Search

Background: Although pay-for-performance (P4P) has become a central strategy for improving quality in US healthcare, questions persist about the effectiveness of these programs. A key question is whether quality improvement that occurs as a result of P4P programs is sustainable, particularly if incentives are removed., Objective: To investigate sustainability of performance levels following removal of performance-based incentives., Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study that capitalized on a P4P program within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) that included adoption and subsequent removal of performance-based incentives for selected inpatient quality measures. The study sample comprised 128 acute care VA hospitals where performance was assessed between 2004 and 2010., Intervention: VA system managers set annual performance goals in consultation with clinical leaders, and report performance scores to medical centers on a quarterly basis. These scores inform performance-based incentives for facilities and their managers. Bonuses are distributed based on the attainment of these performance goals., Measurements: Seven quality of care measures for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and pneumonia linked to performance-based incentives., Results: Significant improvements in performance were observed for six of seven quality of care measures following adoption of performance-based incentives and were maintained up to the removal of the incentive; subsequently, the observed performance levels were sustained., Limitations: This is a quasi-experimental study without a comparison group; causal conclusions are limited., Conclusion: The maintenance of performance levels after removal of a performance-based incentive has implications for the implementation of Medicare's value-based purchasing initiative and other P4P programs. Additional research is needed to better understand human and system-level factors that mediate sustainability of performance-based incentives.

Background: Although the Medicare Part D coverage gap phase-out should reduce cost-related nonadherence (CRN) among seniors with diabetes, preferential generic prescribing may have already decreased CRN, while smaller numbers of patients using more costly branded oral anti-diabetic (OAD) medications remain vulnerable to CRN., Objective: To estimate the effects of cost sharing in the Part D standard (non-LIS) benefit on adherence to different OAD classes, comparing two classes dominated by inexpensive generic medications and two by more costly branded medications., Design and Patients: Retrospective cohort study using dispensed prescription data for elderly non-LIS (N=81,047) and LIS (low-income subsidy) (N=150,359) beneficiaries using same class OAD(s) in 2008 and 2009. Logistic regression modeled non-LIS likelihood; LIS and non-LIS patients matched using propensity outcome (N=38,054). Logistic regression, controlling for demographic and health status characteristics, modeled effects of non-LIS coverage on 2009 OAD class adherence., Main Measures: Main outcome measures were within-class OAD coverage year adherence, with patients considered adherent when days supplied to calendar days ratio at least 0.8., Key Results: Non-LIS patients had 0.52 and 0.57 times the odds of branded-only DPP-4 Inhibitor (N=1,812; 95 % CI: 0.43, 0.63; P<0.001) and Thiazolidinedione (TZD) (N=6,290; 95 % CI: 0.52, 0.63; P<0.001) adherence. Most patients (N=32,510; 82 %) used OADs in primarily generic classes, where we found no significant (Biguanides; N=21,377) or small differences (Sulfonylureas/Glinides [N=19,240; OR: 0.91; 95 % CI: 0.86, 0.97; P=0.002]) in adherence odds. Crude adherence rates were sub-optimal when CRN was not a factor (Non-LIS/LIS: Biguanides: 65 %/65 %; Sulfonylureas/Glinides: 66 %/68 %; LIS: DPP-4 Inhibitors: 66 %; TZDs: 67 %)., Conclusions: Gap elimination would not affect generic, but should reduce branded OAD CRN. Branded copayments may continue to lead to CRN. Policy initiatives and benefit changes targeting both cost deterrents for patients with more complex disease and non-cost generic OAD underuse are recommended.

Background: Policy-makers have called for efforts to reduce overuse of cancer screening tests, including colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). Overuse of CRCS tests other than colonoscopy has not been well documented., Objective: To estimate levels and correlates of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) overuse in a national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sample., Design: Observational, Participants: Participants included 1,844 CRCS-eligible patients who responded to a 2007 CRCS survey conducted in 24 VHA facilities and had one or more FOBTs between 2003 and 2009., Main Measures: We combined survey data on race, education, and income with administrative data on region, age, gender, CRCS procedures, and outpatient visits to estimate overuse levels and variation. We coded FOBTs as overused if they were conducted <10 months after prior FOBT, <9.5 years after prior colonoscopy, or <4.5 years after prior barium enema. We used multinomial logistic regression models to examine variation in overuse by reason (sooner than recommended after prior FOBT; sooner than recommended after colonoscopy, barium enema, or a combination of procedures), adjusting for clustering of procedures within patients, and patients within facilities., Key Results: Of 4,236 FOBTs received by participants, 885 (21 %) met overuse criteria, with 323 (8 %) sooner than recommended after FOBT, and 562 (13 %) sooner than recommended after other procedures. FOBT overuse varied across facilities (9-32 %, p<0.0001) and region (12-23 %, p< .0012). FOBT overuse after prior FOBT declined between 2003 and 2009 (8 %-5 %, p= .0492), but overuse after other procedures increased (11-19 %, p= .0002). FOBT overuse of both types increased with number of outpatient visits (OR 1.15, p<0.001), but did not vary by patient demographics. More than 11 % of overused FOBTs were followed by colonoscopy within 12 months., Conclusions: Many FOBTs are performed sooner than recommended in the VHA. Variation in overuse by facility, region, and outpatient visits suggests addressing FOBT overuse will require system-level solutions.

Many e-health technologies are available to promote virtual patient-provider communication outside the context of face-to-face clinical encounters. Current digital communication modalities include cell phones, smartphones, interactive voice response, text messages, e-mails, clinic-based interactive video, home-based web-cams, mobile smartphone two-way cameras, personal monitoring devices, kiosks, dashboards, personal health records, web-based portals, social networking sites, secure chat rooms, and on-line forums. Improvements in digital access could drastically diminish the geographical, temporal, and cultural access problems faced by many patients. Conversely, a growing digital divide could create greater access disparities for some populations. As the paradigm of healthcare delivery evolves towards greater reliance on non-encounter-based digital communications between patients and their care teams, it is critical that our theoretical conceptualization of access undergoes a concurrent paradigm shift to make it more relevant for the digital age. The traditional conceptualizations and indicators of access are not well adapted to measure access to health services that are delivered digitally outside the context of face-to-face encounters with providers. This paper provides an overview of digital "encounterless" utilization, discusses the weaknesses of traditional conceptual frameworks of access, presents a new access framework, provides recommendations for how to measure access in the new framework, and discusses future directions for research on access.

Background: Studies examining the effectiveness of pay-for-performance programs to improve quality of care primarily have been confined to bonus-type arrangements that reward providers for performance above a predetermined threshold. No studies to date have evaluated programs placing providers at financial risk for performance relative to other participants in the program., Objective: The objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of an incentive program conferring limited financial risk to primary care physicians., Participants: There were 334 participating primary care physicians in Rochester, New York., Design: The design of the study is a retrospective cohort study using pre/post analysis., Measurements: The measurements adhere to 4 diabetes performance measures between 1999 and 2004., Results: While absolute performance levels increased across all measures immediately following implementation, there was no difference between the post- and pre-intervention trends indicating that the overall increase in performance was largely a result of secular trends. However, there was evidence of a modest 1-time improvement in physician adherence for eye examination that appeared attributable to the incentive program. For this measure, physicians improved their adherence rate on average by 7 percentage points in the year after implementation of the program., Conclusions: This study demonstrates a modest effect in improving provider adherence to quality standards for a single measure of diabetes care during the early phase of a pay-for-performance program that placed physicians under limited financial risk. Further research is needed to determine the most effective incentive structures for achieving substantial gains in quality of care.