Effects of paying physicians based on their relative performance for quality. The impact of financial incentives and a patient registry on preventive care quality: increasing provider adherence to evidence-based smoking cessation practice guidelines. Effects of a monetary incentive on primary care prescribing in Ireland: changes in prescribing patterns in one health board 1990-1995. Does it pay to pay? A randomized trial of prepaid financial incentives and lottery incentives in surveys of nonphysician healthcare professionals. The use of monetary incentives in a community survey: impact on response rates, data quality, and cost. Prepayment was superior to postpayment cash incentives in a randomized postal survey among physicians. Effects of different monetary incentives on the return rate of a national mail survey of physicians. The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study. Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates.
Studies examining the effectiveness of pay-for-performance programs to improve quality of care primarily have been confined to bonus-type arrangements that reward providers for performance above a predetermined threshold. No studies to date have evaluated programs placing providers at financial risk for performance relative to other participants in the program.
                The objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of an incentive program conferring limited financial risk to primary care physicians.
                There were 334 participating primary care physicians in Rochester, New York.
                The design of the study is a retrospective cohort study using pre/post analysis.
                The measurements adhere to 4 diabetes performance measures between 1999 and 2004.
                While absolute performance levels increased across all measures immediately following implementation, there was no difference between the post- and pre-intervention trends indicating that the overall increase in performance was largely a result of secular trends. However, there was evidence of a modest 1-time improvement in physician adherence for eye examination that appeared attributable to the incentive program. For this measure, physicians improved their adherence rate on average by 7 percentage points in the year after implementation of the program.
                This study demonstrates a modest effect in improving provider adherence to quality standards for a single measure of diabetes care during the early phase of a pay-for-performance program that placed physicians under limited financial risk. Further research is needed to determine the most effective incentive structures for achieving substantial gains in quality of care. This study tested the effects of two organizational support processes, the provision of financial incentives for superior clinical performance and the availability of a patient (smoker) registry and proactive telephone support system for smoking cessation, on provider adherence to accepted practice guidelines and associated patient outcomes.
                Forty clinics of a large multispecialty medical group practice providing primary care services were randomly allocated to study conditions. Fifteen clinics each were assigned to the experimental conditions "control" (distribution of printed versions of smoking cessation guidelines) and "incentive" (financial incentive pay-out for reaching preset clinical performance targets). Ten clinics were randomized to receive financial incentives combined with access to a centralized patient registry and intervention system ("registry"). Main outcome measures were adherence to smoking cessation clinical practice guidelines and patients' smoking cessation behaviors.
                Patients' tobacco use status was statistically significant (P < 0.01) more frequently identified in clinics with the opportunity for incentives and access to a registry than in clinics in the control condition. Patients visiting registry clinics accessed counseling programs statistically significantly more often (P < 0.001) than patients receiving care in the control condition. Other endpoints did not statistically significantly differ between the experimental conditions.
                The impact of financial incentives and a patient registry/intervention system in improving smoking cessation clinical practices and patient behaviors was mixed. Additional research is needed to identify conditions under which such organizational support processes result in significant health care quality improvement and warrant the investment. In an attempt to curb the rapidly rising costs of primary care prescribing in Ireland, the government introduced a financial incentive scheme in 1993, to encourage general practitioners to restrain their prescribing.
                To investigate the effects of a financial incentive scheme on GP prescribing in Ireland on prescribing costs and volume, and on some specific therapeutic areas.
                Prescribing for 3 years before (1990-1992) and 3 years (1993-1995) after the introduction of incentives, based on a defined cohort of 233 general practitioners in the area of one health board. GPs were divided into tertiles based on their performance against their prescribing budgets into 'savers' (generally underspent and received incentive payments), modest overspenders and large overspenders.
                Savers were always lower cost prescribers than the other groups. They contained their rate and costs of prescribing in contrast to the other groups, e.g. percentage rise in prescribing costs in the year after the introduction of the scheme -7.9%, +1.2% and +7.3% respectively, (P < 0.05) for savers, modest overspenders and large overspenders respectively. This effect was short lived however and was gone by the third year of the study.
