BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance (P4P) intents to stimulate both more effective and more efficient health care delivery. To date, evidence on whether P4P itself is an efficient method has not been systematically analyzed.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze the existing literature regarding economic evaluation of P4P.
DATA SOURCES: English, German, Spanish, and Turkish language literature were searched in the following databases: Business Source Complete, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, ISI web of knowledge, Medline (via PubMed), and PsycInfo (January 2000-April 2010).
STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in peer-reviewed journals and describing economic evaluations of P4P initiatives. Full economic evaluations, considering costs and consequences of the P4P intervention simultaneously, were the prime focus. Additionally, comparative partial evaluations were included if costs were described and the study allows for an assessment of consequences. Both experimental and observational studies were considered.
RESULTS: In total, nine studies could be identified. Three studies could be regarded as full economic evaluations, and six studies were classified as partial economic evaluations. Based on the full economic evaluations, P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. Partial economic evaluations showed mixed results, but several flaws limit their significance. Ranges of costs and consequences were typically narrow, and programs differed considerably in design. Methodological quality assessment showed scores between 32% and 65%.
CONCLUSION: The results show that evidence on the efficiency of P4P is scarce and inconclusive. P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. The small number and variability of included studies limit the strength of our conclusions. More research addressing P4P efficiency is needed.
BACKGROUND: Most physicians and hospitals are paid the same regardless of the quality of the health care they provide. This produces no financial incentives and, in some cases, produces disincentives for quality. Increasing numbers of programs link payment to performance. PURPOSE: To systematically review studies assessing the effect of explicit financial incentives for improved performance on measures of health care quality. DATA SOURCES: PubMed search of English-language literature (1 January 1980 to 14 November 2005), and reference lists of retrieved articles. STUDY SELECTION: Empirical studies of the relationship between explicit financial incentives designed to improve health care quality and a quantitative measure of health care quality. DATA EXTRACTION: The authors categorized studies according to the level of the incentive (individual physician, provider group, or health care payment system) and the type of quality measure rewarded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen of 17 studies examined process-of-care quality measures, most of which were for preventive services. Five of the 6 studies of physician-level financial incentives and 7 of the 9 studies of provider group-level financial incentives found partial or positive effects on measures of quality. One of the 2 studies of incentives at the payment-system level found a positive effect on access to care, and 1 showed evidence of a negative effect on access to care for the sickest patients. In all, 4 studies suggested unintended effects of incentives. The authors found no studies examining the optimal duration of financial incentives for quality or the persistence of their effects after termination. Only 1 study addressed cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Few empirical studies of explicit financial incentives for quality were available for review. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing monitoring of incentive programs is critical to determine the effectiveness of financial incentives and their possible unintended effects on quality of care. Further research is needed to guide implementation of financial incentives and to assess their cost-effectiveness.
Pay-for-performance (P4P) intents to stimulate both more effective and more efficient health care delivery. To date, evidence on whether P4P itself is an efficient method has not been systematically analyzed.
OBJECTIVE:
To identify and analyze the existing literature regarding economic evaluation of P4P.
DATA SOURCES:
English, German, Spanish, and Turkish language literature were searched in the following databases: Business Source Complete, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, ISI web of knowledge, Medline (via PubMed), and PsycInfo (January 2000-April 2010).
STUDY SELECTION:
Articles published in peer-reviewed journals and describing economic evaluations of P4P initiatives. Full economic evaluations, considering costs and consequences of the P4P intervention simultaneously, were the prime focus. Additionally, comparative partial evaluations were included if costs were described and the study allows for an assessment of consequences. Both experimental and observational studies were considered.
RESULTS:
In total, nine studies could be identified. Three studies could be regarded as full economic evaluations, and six studies were classified as partial economic evaluations. Based on the full economic evaluations, P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. Partial economic evaluations showed mixed results, but several flaws limit their significance. Ranges of costs and consequences were typically narrow, and programs differed considerably in design. Methodological quality assessment showed scores between 32% and 65%.
CONCLUSION:
The results show that evidence on the efficiency of P4P is scarce and inconclusive. P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. The small number and variability of included studies limit the strength of our conclusions. More research addressing P4P efficiency is needed.
