Paying doctors by salary: a controlled study of general practitioner behaviour in England. Effects of paying physicians based on their relative performance for quality. Physician reimbursement by salary or fee-for-service: effect on physician practice behavior in a randomized prospective study. Prepayment with office-based physicians in publicly funded programs: results from the Children's Medicaid Program. Do physician-payment mechanisms affect hospital utilization? A study of Health Service Organizations in Ontario. Early experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process. The influence of bonus payments to doctors on hospital revenue: results of a quasi-experimental study. How disclosing HMO physician incentives affects trust.
The study aim was to evaluate the impact of the experimental introduction of salaried contracts in England on general practitioner (GP) behaviour and the quality of care. A controlled before-and-after design was implemented involving ten practices of standard contract GPs, paid largely by capitation and fee-for-service, and ten salaried GP practices. Diaries and routinely available data were used to assess GP workload, and patient assessments of the quality of care were obtained by postal questionnaire. GPs in salaried practices spent less time on practice administration but more working out-of-hours and in direct patient care, allowing more patients to be seen. Total list sizes were smaller in salaried compared with standard contract practices, but lists per GP were higher because of staffing policies. Salaried GPs tended to provide shorter consultations compared with standard contract GPs, prescribe in fewer consultations, but referral rates were similar. Quality was rated as higher for seven out of thirteen aspects of care examined in salaried practices and two in standard contract practices. However, none of these differences were statistically significant. To conclude, salaried contracts did not adversely affect GP productivity and had little impact on other aspects of GP behaviour or the quality of care provided. 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. We used a resident continuity clinic to compare prospectively the impact of salary v fee-for-service reimbursement on physician practice behavior. This model allowed randomization of physicians into salary and fee-for-service groups and separation of the effects of reimbursement from patient behavior. Physicians reimbursed by fee-for-services scheduled more visits per patient than did salaried physicians (3.69 visits v 2.83 visits, P less than .01) and saw their patients more often (2.70 visits v 2.21 visits, P less than .05) during the 9-month study. Almost all of this difference was because fee-for-service physicians saw more well patients than salaried physicians (1.42 visits and .99 visits per enrolled patient, respectively, P less than .01). Evaluating visits by American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines indicated that fee-for-service physicians saw more patients for well-childcare than salaried physicians because they missed fewer recommended visits and scheduled visits in excess of those recommendations. Fee-for-service physicians also provided better continuity of care than salaried physicians by attending a larger percentage of all visits made by their patients (86.6% of visits v 78.3% of visits, P less than .05), and by encouraging fewer emergency visits per enrolled patient (0.12 visits v 0.22 visits, P less than .01). Physicians' interest in private practice, as determined by their career plans, correlated significantly with total number of patients enrolled (r = .48, P less than .05) and total clinic patients seen by each resident during the study (r = .40, P less than .05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) This paper is a report of the results of a demonstration designed to provide empirical evidence regarding the effects of alternative approaches to paying physicians for serving children in the Medicaid program: (1) visit fees set at twice regular Medicaid fees in return for physician agreement to manage utilization and (2) capitation and financial risk-sharing along with the same physician agreement to manage utilization. Participating physicians were assigned randomly to either of the two payment groups. Comparisons of utilization and expenditures were made between these two plans and the regular Medicaid program (fee-for-service, low fees). Results showed no adverse effect of capitation payments on primary care visits to office-based physicians. Capitation physician referrals to specialists decreased relative to all other groups studied, consistent with the theory that the financial incentives in capitation will lead primary care physicians to reduce referrals to specialists. To determine whether payment of primary care physicians based on capitation, with an additional incentive payment for low hospital-utilization rates, resulted in lower hospital-utilization rates among patients of these physicians than among patients of physicians still paid on a fee-for-service basis.
                Retrospective cohort study.
                Capitation-based and fee-for-service primary care practices in Ontario.
                Thirty-nine physicians whose method of payment was converted from fee-for-service to capitation during the period from June 1985 to January 1989 and 7 physicians who remained in fee-for-service practice, two of whom were matched with one physician in capitation-based practice on the basis of practice location, type of practice (academic v. community), hours of practice (part-time v. full-time), years since graduation, physician group size, practice size (number of patients), type of group (primary care v. multispecialty), sex, certification in family medicine, country of graduation (Canada v. other) and age. One physician in capitation-based practice was matched with only one physician in fee-for-service practice.
                Annual hospital-utilization rates (hospital separations or hospital days per 1000 patients in each practice) for the physicians paid on a capitation basis 3 years before, 1 year before and 3 years after they converted from fee-for-service payment and at corresponding periods for the matched physicians still paid on a fee-for-service basis.
                The mean annual rate of hospital days used, adjusted for the age and sex of patients as well as for their social-program-recipient status, fell from 1085 per 1000 patients (3 years before the conversion date) to 1030 (1 year before conversion) and to 954 (3 years after conversion) in capitation-based practices. For the matched physicians in fee-for-service practice, the rates during the corresponding periods were 1085, 1035 and 956 hospital days per 1000 patients. The pattern was similar for rates of hospital separations, adjusted for patient's age, sex and social-program-recipient status. There were no statistically significant differences between the rates of hospital utilization among patients of physicians in capitation-based practices and the rates among those of physicians in fee-for-service practices during each of the three periods, nor were there significant differences in the changes in rates.
                Capitation payment, with an additional incentive payment to encourage low hospital-utilization rates, did not reduce hospital use. Factors other than the method of physician payment appear to be responsible for the variations in hospital utilization among practices. The adoption of pay-for-performance mechanisms for quality improvement is growing rapidly. Although there is intense interest in and optimism about pay-for-performance programs, there is little published research on pay-for-performance in health care.
                To evaluate the impact of a prototypical physician pay-for-performance program on quality of care.
                We evaluated a natural experiment with pay-for-performance using administrative reports of physician group quality from a large health plan for an intervention group (California physician groups) and a contemporaneous comparison group (Pacific Northwest physician groups). Quality improvement reports were included from October 2001 through April 2004 issued to approximately 300 large physician organizations.
                Three process measures of clinical quality: cervical cancer screening, mammography, and hemoglobin A1c testing.
                Improvements in clinical quality scores were as follows: for cervical cancer screening, 5.3% for California vs 1.7% for Pacific Northwest; for mammography, 1.9% vs 0.2%; and for hemoglobin A1c, 2.1% vs 2.1%. Compared with physician groups in the Pacific Northwest, the California network demonstrated greater quality improvement after the pay-for-performance intervention only in cervical cancer screening (a 3.6% difference in improvement [P = .02]). In total, the plan awarded 3.4 million dollars (27% of the amount set aside) in bonus payments between July 2003 and April 2004, the first year of the program. For all 3 measures, physician groups with baseline performance at or above the performance threshold for receipt of a bonus improved the least but garnered the largest share of the bonus payments.
                Paying clinicians to reach a common, fixed performance target may produce little gain in quality for the money spent and will largely reward those with higher performance at baseline. To determine the effects of risk and payment on subjects' willingness to participate, and to examine how payment influences subjects' potential behaviours and risk evaluations.
                A 3 (level of risk) x 3 (level of monetary payment), between subjects, completely randomised factorial design was used. Students enrolled at one of five US pharmacy schools read a recruitment notice and informed consent form for a hypothetical study, and completed a questionnaire. Risk level was manipulated using recruitment notices and informed consent documents from hypothetical biomedical research projects. Payment levels were determined using the payment models evaluated by Dickert and Grady as a guide. Five dependent variables were assessed in the questionnaire: willingness to participate, willingness to participate with no payment, propensity to neglect to tell about restricted activities, propensity to neglect to tell about negative effects, and risk rating.
                Monetary payment had positive effects on respondents' willingness to participate in research, regardless of the level of risk. However, higher monetary payments did not appear to blind respondents to the risks of a study. Payment had some influence on respondents' potential behaviours regarding concealing information about restricted activities. However, payment did not appear to have a significant effect on respondents' propensity to neglect to tell researchers about negative effects.
                Monetary payments appear to do what they are intended to do: make subjects more willing to participate in research. Concerns about payments blinding subjects to risks could not be substantiated in the present study. However, the findings do raise other concerns--notably the potential for payments to diminish the integrity of a study's findings. Future research is critical to make sound decisions about the payment of research subjects. There is wide consensus that the ways in which providers are reimbursed by third parties will affect their behaviour and, hence, the efficient use of limited resources and the performance of health systems. However, there seems to be little evidence on how payment to hospital-based doctors affects hospital performance. This paper reports a case study conducted in China on the effects of different types of bonus payment to doctors, with a focus on how bonus payment might have affected hospital revenue growth. This has been an increasingly important goal of public hospitals as they have gained increased autonomy. A set of longitudinal quasi-experimental data, and a set of cross-sectional data, both derived from 108 public hospitals, were used for the analysis. It was found that, when a bonus system was introduced, and when the bonus model switched from one with a weaker incentive to provide services to one with a stronger incentive, there was a consistent sudden increase in the rate of growth of hospital revenue. Bonus type was also associated with the size of hospital service revenue. The results highlight the potential risks of linking remuneration too closely with revenue generation, and the need to ensure adequate attention to mechanisms of control and accountability when hospitals are given greater autonomy. Opinions are deeply divided over whether rewarding physicians for lowering costs decreases trust in physicians or insurers. To explore the effects of disclosing physician payment methods in HMOs, members of two similar HMO plans were randomized to intervention and control groups, and the experimental arm was told how the HMO paid their primary care physician. Separate disclosures were developed for each plan, one describing primarily capitation payment, and the other (mixed-incentive plan) describing fee-for-service payment with a bonus that rewards cost savings, satisfaction, and preventive services. The disclosures pointed out more of the positive than the negative features of these incentives. We found that the disclosures doubled the number of subjects with substantial knowledge of the physician incentives and halved the number with no knowledge. Nevertheless, the disclosures had no negative effects on trust of either physicians or insurers. The capitated plan disclosure had a small positive effect on trust of physicians. Disclosing the positive and negative features of incentives and increasing knowledge of these incentives does not, in the short term, reduce trust in physicians or insurers and may have a mild positive impact on physician trust, perhaps as a consequence of displaying candor and increasing understanding of positive features.
It is noteworthy that so few studies met the inclusion criteria. There is some evidence to suggest that the method of payment of primary care physicians affects their behaviour, but the findings' generalisability is unknown. More evaluations of the effect of payment systems on PCP behaviour are needed, especially in terms of the relative impact of salary versus capitation payments.