                The financial incentives had a marked effect on prescribing volume and cost on some practices who could achieve targets and hence incentive payments. The incentives had little effect on high spending practices. Such incentive schemes need careful evaluation if they are not to become perverse to the good health of patients. Monetary incentives in survey research may provide important gains from a methodological perspective in the control and reduction of survey error associated with potential nonresponse of participants. However, few studies have systematically investigated the use of monetary incentives or other methods to improve the response rates in the nonphysician clinician population.
                To investigate differences in response rates to a mailed self-administered survey of nonphysician clinicians who were randomized to receive a prepaid monetary incentive, a postsurvey prize drawing, or no incentive.
                A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives was conducted from November 2002 to February 2003. Nonphysician clinicians (nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]; N = 3,900) randomly selected to participate in a national ethics-related study were assigned randomly in equal allocations (n = 1,300 [650 NPs, 650 PAs]) to three incentive groups: (a) no incentive; (b) a $5 prepaid token incentive in the initial mailing; or (c) a chance to win one of ten $100 prize drawings upon completion and return of a self-administered survey.
                A $5 cash incentive increased survey response rates to an adjusted 64.2%: a 19.5 percentage point increase over the lottery group (44.7% response rate), and a 22 percentage point increase over the control group (42.2% response rate).
                A nominal cash incentive of $5 yields a significantly higher response rate from nonphysician providers than receiving either a lottery option or no incentive. To assess the effect of incentive size on response rates, data quality, and cost in a digestive health status mail survey of a community sample of health plan enrollees.
                The study population was selected from a database of enrollees in various health plans obligated to receive care at Park Nicollet Clinic-HealthSystem Minnesota, a large, multispecialty group in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the nearby suburbs.
                A total of 1,800 HealthSystem Minnesota enrollees were randomly assigned to receive a survey with an incentive of $5 or $2. The response rates for each incentive level were determined. Data quality, as indicated by item nonresponse and scale scores, was measured. Total cost and cost per completed survey were calculated.
                The response rate among enrollees receiving $5 (74.3 percent) was significantly higher than among those receiving $2 (67.4 percent); differences were more pronounced in the first wave of data collection. Data quality did not differ between the two incentive groups. The total cost per completed survey was higher in the $5 condition than in the $2 condition.
                A $5 incentive resulted in a higher response rate among a community patient sample with one mailing than did a $2 incentive. However, the response rates in the $2 condition approached the level of the $5 incentive, and costs were significantly lower when the full follow-up protocol was completed. Response rates were marginally increased by follow-up phone calls. The incentive level did not influence data quality. The results suggest if a survey budget is limited and a timeline is not critical, a $2 incentive provides an affordable means of increasing participation. Improving response rates, particularly among physicians, is important to minimize nonresponder bias and increase the effective sample size in epidemiologic research. We conducted a randomized trial to examine the impact of prepayment vs. postpayment incentives on response rates.
                Self-completion postal questionnaires were mailed to 949 physicians who were respondents to an earlier survey and representative of the general physician population in Hong Kong. These physicians were randomly allocated to receive a HK dollar 20 cash prepayment incentive that accompanied the survey (n=474) or a postpayment reward of the same amount on receipt of the completed questionnaire (n=475).
                The final prepayment response rate was 82.9%, compared with 72.5% in the postpayment arm (P < .001). Of the eight alternative incentive and follow-up strategies evaluated, three lie on the efficiency frontier (i.e., not dominated), including postpayment with three mailings at HK dollar 42.7, prepayment with three mailings at HK dollar 66.5 and prepayment with three mailings and telephone follow-up at HK dollar 112.1 per responder recruited (US dollar 1=HK dollar 7.8).
                The findings demonstrate that prepayment cash incentives are superior to postpayment of the equivalent amount in improving response rates among a representative sample of Hong Kong physicians. Further research should concentrate on confirming the generalizability of these findings in other health care occupation groups and settings. Mail surveys of physicians have been characterized by lower response rates than general population surveys, raising concerns about nonresponse bias. Although monetary incentives have routinely been used to improve survey response among physicians, questions remain regarding how much of an incentive is most cost-effective. The present study seeks to further examine the effects of incentive size on response rates to a national mail survey of physicians.
                This study used a random sample of 873 physicians practicing in the United States; the response rate was 65% (n = 563). Respondents were randomly assigned to receive a $5, $10, or $20 cash incentive in the initial mailing. Except for the magnitude of the incentive, the procedures for each condition were identical, with each respondent receiving up to 3 follow-up mailings and 2 telephone calls.
