Why did most French GPs choose not to join the voluntary national pay-for-performance program?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In 2009, a voluntary pay for performance (P4P) scheme for primary care physicians was introduced in France through the 'Contract for Improving Individual Practice' (CAPI). Although the contract could be interrupted at any time and without any penalty, two-thirds of French general practitioners chose not to participate. We studied what factors motivated general practitioners not to subscribe to the P4P contract, and particularly their perception of the ethical risks that may be associated with adhering to a CAPI. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey among French general practitioners using an online questionnaire based on focus group discussion results. Descriptive and multivariate statistical analyses with logistic regression. RESULTS: A sample of 1,016 respondents, representative of French GPs. The variables that were associated with the probability of not signing a CAPI were "discomfort that patients were not informed of the signing of a P4P contract by their doctors" (OR = 8.24, 95% CI = 4.61-14.71), "the risk of conflicts of interest" (OR = 4.50, 95% CI = 2.42-8.35), "perceptions by patients that doctors may risk breaching professional ethics" (OR = 4. 35, 95% CI = 2.43-7.80) and "the risk of excluding the poorest patients" (OR = 2.66, 95% CI = 1.53-4.63). CONCLUSION: The perception of ethical risks associated with P4P may have hampered its success. Although the CAPI was extended to all GPs in 2012, our results question the relevance of the program itself by shedding light on potential adverse effects.
Project description:Objective:This study was conducted to investigate the challenges faced in the implementation of the pay-for-performance system in Iran's family physician program. Study design:Qualitative. Place and duration of study:The study was conducted with 32 key informants at the family physician program at the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences between May 2018 and June 2018. Method: This is a qualitative study. A purposeful sampling method was used with only one inclusion criterion for participants: five years of experience in the family physician program. The researchers conducted 17 individual and group non-structured interviews and examined participants' perspectives on the challenges faced in the implementation of the pay-for-performance system in the family physician program. Content analysis was conducted on the obtained data. Results:This study identified 7 themes, 14 sub-themes, and 46 items related to the challenges in the implementation of pay-for-performance systems in Iran's family physician program. The main themes are: workload, training, program cultivation, payment, assessment and monitoring, information management, and level of authority. Other sub-challenges were also identified. Conclusion:The study results demonstrate some notable challenges faced in the implementation of the pay-for-performance system. This information can be helpful to managers and policymakers.
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) on clinical quality and patient experience during its initial implementation period (July 2011-March 2012).Data sourcesHospital-level clinical quality and patient experience data from Hospital Compare from up to 5 years before and three quarters after HVBP was initiated.Study designAcute care hospitals were exposed to HVBP by mandate while critical access hospitals and hospitals located in Maryland were not exposed. We performed a difference-in-differences analysis, comparing performance on 12 incentivized clinical process and 8 incentivized patient experience measures between hospitals exposed to the program and a matched comparison group of nonexposed hospitals. We also evaluated whether hospitals that were ultimately exposed to HVBP may have anticipated the program by improving quality in advance of its introduction.Principal findingsDifference-in-differences estimates indicated that hospitals that were exposed to HVBP did not show greater improvement for either the clinical process or patient experience measures during the program's first implementation period. Estimates from our preferred specification showed that HVBP was associated with a 0.51 percentage point reduction in composite quality for the clinical process measures (p > .10, 95 percent CI: -1.37, 0.34) and a 0.30 percentage point reduction in composite quality for the patient experience measures (p > .10, 95 percent CI: -0.79, 0.19). We found some evidence that hospitals improved performance on clinical process measures prior to the start of HVBP, but no evidence of this phenomenon for the patient experience measures.ConclusionsThe timing of the financial incentives in HVBP was not associated with improved quality of care. It is unclear whether improvement for the clinical process measures prior to the start of HVBP was driven by the expectation of the program or was the result of other factors.
Project description:ObjectiveTo test the effect of Massachusetts Medicaid's (MassHealth) hospital-based pay-for-performance (P4P) program, implemented in 2008, on quality of care for pneumonia and surgical infection prevention (SIP).DataHospital Compare process of care quality data from 2004 to 2009 for acute care hospitals in Massachusetts (N=62) and other states (N=3,676) and American Hospital Association data on hospital characteristics from 2005.Study designPanel data models with hospital fixed effects and hospital-specific trends are estimated to test the effect of P4P on composite quality for pneumonia and SIP. This base model is extended to control for the completeness of measure reporting. Further sensitivity checks include estimation with propensity-score matched control hospitals, excluding hospitals in other P4P programs, varying the time period during which the program was assumed to have an effect, and testing the program effect across hospital characteristics.Principal findingsEstimates from our preferred specification, including hospital fixed effects, trends, and the control for measure completeness, indicate small and nonsignificant program effects for pneumonia (-0.67 percentage points, p>.10) and SIP (-0.12 percentage points, p>.10). Sensitivity checks indicate a similar pattern of findings across specifications.ConclusionsDespite offering substantial financial incentives, the MassHealth P4P program did not improve quality in the first years of implementation.
