Of calls serviced by MIH, 498 (28.6%) required ED transport (ie, after MIH team assessment, transport to ED was deemed to be necessary or demanded by the patient), compared with 1300 (74.7%) calls serviced by ambulance in 2018 to 2019, 1294 (74.4%) in 2017 to 2018, and 1359 (78.1%) in 2016 to 2017. The mean (SD) total cost per 1000 calls was $122 760 ($78 635) for MIH compared with $294 336 ($97 245), $299 797 ($104 456), and $297 269 ($81 144) for regular ambulance responses in the 3 matched cohorts, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceCompared with regular ambulance response, MIH was associated with a substantial reduction in the proportion of patients transported to the ED, leading to a substantial saving in total costs. This finding suggests that the MIH model is a promising and viable solution to meeting urgent health care needs in the community, while substantially improving the use of scarce health care resources.

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: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.