                Overall response rates ranged from 60.3% for the $5 incentive category to 68.0% for the $10 incentive category. Differences in overall response rates across the incentive categories, however, were not significant. Higher levels of incentives also did not significantly reduce the number of mail and/or telephone interventions required to reach the target response rate of 60.0%. As expected, aggregate costs (excluding labor) were lowest for the $5 incentive group.
                Our findings suggest that changes in the magnitude of incentive do not automatically result in increases in survey response among physicians. Possible reasons for this lack of effect as well as alternatives to monetary incentives are addressed. Low response rates are acknowledged as a potential source of bias in survey results. Response rates are a particular problem in surveys of GPs. Thus, the methods used to encourage response to mailed surveys and the influence of inducements in maximizing response rates are fundamental issues to be examined when addressing the problem of response bias.
                To increase the overall response rate to a national study of GPs and to explore the effects of financial and non-financial inducements on response rates.
                Two mailing waves of a postal questionnaire to a 20% random sample of all GPs in England and Wales had achieved a 33% response rate. For the third mailing wave, the non-responding GPs were then divided into a control group, a group who were offered a donation to charity to complete the questionnaire and a group who were offered cash. The charity and cash groups were further subdivided into 5 pounds and 10 pounds groups to assess the effect of the size of the inducement offered. For the control group, a fourth wave was sent the offer of a 5 pounds or 10 pounds incentive.
                Response was positively affected by the offer of an inducement. Cash, however, had a more substantial effect than the offer of a donation to charity. Older GPs were less likely to participate overall, whereas male GPs were more likely to respond to a cash inducement. Doctors who had seen more patients were less likely to reply earlier and were more likely to respond to the offer of cash.
                Primary care is going through many changes, some of which have increased the workload of the GP. It may now be that, to achieve the response rates needed to validate policy-related research, the offer of inducements will become a necessary part of the research process. To test the effect of a AU dollars 2 scratch lottery ticket on response rates to a national mailed questionnaire of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists.
                A randomized controlled trial was conducted and the incentive sent to half of the participants with the first mailing. A single follow-up mailing without incentive was sent to all non-respondents. Survey respondents were then informed of the research question regarding incentives and allowed to withdraw their study data. Differences in response rates between doctors receiving and not receiving the incentive, and between respondents and non-respondents, were examined.
                The overall response rate was 47% (443 respondents). Twenty-two respondents (5%) withdrew their data after being informed of the research question. Of the remaining 421 respondents, 233 had received the incentive (response rate 49.7%) and 188 had not (40.1%, p=0.0032). The absolute increase in response rate with the incentive (9.6%, 95%CI 3.2, 15.9) was quantitatively similar in effect to the reminder mailing (11.8%). The incentive had a larger effect among the GP sample compared with specialists (13.4 vs. 5.9%), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.20). There were no systematic differences in demographic characteristics between respondents and non-respondents.
                Increased response rates associated with a small incentive may reduce the need for a second mailed reminder, but strong views about the use of incentives may negatively influence the participation of some practitioners. While the overall response rate was low, there was no evidence of bias in our sample.
                Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The use of financial incentives to reward PCPs for improving the quality of primary healthcare services is growing. However, there is insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of primary health care. Implementation should proceed with caution and incentive schemes should be more carefully designed before implementation. In addition to basing incentive design more on theory, there is a large literature discussing experiences with these schemes that can be used to draw out a number of lessons that can be learned and that could be used to influence or modify the design of incentive schemes. More rigorous study designs need to be used to account for the selection of physicians into incentive schemes. The use of instrumental variable techniques should be considered to assist with the identification of treatment effects in the presence of selection bias and other sources of unobserved heterogeneity. In randomised trials, care must be taken in using the correct unit of analysis and more attention should be paid to blinding. Studies should also examine the potential unintended consequences of incentive schemes by having a stronger theoretical basis, including a broader range of outcomes, and conducting more extensive subgroup analysis. Studies should more consistently describe i) the type of payment scheme at baseline or in the control group, ii) how payments to medical groups were used and distributed within the groups, and iii) the size of the new payments as a percentage of total revenue. Further research comparing the relative costs and effects of financial incentives with other behaviour change interventions is also required.