scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers

04 Aug 2015-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley)-Vol. 2015, Iss: 3, pp 006731
TL;DR: The effects of pharmaceutical policies using financial incentives to influence prescribers' practices on drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs are determined and pay for performance policies are evaluated.
Abstract: Background Pharmaceuticals, while central to medical therapy, pose a significant burden to health care budgets. Therefore regulations to control prescribing costs and improve quality of care are implemented increasingly. These include the use of financial incentives for prescribers, namely increased financial accountability using budgets and performance based payments. Objectives To determine the effects on drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs ( expenditures) of policies, that intend to affect prescribers by means of financial incentives. Search strategy We searched the following databases and web sites: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register ( August 2003), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( October 2003), MEDLINE ( October 2005), EMBASE ( October 2005), and other databases. Selection criteria Policies were defined as laws, rules, financial and administrative orders made by governments, non- government organisations or private insurers. One of the following outcomes had to be reported: drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes, and costs. The study had to be a randomised or non- randomised controlled trial, interrupted time series analysis, repeated measures study or controlled before-after study evaluating financial incentives for prescribers introduced for a jurisdiction or healthcare system. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. Main results Thirteen evaluations of budgetary policies and none of performance based payments met our inclusion criteria. Ten studies evaluated general practice fundholding in the UK, one the Irish Indicative Drug Target Savings Scheme ( IDTSS) and two evaluated German drug budgets for physicians in private practice. The interrupted time series analyses had some limitations. All the controlled beforeafter studies ( all from the UK) had serious limitations. Drug expenditure ( per item and per patient) and prescribed drug volume decreased with budgets in all three countries. Evidence indicated increased use of generic drugs in the UK and Ireland, but was inconclusive on the use of new and expensive drugs. We found no clear evidence of increased health care utilisation and no studies reporting effects on health. Administration costs were not reported. No studies on the effects of performance- based payments or other policies met our inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions Based on the evidence in this review from three Western European countries, drug budgets for physicians in private practice can limit drug expenditure by limiting the volume of prescribed drugs, increasing the use of generic drugs or both. Since the majority of studies included were found to have serious limitations, these results should be interpreted with care.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care, however, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found.
Abstract: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness. The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers. One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced. Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level. P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.

467 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An overview of systematic reviews that evaluates the impact of financial incentives on healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes found that financial incentives may be effective in changing healthcare professional practice.
Abstract: Background There is considerable interest in the effectiveness of financial incentives in the delivery of health care. Incentives may be used in an attempt to increase the use of evidence-based treatments among healthcare professionals or to stimulate health professionals to change their clinical behaviour with respect to preventive, diagnostic and treatment decisions, or both. Financial incentives are an extrinsic source of motivation and exist when an individual can expect a monetary transfer which is made conditional on acting in a particular way. Since there are numerous reviews performed within the healthcare area describing the effects of various types of financial incentives, it is important to summarise the effectiveness of these in an overview to discern which are most effective in changing health professionals' behaviour and patient outcomes. Objectives To conduct an overview of systematic reviews that evaluates the impact of financial incentives on healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes. Methods We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE); TRIP; MEDLINE; EMBASE; Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; NHS EED; HEED; EconLit; and Program in Policy Decision-Making (PPd) (from their inception dates up to January 2010). We searched the reference lists of all included reviews and carried out a citation search of those papers which cited studies included in the review. We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) that evaluated the effects of financial incentives on professional practice and patient outcomes, and that reported numerical results of the included individual studies. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of each review according to the AMSTAR criteria. We included systematic reviews of studies evaluating the effectiveness of any type of financial incentive. We grouped financial incentives into five groups: payment for working for a specified time period; payment for each service, episode or visit; payment for providing care for a patient or specific population; payment for providing a pre-specified level or providing a change in activity or quality of care; and mixed or other systems. We summarised data using vote counting. Main results We identified four reviews reporting on 32 studies. Two reviews scored 7 on the AMSTAR criteria (moderate, score 5 to 7, quality) and two scored 9 (high, score 8 to 11, quality). The reported quality of the included studies was, by a variety of methods, low to moderate. Payment for working for a specified time period was generally ineffective, improving 3/11 outcomes from one study reported in one review. Payment for each service, episode or visit was generally effective, improving 7/10 outcomes from five studies reported in three reviews; payment for providing care for a patient or specific population was generally effective, improving 48/69 outcomes from 13 studies reported in two reviews; payment for providing a pre-specified level or providing a change in activity or quality of care was generally effective, improving 17/20 reported outcomes from 10 studies reported in two reviews; and mixed and other systems were of mixed effectiveness, improving 20/31 reported outcomes from seven studies reported in three reviews. When looking at the effect of financial incentives overall across categories of outcomes, they were of mixed effectiveness on consultation or visit rates (improving 10/17 outcomes from three studies in two reviews); generally effective in improving processes of care (improving 41/57 outcomes from 19 studies in three reviews); generally effective in improving referrals and admissions (improving 11/16 outcomes from 11 studies in four reviews); generally ineffective in improving compliance with guidelines outcomes (improving 5/17 outcomes from five studies in two reviews); and generally effective in improving prescribing costs outcomes (improving 28/34 outcomes from 10 studies in one review). Authors' conclusions Financial incentives may be effective in changing healthcare professional practice. The evidence has serious methodological limitations and is also very limited in its completeness and generalisability. We found no evidence from reviews that examined the effect of financial incentives on patient outcomes.

388 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There are only a limited number of situations where 'risk sharing' schemes should be considered as well as factors thatShould be considered by payers in advance of implementation, and whether systematic evaluations have been built into proposed schemes.
Abstract: Background There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes.

231 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The acceptance of the 'Wise List' in terms of trust among physicians and among the public and increased adherence may be explained by clear criteria for drug recommendations, a comprehensive communication strategy, electronic access to recommendations, continuous medical education and involvement of professional networks and patients.
Abstract: The aim was to present and evaluate the impact of a comprehensive strategy over 10 years to select, communicate and achieve adherence to essential drug recommendations (EDR) in ambulatory care in a metropolitan healthcare region. EDRs were issued and launched as a 'Wise List' by the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee in Stockholm. This study presents the concept by: (i) documenting the process for selecting, communicating and monitoring the impact of the 'Wise List'; (ii) analysing the variation in the number of drug substances recommended between 2000 and 2010; (iii) assessing the attitudes to the 'Wise List' among prescribers and the public; (iv) evaluating the adherence to recommendations between 2003 and 2009. The 'Wise List' consistently contained 200 drug substances for treating common diseases. The drugs were selected based on their efficacy, safety, suitability and cost-effectiveness. The 'Wise List' was known among one-third of a surveyed sample of the public in 2002 after initial marketing campaigns. All surveyed prescribers knew about the concept and 81% found the recommendations trustworthy in 2005. Adherence to recommendations increased from 69% in 1999 to 77% in 2009. In primary care, adherence increased from 83% to 87% from 2003 to 2009. The coefficient of variation (CV%) decreased from 6.1% to 3.8% for 156 healthcare centres between these years. The acceptance of the 'Wise List' in terms of trust among physicians and among the public and increased adherence may be explained by clear criteria for drug recommendations, a comprehensive communication strategy, electronic access to recommendations, continuous medical education and involvement of professional networks and patients.

222 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This overview provides an overview of the available evidence from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low‐income countries and finds the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence.
Abstract: CITATION: Pantoja, T., et al. 2017. Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9:1-133, Art. CD011086, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011086.pub2.

158 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
19 Jun 2004-BMJ
TL;DR: A system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts is developed, and a summary of the approach from the perspective of a guideline user is presented.
Abstract: Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues

7,608 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This systematic review of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.More hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.The duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).Both enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use. Heterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomesWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.

1,480 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: Attendance at these specialized prenatal clinics enhanced medical students’ comfort in talking with pregnant Native American women about the integrative roles of spiritual beliefs, tribal ceremonies and complementary medicine in their pregnancy outcome.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine if medical students’ attendance at specialized prenatal clinics for Southwest Native American women would impact their awareness of and comfort in discussing traditional and unique values during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: In this unblinded, randomized trial, all 154 third-year students rotating consecutively on our obstetrics-gynecology clerkship consented to enrolling in this study. Participants were randomly assigned either to attend a highrisk prenatal clinic (rural or urban locations) for Native American women or to not attend (control group). Each anonymously answered a 20-question survey at the beginning and end of the clerkship about their comfort level and their awareness of patients’ beliefs. A mixed model ANOVA was used to compare differences in scores between the groups while accounting for cluster effects in the study design. RESULTS: Regardless of whether the clinic was rural or urban, students became much more comfortable than controls in talking with Native American women about their pregnancy (p < 0.005). This applied especially to discussions about patients’ spiritual beliefs, taboos that may affect pregnancy, participation in tribal ceremonies and belief in traditional medicine. As compared with the control group, students assigned to either clinic became more aware of how spirituality played an integral role in pregnancy (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Attendance at these specialized prenatal clinics enhanced medical students’ comfort in talking with pregnant Native American women about the integrative roles of spiritual beliefs, tribal ceremonies and complementary medicine in their pregnancy outcome. (J Reprod Med 2009;54:603–608)

1,475 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A major pay-for-performance program that is being implemented in the United Kingdom where family practitioners can earn up to 1050 quality bonus points for performing well on a complex set of indicators that measure the quality of clinical care.
Abstract: In this Health Policy Report, the author describes a major pay-for-performance program that is being implemented in the United Kingdom. Additional government payments to family practitioners will be based on the quality of care they deliver. Family practitioners can earn up to 1050 quality bonus points (expected to be worth more than $75,000 in gross income) for performing well on a complex set of indicators that measure the quality of clinical care, organization of the practice, and experience of the patients.

707 citations


"Pharmaceutical policies: effects of..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Quality-based-payments are a relatively new approach and evaluations are scarce (Giuffrida 2000; McNamara 2005; Roland 2004; Rosenthal 2004)....

    [...]

Related Papers (5)