The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 609–621 | Cite as

Impact assessment of a pay-for-performance program on breast cancer screening in France using micro data

Original Paper



A voluntary-based pay-for-performance (P4P) program (the CAPI) aimed at general practitioners (GPs) was implemented in France in 2009. The program targeted prevention practices, including breast cancer screening, by offering a maximal amount of €245 for achieving a target screening rate among eligible women enrolled with the GP.


Our objective was to evaluate the impact of the French P4P program (CAPI) on the early detection of breast cancer among women between 50 and 74 years old.


Based on an administrative database of 50,752 women aged 50–74 years followed between 2007 and 2011, we estimated a difference-in-difference model of breast cancer screening uptake as a function of visit to a CAPI signatory referral GP, while controlling for both supply-side and demand-side determinants (e.g., sociodemographics, health and healthcare use).


Breast cancer screening rates have not changed significantly since the P4P program implementation. Overall, visiting a CAPI signatory referral GP at least once in the pre-CAPI period increased the probability of undergoing breast cancer screening by 1.38 % [95 % CI (0.41–2.35 %)], but the effect was not significantly different following the implementation of the contract.


The French P4P program had a nonsignificant impact on breast cancer screening uptake. This result may reflect the fact that the low-powered incentives implemented in France through the CAPI might not provide sufficient leverage to generate better practices, thus inviting regulators to seek additional tools beyond P4P in the field of prevention and screening.


Breast cancer screening Difference-in-difference Incentives Pay for performance Primary care 

JEL Classification

C35 I18 



We are indebted to the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des Travaileurs Salariés (CNAMTS) for giving access to the data. For this research we benefited from grants provided by the Canceropôle and the National Institute for Cancer (INCa).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None declared.