Project description:ImportanceMedicare's End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program incorporates measures of perceived value into reimbursement calculations. In 2016, patient experience became a clinical measure in the Quality Incentive Program scoring system. Dialysis facility performance in patient experience measures has not been studied at the national level to date.ObjectiveTo examine associations among dialysis facility performance with patient experience measures and patient, facility, and geographic characteristics.DesignIn this cross-sectional analysis, patients from a national end-stage renal disease registry receiving in-center hemodialysis in the United States on December 31, 2014, were linked with dialysis facility scores on the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS) survey. Of 4977 US dialysis facilities, 2939 (59.1%) reported ICH-CAHPS scores from April 8, 2015, through January 11, 2016. Multivariable linear regression models with geographic random effects were used to examine associations of facility ICH-CAHPS scores with patient, dialysis facility, and geographic characteristics and to identify the amount of total between-facility variation in patient experience scores explained by these categories. Data were analyzed from September 15, 2017, through June 1, 2018.ExposuresDialysis facility, geographic characteristic, and 10% change in patient characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresDialysis facility ICH-CAHPS scores and the total between-facility variation explained by different categories of characteristics.ResultsOf the 2939 facilities included in the analysis, adjusted mean ICH-CAHPS scores were 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) lower in for-profit facilities, 1.6 percentage points (95% CI, 0.9-2.2) lower in facilities owned by large dialysis organizations, and 2.3 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-4.2) lower in free-standing facilities compared with their counterparts. More nurses per patient was associated with 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.03-0.3) higher scores; a privately insured patient population was associated with 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2-2.2) higher scores. Facilities with higher proportions of black patients had 0.95 percentage points (95% CI, 0.78-1.12) lower scores; more Native American patients, 1.00 percentage point (95% CI, 0.39-1.60) lower facility scores. Geographic location and dialysis facility characteristics explained larger proportions of the overall between-facility variation in ICH-CAHPS scores than did patient characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that for-profit operation, free-standing status, and large dialysis organization designation were associated with less favorable patient-reported experiences of care. Patient experience scores varied geographically, and black and Native American populations reported less favorable experiences. The study findings suggest that perceived quality of care delivered in these settings are of concern, and that there may be opportunities for improved implementation of patient experience surveys as is highlighted.
Project description:BackgroundInfectious and tropical diseases (ID) physicians are needed now more than ever to tackle existing and emerging global threats. However, in many countries, ID is not recognized as a qualifying specialty. The creation of ID residency in 2017 in France offers the opportunity to know how and why the specialty is chosen by medical students.MethodsWe first analyzed the choice of specialty of all French medical students in 2017 and 2018 according to their rank at the national exam that ends medical studies. A web questionnaire was then sent in January 2019 to all ID residents in France (n = 100) to assess the factors influencing their choice of specialty and their career plan.ResultsWe analyzed the choice of 17,087 medical students. ID was the first-chosen specialty with a median national rank of 526/8539, followed by plastic surgery and ophthalmology. The questionnaire was completed by 90% of the French ID residents (n = 100). The most encouraging factors to choose ID were the multi-system approach of the specialty, the importance of diagnostic medicine and having done an internship in ID during medical school. The potential deterrents were the work-life balance, the workload and the salary.ConclusionsThe recent recognition of ID as a qualifying specialty in France can be considered a success insofar as the specialty is the most popular among all medical and surgical specialties. Individuals who choose ID are attracted by the intellectual stimulation of the specialty but express concerns about the working conditions and salaries.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine the effects of a schizophrenia pay-for-performance (P4P) program on the health outcomes of patients in Taiwan. DATA SOURCES:Seven years (2007-2013) of data from the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) databases were examined. STUDY DESIGN:P4P patients included those who were treated at participating facilities and consecutively included in the regular group (classified by the NHIA). Non-P4P patients were treated at nonparticipating facilities and never included in the regular group. The caliper matching method and a generalized estimating equation were used to estimate difference-in-differences models (baseline year 2009) and examine the short- and long-term effects of the P4P program on adverse outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:The schizophrenia P4P program was associated with decreases in unscheduled outpatient visits (OR: 0.69, P < 0.001) and compulsory admissions (incidence rate ratio: 0.33, P < 0.05). However, this program was not associated with decreases in other outcomes including emergency department visits for any disease, admissions to an acute psychiatric ward, and readmission within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS:Although the disease management component of the P4P program can be beneficial for compulsory admissions, more sophisticated activities, such as health promotion targeting disadvantaged patients, could be implemented to reduce the occurrence of complicated adverse outcomes.
