Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 1303–1315 | Cite as

Effects of pay-for-performance for primary care physicians on diabetes outcomes in single-payer health systems: a systematic review

  • Neeru GuptaEmail author
  • Holly M. Ayles
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

Although pay-for-performance (P4P) for diabetes care is increasingly common, evidence of its effectiveness in improving population health and health system sustainability is deficient. This information gap is attributable in part to the heterogeneity of healthcare financing, covered medical conditions, care settings, and provider remuneration arrangements within and across countries. We systematically reviewed the literature concentrating on whether P4P for physicians in primary and community care leads to better diabetes outcomes in single-payer national health insurance systems.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching ten databases (01/2000–04/2018) and scanning the reference lists of review articles and other global health literature. We included primary studies evaluating the effects of introducing P4P for diabetes care among primary care physicians in countries of universal health coverage. Outcomes of interest included patient morbidity, avoidable hospitalization, premature death, and healthcare costs.

Results

We identified 2218 reports; after exclusions, 10 articles covering 8 P4P interventions in 7 countries were eligible for analysis. Five studies, capturing records from 717,166 patients with diabetes, were graded as high-quality evaluations of P4P on health outcomes. Based on three quality studies, P4P can result in reduced risk of mortality over the longer term—when linked to performance metrics. However, studies from other jurisdictions, where P4P was not linked to specific patient-oriented objectives, yielded little or mixed evidence of positive health impacts.

Conclusion

Evidence of the effectiveness of P4P depends on whether physicians’ incentive payments are explicitly tied to performance metrics. However, the most appropriate indicators for performance monitoring remain in question. More research with rigorous evaluation in different settings is needed.

Keywords

Pay-for-performance Systematic review Physician practice Diabetes mellitus National health insurance 