  1. 1.
    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. CD008451. doi: 10.1002/14651858
  2. 2.
    Campbell, S.M., Reeves, D., Kontopantelis, E., Sibbald, B., Roland, M.: Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 368–378 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng, S.-H., Lee, T.-T., Chen, C.-C.: A longitudinal examination of a pay-for-performance program for diabetes care. Med. Care 50, 109–116 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ryan, A.M., Doran, T.: The effect of improving processes of care on patient outcomes: evidence from the United Kingdom’s quality and outcomes framework. Med. Care 50, 191–199 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eijkenaar, F.: Pay for performance in health care an international overview of initiatives. Med. Care Res. Rev. 69, 251–276 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doran, T., Fullwood, C., Gravelle, H., Reeves, D., Kontopantelis, E., Hiroeh, U., Roland, M.: Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 375–384 (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Commission des Comptes de Sécurité Sociale: Le contrat d’amélioration des pratiques individuelles (CAPI). (2011). Accessed 20 June 2016
  8. 8.
    Petersen, L.A., Woodard, L.D., Urech, T., Daw, C., Sookanan, S.: Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann. Intern. Med. 145, 265–272 (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mannion, R., Davies, H.T.O.: Payment for performance in health care. BMJ 336, 306–308 (2008)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ryan, A., Sutton, M., Doran, T.: Does winning a pay-for-performance bonus improve subsequent quality performance? Evidence from the hospital quality incentive demonstration. Health Serv. Res. 49, 568–587 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eijkenaar, F., Emmert, M., Scheppach, M., Schöffski, O.: Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Health Policy Amst. Neth. 110, 115–130 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grady, K.E., Lemkau, J.P., Lee, N.R., Caddell, C.: Enhancing mammography referral in primary care. Prev. Med. 26, 791–800 (1997)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Town, R., Kane, R., Johnson, P., Butler, M.: Economic incentives and physicians’ delivery of preventive care: a systematic review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28, 234–240 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sabatino, S.A., Lawrence, B., Elder, R., Mercer, S.L., Wilson, K.M., DeVinney, B., Melillo, S., Carvalho, M., Taplin, S., Bastani, R., Rimer, B.K., Vernon, S.W., Melvin, C.L., Taylor, V., Fernandez, M., Glanz, K.: Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43, 97–118 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiran, T., Wilton, A.S., Moineddin, R., Paszat, L., Glazier, R.H.: Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in ontario primary care. Ann. Fam. Med. 12, 317–323 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, J., Hurley, J., DeCicca, P., Buckley, G.: Physician response to pay-for-performance: evidence from a natural experiment. Health Econ. 23, 962–978 (2014)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frey, B.: Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Brookfield (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bénabou, R., Tirole, J.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70, 489–520 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sicsic, J., Le Vaillant, M., Franc, C.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in primary care: An explanatory study among French general practitioners. Health Policy Amst. Neth. 108, 140–148 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerlikowske, K., Grady, D., Rubin, S.M., Sandrock, C., Ernster, V.L.: Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 273, 149–154 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walter, L.C., Lewis, C.L., Barton, M.B.: Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in the elderly: a review of the evidence. Am. J. Med. 118, 1078–1086 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carcaise-Edinboro, P., Bradley, C.J.: Influence of patient-provider communication on colorectal cancer screening. Med. Care 46, 738–745 (2008)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fon Sing, M., Leuraud, K., Duport, N.: Characteristics of French people using organised colorectal cancer screening. Analysis of the 2010 French Health, Healthcare and Insurance Survey. Prev. Med. 57, 65–68 (2013)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jensen, L.F., Mukai, T.O., Andersen, B., Vedsted, P.: The association between general practitioners’ attitudes towards breast cancer screening and women’s screening participation. BMC Cancer 12, 254 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carrieri, V., Bilger, M.: Preventive care: underused even when free. Is there something else at work? Appl. Econ. 45, 239–253 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Franc, C., Lesur, R.: Systèmes de rémunération des médecins et incitations à la prévention. Rev. Économique. 55, 901–922 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duport, N., Ancelle-Park, R.: Do socio-demographic factors influence mammography use of French women? Analysis of a French cross-sectional survey. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. Off. J. Eur. Cancer Prev. Org. ECP 15, 219–224 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sicsic, J., Franc, C.: Obstacles to the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings: what remains to be achieved by French national programmes? BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 465 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duport, N.: Characteristics of women using organized or opportunistic breast cancer screening in France. Analysis of the 2006 French Health, Health Care and Insurance Survey. Rev. Dépidémiologie Santé Publique. 60, 421–430 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Roquefeuil, L., Studer, A., Neumann, A., Merlière, Y.: L’échantillon généraliste des bénéficiaires: représentativité, portée et limites. Prat. Organ. Soins. 40, 213–223 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kenkel, D.S.: The demand for preventive medical care. Appl. Econ. 26, 313–325 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karaca-Mandic, P., Norton, E.C., Dowd, B.: Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Serv. Res. 47, 255–274 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Givord, P.: Insee—Document recherche—Méthodes économétriques pour l’évaluation de politiques publiques. Série des documents de travail de la Direction des Etudes et Synthèses Economiques. (2010). Accessed 20 June 2016
  34. 34.
    Bussière, C., Sicsic, J., Pelletier-Fleury, N.: The effects of obesity and mobility disability in access to breast and cervical cancer screening in france: results from the national health and disability survey. PLoS One 9, e104901 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Holmstrom, B., Milgrom, P.: Multitask principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. J. Law Econ. Org. 7, 24 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mullen, K.J., Frank, R.G., Rosenthal, M.B.: Can you get what you pay for? Pay-for-performance and the quality of healthcare providers. RAND J. Econ. 41, 64–91 (2010)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scott, A.: Eliciting GPs’ preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J. Health Econ. 20, 329–347 (2001)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sabatino, S.A., Habarta, N., Baron, R.C., Coates, R.J., Rimer, B.K., Kerner, J., Coughlin, S.S., Kalra, G.P., Chattopadhyay, S.: Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, S67–S74 (2008)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McIlfatrick, S., Keeney, S., McKenna, H., McCarley, N., McElwee, G.: Investigating the role of the general practitioner in cancer prevention: a mixed methods study. BMC Fam. Pract. 14, 58 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mousquès, J., Renaud, T., Scemama, O.: Is the “practice style” hypothesis relevant for general practitioners? An analysis of antibiotics prescription for acute rhinopharyngitis. Soc. Sci. Med. 1982(70), 1176–1184 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CESP, Univ. Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Hôpital Paul BrousseVillejuif CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations