2016
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12185
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of pay for performance on behavior of primary care physicians and patient outcomes

Abstract: Decision-makers should consider the baseline conditions of medical quality and the practice size before new medical policies are enacted. Furthermore, most studies are retrospective and observational with high level of heterogeneity though, the descriptive analysis is still of significance.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(257 reference statements)
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The finding that ACOs do not reduce and may even improve some measures of patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care suggests that ACOs have not prompted the patient frustration associated with the HMO model, potentially due to the preservation of patient choice in providers in the ACO model among other differences (Miller & Luft, 2002). Similar to ACOs, P4P programs have been associated with small positive effects on the process measures targeted; however, neither model has demonstrated consistent effects on health outcomes (Flodgren et al, 2011; Gilmore et al, 2007; Lin, Yin, Huang, & Du, 2016; Mendelson et al, 2017; Rosenthal & Frank, 2006; Rosenthal, Frank, Li, & Epstein, 2005; Rosenthal, Landon, Normand, Frank, & Epstein, 2006; Rosenthal, Landrum, Robbins, & Schneider, 2016; Sutton et al, 2012; Werner, Konetzka, & Polsky, 2013). To improve population health and outcomes, ACO programs may need to incentivize measures of quality that are more closely tied to outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The finding that ACOs do not reduce and may even improve some measures of patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care suggests that ACOs have not prompted the patient frustration associated with the HMO model, potentially due to the preservation of patient choice in providers in the ACO model among other differences (Miller & Luft, 2002). Similar to ACOs, P4P programs have been associated with small positive effects on the process measures targeted; however, neither model has demonstrated consistent effects on health outcomes (Flodgren et al, 2011; Gilmore et al, 2007; Lin, Yin, Huang, & Du, 2016; Mendelson et al, 2017; Rosenthal & Frank, 2006; Rosenthal, Frank, Li, & Epstein, 2005; Rosenthal, Landon, Normand, Frank, & Epstein, 2006; Rosenthal, Landrum, Robbins, & Schneider, 2016; Sutton et al, 2012; Werner, Konetzka, & Polsky, 2013). To improve population health and outcomes, ACO programs may need to incentivize measures of quality that are more closely tied to outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Payment models are designed to produce financial incentives in order to achieve certain goals. Examples are capitation, episode-based and bundled payment, shared savings, pay for performance (PFP), and retainer-based practice 38 . They are designed from different points of view e.g.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are also ethical issues and concerns regarding its impact on deprived population groups leading to worsening health inequalities. P4P programmes oftentimes focus only on process and structural indicators without measuring the effect on outcomes, such as mortality [ 8 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%