Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 127–132 | Cite as

Sustainability of Quality Improvement Following Removal of Pay-for-Performance Incentives

  • Justin K. BenzerEmail author
  • Gary J. Young
  • James F. BurgessJr
  • Errol Baker
  • David C. Mohr
  • Martin P. Charns
  • Peter J. Kaboli
Original Research

ABSTRACT

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.

KEY WORDS

inpatients physician incentive plans quality improvement quality indicators reimbursement incentive salaries  fringe benefits 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported herein was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service (IIR 08-067-1) and an Investigator Award in Health Policy to Gary Young from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors had full access to and take full responsibility for the integrity of the data. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors would like to thank Terry Duncan for consultation on implementing time series models in MPLUS.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11606_2013_2572_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (191 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 191 kb)
11606_2013_2572_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (172 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 171 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA. 2005;294(14):1788–1793.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Millett C, Gray J, Saxena S, Netuveli G, Majeed A. Impact of a pay-for-performance incentive on support for smoking cessation and on smoking prevalence among people with diabetes. CMAJ. 2007;176(12):1705–1710.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Hiroeh U, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(4):375–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung S, Palaniappan LP, Trujillo LM, Rubin HR, Luft HS. Effect of physician-specific pay-for-performance incentives in a large group practice. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(2):e35–e42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christianson JB, Leatherman S, Sutherland K. Lessons from evaluations of purchaser pay-for-performance programs: a review of the evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(6 Suppl):5S–35S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glasgow JM, Scott-Caziewell JR, Kaboli PJ. Guiding inpatient quality improvement: a systematic review of lean and six sigma. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(12):533–540.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing Program; Final Rule http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-06/html/2011-10568.htm In: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, ed: Department of Health and Human Services; 2011:26489–547.
  8. 8.
    Hysong SJ, Khan MM, Petersen LA. Passive monitoring versus active assessment of clinical performance: impact on measured quality of care. Med Care. 2011;49(10):883–890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glasgow JM, Davies ML, Kaboli PJ. Findings from a national improvement collaborative: are improvements sustained? BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(8):663–669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lester H, Schmittdiel J, Selby J, Fireman B, Campbell S, Lee J, et al. The impact of removing financial incentives from clinical quality indicators: longitudinal analysis of four Kaiser Permanente indicators. BMJ. 2010;340:c1898.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kizer KW, Dudley RA. Extreme makeover: transformation of the veterans health care system. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:313–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr, Racz M, Shields E, Chassin MR. Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. JAMA. 1994;271(10):761–766.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Werner RM, Bradlow ET. Public reporting on hospital process improvements is linked to better patient outcomes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(7):1319–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Hospital performance reports: impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(4):1150–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith MA, Wright A, Queram C, Lamb GC. Public reporting helped drive quality improvement in outpatient diabetes care among Wisconsin physician groups. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(3):570–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, Rothberg MB, Benjamin EM, Ma A, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):486–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bokhour BG, Burgess JF Jr, Hook JM, White B, Berlowitz D, Guldin MR, et al. Incentive implementation in physician practices: a qualitative study of practice executive perspectives on pay for performance. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(1 Suppl):73S–95S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin K. Benzer
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gary J. Young
    • 1
    • 3
  • James F. BurgessJr
    • 1
    • 2
  • Errol Baker
    • 1
    • 2
  • David C. Mohr
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin P. Charns
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter J. Kaboli
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Center for Organization, Leadership, and Management Research (COLMR) at the VA Boston Healthcare System (152 M)BostonUSA
  2. 2.Boston University School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  3. 3.Northeastern University Center for Health Policy and Healthcare ResearchBostonUSA
  4. 4.Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) Center at the Iowa City VA Healthcare SystemIowa CityUSA
  5. 5.Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of MedicineIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations