scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Target payments in primary care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The use of target payments in the remuneration of PCPs was associated with improvements in immunisation rates, but the increase was statistically significant in only one of the two studies.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The method by which physicians are paid may affect their professional practice. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. improving quality of care, cost containment and recruitment to under-served areas), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Target payments are a payment system which remunerate professionals only if they provide a minimum level of care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of target payments on the professional practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) and health care outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of target payments to primary care professionals with alternative methods of payment, on patient outcomes, health services utilisation, health care costs, equity of care, and PCP satisfaction with working environment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were included involving 149 practices. The use of target payments in the remuneration of PCPs was associated with improvements in immunisation rates, but the increase was statistically significant in only one of the two studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from the studies identified in this review is not of sufficient quality or power to obtain a clear answer to the question as to whether target payment remuneration provides a method of improving primary health care. Additional efforts should be directed in evaluating changes in physicians' remuneration systems. Although it would not be difficult to design a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of such payment systems, it would be difficult politically to conduct such trials.

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal Article

From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Commentary

TL;DR: An overview of present knowledge about initiatives to changing medical practice is provided, showing that none of the approaches for transferring evidence to practice is superior to all changes in all situations.
Journal ArticleDOI

The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians

TL;DR: There is insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of primary health care, and incentive schemes should be more carefully designed before implementation.
Journal ArticleDOI

Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care.

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.
Journal ArticleDOI

Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

TL;DR: It is suggested that P4P can potentially be (cost-)effective, but the evidence is not convincing; many studies failed to find an effect and there are still few studies that convincingly disentangled the P4p effect from the effect of other improvement initiatives.
Journal ArticleDOI

Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians.

TL;DR: There is some evidence to suggest that the method of payment of primary care physicians affects their behaviour, but the findings' generalisability is unknown, especially in terms of the relative impact of salary versus capitation payments.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians.

TL;DR: There is some evidence to suggest that the method of payment of primary care physicians affects their behaviour, but the findings' generalisability is unknown, especially in terms of the relative impact of salary versus capitation payments.
Journal ArticleDOI

Performance-based physician reimbursement and influenza immunization rates in the elderly

TL;DR: Despite high background immunization rates, this modest financial incentive was responsible for approximately 7% increase in immunization rate among the ambulatory elderly.
Journal ArticleDOI

Improving physicians' preventive health care behavior through peer review and financial incentives.

TL;DR: Improvement of preventive health care behaviors by physicians in an independent practice association-health maintenance organization measured changes through chart audit, accompanied by peer review, feedback, and financial incentives.
Journal ArticleDOI

The effect of per-item fees on the behaviour of general practitioners

TL;DR: Changes in per-item fees over the period 1966-89 appear to have had little effect on the numbers of treatments; rather service provision was related to patient demand and the availability of GPs.
Related Papers (5)