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe how general practitioners (GPs) adapted their practices to secure and maintain access to care in the epidemic phase. A secondary objective was to explore if GPs' individual characteristics and type of practice determined their adaptation.DesignObservational study using an online questionnaire. Organisational changes were measured by a main question and detailed in two specific outcomes. To identify which GPs' characteristics impacted organisational changes, successive multivariate logistic modelling was performed. First, we identified the GPs' characteristics related to organisational changes with a univariate analysis. Then, we tested the adjusted associations between this variable and the following GPs' characteristics: age, gender and type of practice.SettingThe questionnaire was administered online between 14 March and 21 March 2020. Practitioners were recruited by email using the contact lists of different French scientific GP societies.ParticipantsThe target population was GPs currently practising in France (n=46 056). We obtained a total of 7481 responses.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome: Proportion of GPs who adapted their practice. Secondary outcome: GPs' characteristics related to organisational changes.ResultsAmong the 7481 responses, 5425 were complete and were analysed. 3849 GPs (70.9%) changed their activity, 3605 GPs (66.5%) increased remote consultations and 2315 GPs (42.7%) created a specific pathway for probable patients with COVID-19. Among the 3849 GPs (70.9%) who changed their practice, 3306 (91.7%) gave more answers by phone, 996 (27.6%) by email and 1105 (30.7%) increased the use of video consultations. GPs working in multi-professional group practices were more likely to have changed their activity since the beginning of the epidemic wave than GPs working in mono-professional group or single medical practices (adjusted OR: 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.56, p=0.001).ConclusionsFrench GPs adapted their practices regarding access to care for patients in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic. This adaptation was higher in multi-professional group practices.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pay-for-Performance programs have shown improvement in indicators monitoring adequacy and target achievement in diabetic care. However, less is known regarding the impact of this program on the occurrence and long-term effects of diabetic retinopathy. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of pay-for-performance program on the development of treatment needed for diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS:We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study with a matching design using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 2000 to 2012. The outcome was defined as the treatment needed diabetic retinopathy. We matched Pay-for-Performance and non-Pay-for-Performance groups for age, gender, year diabetes was diagnosed and study enrollment, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS:A total of 9311 patients entered the study cohort, of whom 2157 were registered in the Pay-for-Performance group and 7154 matched in the non-Pay-for-Performance group. The incidence of treatment needed diabetic retinopathy was not significantly different in two groups. However, the incidence of treatment needed diabetic retinopathy was significantly different if restricted the non-Pay-for-Performance group who had at least 1 eye examination or optical coherence tomography within 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.94). CONCLUSIONS:Pay-for-Performance is valuable in preventing the development of treatment needed diabetic retinopathy, which could be attributed to the routine eye examination required in the Pay-for-Performance program. We could improve our diabetic care by promoting eye health education and patient awareness on the importance of regular examinations.
Project description:Pay for performance (P4P) has been used as a strategy to improve quality for patients with chronic illness. Little was known whether care provided to individuals with multiple chronic conditions in a P4P program were cost-effective. This study investigated cost effectiveness of a diabetes P4P program for caring patients with diabetes alone (DM alone) and diabetes with comorbid hypertension and hyperlipidemia (DMHH) from a single payer perspective in Taiwan. Analyzing data using population-based longitudinal databases, we compared costs and effectiveness between P4P and non-P4P diabetes patient groups in two cohorts. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match comparable control groups for intervention groups. Outcomes included life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), program intervention costs, cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). QALYs for P4P patients and non-P4P patients were 2.80 and 2.71 for the DM alone cohort and 2.74 and 2.66 for the DMHH patient cohort. The average incremental intervention costs per QALYs was TWD$167,251 in the DM alone cohort and TWD$145,474 in the DMHH cohort. The average incremental all-cause medical costs saved by the P4P program per QALYs were TWD$434,815 in DM alone cohort and TWD$506,199 in the DMHH cohort. The findings indicated that the P4P program for both cohorts were cost-effective and the resulting return on investment (ROI) was 2.60:1 in the DM alone cohort and 3.48:1 in the DMHH cohort. We conclude that the diabetes P4P program in both cohorts enabled the long-term cost-effective use of resources and cost-savings, especially for patients with multiple comorbid conditions.
Project description:BackgroundMany studies have investigated the ways in which physicians decide whether to prescribe antibiotics, but very few studies have focused on the reasons for which general practitioners (GPs) choose to prescribe a particular antibiotic in a specific clinical situation. Improvements in our understanding of the rationale behind GPs' decisions would provide insight into the reasons for which GPs do not always prescribe the antibiotic recommended in clinical practice guidelines and facilitate the development of appropriate interventions to improve antibiotic prescription. The objective of the study was to understand the rationale used by GPs to decide which antibiotic to prescribe in a specific clinical situation, and to propose a model representing this rationale.MethodsWe used a three-step process. First, data were collected from interviews with 20 GPs, and analysed according to the grounded theory approach. Second, data were collected from publications exploring the factors used by GPs to choose an antibiotic. Third, data were used to develop a comprehensive model of the rationale used by GPs to decide which antibiotic to prescribe.ResultsThe GPs considered various factors when choosing antibiotics: factors relating to microbiology (bacterial resistance), pharmacology (adverse effects, efficacy, practicality of the administration protocol, antibiotic class, drug cost), clinical conditions (patient profile and comorbid conditions, symptoms, progression of infection, history of antibiotic treatment, preference), and personal factors (GP's experience, knowledge, emotion, preference).ConclusionsVarious interventions, targeting all the factors underlying antibiotic choice, are required to improve antibiotic prescription. GP-related factors could be improved through interventions aiming to improve the GPs' knowledge of antibiotics (e.g. continuing medical education). Factors relating to microbiology, pharmacology and clinical conditions could be targeted through the use of clinical decision support systems in everyday clinical practice.