JEL Classification

H51 government expenditures and health I11 analysis of health care markets J33 compensation packages 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Barry Cull and Richelle Witherspoon, from the University of New Brunswick’s Harriet Irving Library, for assistance with structuring the literature search and adapting it for the different bibliographic databases. Diabetes Canada and the New Brunswick Health Research Foundation provided financial support for this study. The sponsors had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or writing of the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization: Global report on diabetes. WHO, Geneva (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization: Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2014. WHO, Geneva (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization: The world health report—health systems financing: the path to universal coverage. WHO, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Council of Nurses, International Hospital Federation, International Pharmaceutical Federation, World Confederation for Physical Therapy, World Dental Federation, World Medical Association: Guidelines: incentives for health professionals. ICN, Geneva (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott, A., Sivey, P., Ait Ouakrim, D., Willenberg, L., Naccarella, L., Furler, J., Young, D.: The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9, CD008451 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Bruin, S.R., Baan, C.A., Struijs, J.N.: Pay-for-performance in disease management: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 11, 272 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turcotte-Tremblay, A.M., Spagnolo, J., De Allegri, M., Riddle, V.: Does performance-based financing increase value for money in low- and middle-income countries? A systematic review. Health Econ Rev 6(1), 30 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emmert, M., Eijkenaar, F., Kemter, H., Esslinger, A.S., Schöffski, O.: Economic evaluation of pay-for-performance in health care: a systematic review. Eur J Health Econ 13, 755–767 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaix-Couturier, C., Durand-Zaleski, I., Jolly, D., Durieux, P.: Effects of financial incentives on medical practice: results from a systematic review of the literature and methodological issues. Int J Qual Health Care 12, 133–142 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Herck, P., De Smedt, D., Annemans, L., Remmen, R., Rosenthal, M.B., Sermeus, W.: Systematic review: effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care. BMC Health Serv Res 10, 247 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7), e1000100 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta, N., Ayles, H.: Systematic Review Protocol Examining the Effects of Introducing Pay-for-Performance for Primary Care Physicians on Diabetes Outcomes in Single-Payer Healthcare Systems. Diabetes Population Health and Health Services Research Working Paper, no. 2017-01. Fredericton, University of New Brunswick (2017). https://unbscholar.lib.unb.ca/islandora/object/unbscholar%3A9292
  13. 13.
    Tao, W., Agerholm, J., Burström, B.: The impact of reimbursement systems on equity in access and quality of primary care: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 16, 542 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jia L, Yuan B, Meng Q, Scott A: Payment methods for ambulatory care health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 9: CD011865 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, J., Yin, S., Lin, Y., Jiang, Q., He, Y., Du, L.: Impact of pay-for-performance on management of diabetes: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 6, 173–184 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flodgren, G., Eccles, M.P., Shepperd, S., Scott, A., Parmelli, E., Beyer, F.R.: An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7, CD009255 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forbes, L.J., Marchand, C., Doran, T., Peckham, S.: The role of the quality and outcomes framework in the care of long-term conditions: a systematic review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 67(664), e775–e784 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheffler, R.M.: Pay for Performance (P4P) Programs in Health Services: What is the Evidence? World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, no. 31. WHO, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elovainio, R.: Performance incentives for health in high-income countries: key issues and lessons learned. World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, no. 32. WHO, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Vist, G.E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Schünemann, H.J.: GRADE Working Group: what is ‘quality of evidence’ and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 336(7651), 995–998 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Movsisyan, A., Melendez-Torres, G.J., Montgomery, P.: Users identified challenges in applying GRADE to complex interventions and suggested an extension to GRADE. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 70, 191–199 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Kunz, R., Atkins, D., Brozek, J., Vist, G., Alderson, P., Glasziou, P., Falck-Ytter, Y., Schünemann, H.J.: GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4), 395–400 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berwick, D.M., Nolan, T.W., Whittington, J.: The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff. 27(3), 759–769 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lorenc, T., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., Neary, D., Clayton, S., Wright, K., Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A., Renton, A.: Environmental interventions to reduce fear of crime: systematic review of effectiveness. Syst Rev 2(1), 30 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Sultan, S., Glasziou, P., Akl, E.A., Alonso-Coello, P., et al.: GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64(12), 1311–1316 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greene, J.: An examination of pay-for-performance in general practice in Australia. Health Serv. Res. 48(4), 1415–1432 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    LeBlanc, E., Bélanger, M., Thibault, V., Babin, L., Greene, B., Halpine, S., Mancuso, M.: Influence of a pay-for-performance program on glycemic control in patients living with diabetes by family physicians in a Canadian province. Can J Diabetes 1(2), 190–196 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lavergne, M.R., Law, M.R., Peterson, S., Garrison, S., Hurley, J., Cheng, L., McGrail, K.: A population based analysis of incentive payments to primary care physicians for the care of patients with complex disease. CMAJ 188(15), e375–e383 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rudkjøbinga, A., Vrangbaek, K., Birk, H.O., Andersen, J.S., Krasnik, A.: Evaluation of a policy to strengthen case management and quality of diabetes care in general practice in Denmark. Health Policy 119(8), 1023–1030 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iezzi, E., Lippi Bruni, M., Ugolini, C.: The role of GP’s compensation schemes in diabetes care: evidence from panel data. J Health Econ 34, 104–120 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ödesjö, H., Anell, A., Gudbjörnsdottir, S., Thorn, J., Björck, S.: Short-term effects of a pay-for-performance programme for diabetes in a primary care setting: an observational study. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 33(4), 291–297 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pan, C.C., Kung, P.T., Chiu, L.T., Liao, Y.P., Tsai, W.C.: Patients with diabetes in pay-for-performance programs have better physician continuity of care and survival. Am J Manag Care 23(2), e57–e66 (2017)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hsieh, H.M., Chiu, H.C., Lin, Y.T., Shin, S.J.: A diabetes pay-for-performance program and the competing causes of death among cancer survivors with type 2 diabetes in Taiwan. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 29(4), 512–520 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hsieh, H.M., He, J.S., Shin, S.J., Chiu, H.C., Lee, C.T.: A diabetes pay-for-performance program and risks of cancer incidence and death in patients with type 2 diabetes in Taiwan. Prev Chronic Dis 14, E88 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kontopantelis, E., Springate, D.A., Ashworth, M., Webb, R.T., Buchan, I.E., Doran, T.: Investigating the relationship between quality of primary care and premature mortality in England: a spatial whole-population study. BMJ 350, h904 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wong, E., Backholer, K., Gearon, E., Harding, J., Freak-Poli, R., Stevenson, C., Peeters, A.: Diabetes and risk of physical disability in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 1(2), 106–114 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Allen, T., Mason, T., Whittaker, W.: Impacts of pay for performance on the quality of primary care. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 7, 113–120 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eijkenaar, F.: Key issues in the design of pay for performance programs. Eur J Health Econ 14(1), 117–131 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roland, M., Olesen, F.: Can pay for performance improve the quality of primary care? BMJ 354, i4058 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hedden, L., Barer, M.L., Cardiff, K., McGrail, K.M., Law, M.R., Bourgeault, I.L.: The implications of the feminization of the primary care physician workforce on service supply: a systematic review. Hum Resour Health 12, 32 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations