Effects of pay-for-performance for primary care physicians on diabetes outcomes in single-payer health systems: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 1303-1315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeru Gupta ◽  
Holly M. Ayles
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Diabetes Outcomes ◽  
Single Payer

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol examining the effects of introducing pay-for-performance for primary care physicians on diabetes outcomes in single-payer healthcare systems (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeru Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Diabetes Outcomes ◽  
Single Payer ◽  
Wide Range

BACKGROUND Although pay-for-performance (P4P) for diabetes care is increasingly common across health organizations, evidence of its effectiveness in improving population health and service delivery is deficient. This information gap is attributable in part to the heterogeneity of healthcare financing, covered medical conditions, care settings, and provider remuneration arrangements within and across countries. OBJECTIVE This paper outlines a protocol for a systematic review examining the effects of introducing P4P for physicians in primary care and community settings to support guideline-based diabetes care. Our aim is to reduce the heterogeneity of evidence presented that has deterred conclusiveness of previous reviews by narrowing the focus to disease-specific P4P schemes in single-payer healthcare insurance systems. This approach enables us to minimize the risk of unintended consequences of P4P such as physicians’ gaming the payment system. METHODS Our review systematically searches, appraises, and synthesizes the literature concentrating on whether P4P for primary care physicians leads to better diabetes outcomes in single-payer health systems. We search 10 electronic databases and manually scan the reference lists of review articles and other global health literature. We include primary studies evaluating the effects of introducing P4P for diabetes care among primary care physicians in countries of universal health coverage. Outcomes of interest include patient morbidity, avoidable hospitalization, premature death, and healthcare costs. RESULTS We have received funding from Diabetes Canada and the New Brunswick Health Research Foundation to conduct policy-actionable diabetes health services research. Database searches were conducted and full-texts screened by two reviewers in 2017. We aim to submit the review for publication in 2018. CONCLUSIONS We are narratively synthesizing the data. Because of the wide range of outcomes considered, we do not expect to perform a meta-analysis. Since database searches were completed prior to the publication of this protocol, it is ineligible for registration with PROSPERO.

WikiRecs primary care: developing rapid recommendations for primary care through effective collaboration between systematic review and guideline teams

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Review Team ◽  
New Evidence

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.

scholarly journals Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lena Lueckmann ◽  
Jens Hoebel ◽  
Julia Roick ◽  
Jenny Markert ◽  
Jacob Spallek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Socioeconomic Inequalities ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
General Adult Population ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Background Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries. Methods We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Results Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES. Conclusion This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019123222.

scholarly journals Quality-Based Payment for Medical Groups and Individual Physicians

2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Robinson ◽  
Stephen M. Shortell ◽  
Diane R. Rittenhouse ◽  
Sara Fernandes-Taylor ◽  
Robin R. Gillies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Performance Incentives ◽  
Payment Incentives ◽  
Medical Groups ◽  
Bonus Payments ◽  
Service Basis

This paper measures the extent to which medical groups experience external pay-for-performance incentives based on quality and patient satisfaction and the extent to which these groups pay their primary care and specialist physicians using similar criteria. Over half (52%) of large medical groups received bonus payments from health insurance plans in the period 2006–2007 based on measures of quality and patient satisfaction. Medical groups facing external pay-for-performance incentives are more likely to pay their primary care physicians (odds ratio [OR] 4.5; p<.001) and specialists (OR 2.5; p=.07) based on quality and satisfaction. Groups facing capitation payment incentives to control costs are more likely to pay member physicians on salary and less likely to pay based on productivity (p<.001 for primary care; p<.05 for specialists) than groups paid by insurers on a fee-for-service basis.

scholarly journals A systematic review of behavioural weight-loss interventions involving primary-care physicians in overweight and obese primary-care patients (1999–2011)

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 2083-2099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sze Lin Yoong ◽  
Mariko Carey ◽  
Rob Sanson-Fisher ◽  
Alice Grady
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Significant Weight Loss ◽  
Primary Care Patients ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Weight Loss Interventions

AbstractObjectiveThe present review aimed to examine the effectiveness of behavioural weight-loss interventions involving primary-care physicians in producing weight loss in overweight and obese primary-care patients.DesignA systematic review was conducted by searching online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) from January 1999 to December 2011. All abstracts were screened and coded for eligibility. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group quality criteria were used to assess the methodological adequacy of included studies. Information related to study design, population characteristics and intervention details was extracted.SettingPrimary care.SubjectsOverweight or obese (defined as having a BMI ≥ 25·0 kg/m2) primary-care patients.ResultsSixteen different studies were included. Of these, six assessed primary-care physicians’ delivery of weight-loss counselling; nine assessed weight-loss counselling delivered by non-physician personnel with monitoring by primary-care physicians; and one assessed a multi-component intervention. Overall, high-intensity weight-loss counselling by primary-care physicians resulted in moderate but not clinically significant weight loss. High-intensity weight-loss counselling delivered by non-physicians, meal replacements delivered in conjunction with dietitian counselling and referral to commercial weight-loss centre programmes accompanied by regular monitoring by a primary-care physician were effective in producing clinically significant weight loss. Dietitian-delivered care appeared effective in producing weight loss regardless of level of intervention intensity.ConclusionsOverall, there were few studies on this topic and the methodological rigour of some included studies was poor. Additional studies assessing the effectiveness and acceptability of potential interventions are needed to confirm these findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document