Financial incentives based on patient insurance may have unintended consequences

2000 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 649-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Elaine Vaz ◽  
Kenneth P. Kleinman ◽  
Alison Tse Kawai ◽  
Robert Jin ◽  
William J. Kassler ◽  
...  

BACKGROUNDPolicymakers may wish to align healthcare payment and quality of care while minimizing unintended consequences, particularly for safety net hospitals.OBJECTIVETo determine whether the 2008 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Conditions policy had a differential impact on targeted healthcare-associated infection rates in safety net compared with non–safety net hospitals.DESIGNInterrupted time-series design.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTSNonfederal acute care hospitals that reported central line–associated bloodstream infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia rates to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Safety Network from July 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013.RESULTSWe did not observe changes in the slope of targeted infection rates in the postpolicy period compared with the prepolicy period for either safety net (postpolicy vs prepolicy ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.84–1.09]) or non–safety net (0.99 [0.90–1.10]) hospitals. Controlling for prepolicy secular trends, we did not detect differences in an immediate change at the time of the policy between safety net and non–safety net hospitals (P for 2-way interaction, .87).CONCLUSIONSThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Conditions policy did not have an impact, either positive or negative, on already declining rates of central line–associated bloodstream infection in safety net or non–safety net hospitals. Continued evaluations of the broad impact of payment policies on safety net hospitals will remain important as the use of financial incentives and penalties continues to expand in the United States.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;00(0): 1–7


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (1) ◽  
pp. 11459
Author(s):  
Julia D. Hur ◽  
Tae-Youn Park ◽  
Colin West ◽  
Ashley Whillans ◽  
Bruce Barry ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin H Lam ◽  
Kristen Pickles ◽  
Fiona Stanaway ◽  
Katy JL Bell

Abstract Background: Medical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that influence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests. Methods: Articles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identified through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identified factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development.Results: The MedLine search yielded 542 articles; 55 were included. Another 10 articles identified by forward-backward citation and content experts were included, resulting in 65 articles in total. Following small group discussion with workshop participants, a revised thematic framework of factors was developed: · “Intrapersonal” – fear of malpractice and litigation; clinician knowledge and understanding; intolerance of uncertainty and risk aversion; cognitive biases and experiences; sense of medical obligation· “Interpersonal” – pressure from patients and doctor-patient relationship; pressure from colleagues and medical culture; · “Environment/context” – guidelines, protocols and policies; financial incentives and ownership of tests; time constraints, physical vulnerabilities and language barriers; availability and ease of access to tests; pre-emptive testing to facilitate subsequent care; contemporary medical practice and new technology Conclusion: This thematic framework may raise awareness of overtesting and prompt clinicians to change their test request behaviour. The development of a scale to assess clinician knowledge, attitudes and practices is planned to allow evaluation of clinician-targeted interventions to reduce overtesting.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin H Lam ◽  
Kristen Pickles ◽  
Fiona Stanaway ◽  
Katy JL Bell

Abstract Background: Medical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that influence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests. Methods: Articles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identified through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identified factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development.Results: The MedLine search yielded 542 articles; 55 were included. Another 10 articles identified by forward-backward citation and content experts were included, resulting in 65 articles in total. Following small group discussion with workshop participants, a revised thematic framework of factors was developed: · “Intrapersonal” – fear of malpractice and litigation; clinician knowledge and understanding; intolerance of uncertainty and risk aversion; cognitive biases and experiences; sense of medical obligation· “Interpersonal” – pressure from patients and doctor-patient relationship; pressure from colleagues and medical culture; · “Environment/context” – guidelines, protocols and policies; financial incentives and ownership of tests; time constraints, physical vulnerabilities and language barriers; availability and ease of access to tests; pre-emptive testing to facilitate subsequent care; contemporary medical practice and new technology Conclusion: This thematic framework may raise awareness of overtesting and prompt clinicians to change their test request behaviour. The development of a scale to assess clinician knowledge, attitudes and practices is planned to allow evaluation of clinician-targeted interventions to reduce overtesting.


2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Scott ◽  
Luke B. Connelly

Changes to the remuneration of medical practitioners are currently being considered in Australia. In this paper, we provide a discussion of financial incentives in healthcare markets and their effects on health professionals’ behaviour. After defining incentives, the paper focuses on the design of incentive schemes for the health workforce. It discusses several issues that should be considered when designing incentives, illustrated with some Australian examples. What are the objectives of the incentive scheme? What types of incentives can be used and under what circumstances? What is the empirical evidence around the effects of incentive schemes? What unintended consequences might exist? The paper concludes with a set of principles around which incentives can be designed. These principles might be used to inform the current debate about revisions to the incentives that are faced by medical practitioners in Australia.


Author(s):  
Nikki Usher

The financial incentives and the unintended consequences of commercial data journalism are addressed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Lubarsky ◽  
Michael T. French ◽  
Howard S. Gitlow ◽  
Lisa F. Rosen ◽  
Steven G. Ullmann

Abstract Behavioral economics seeks to define how humans respond to incentives, how to maximize desired behavioral change, and how to avoid perverse negative impacts on work effort. Relatively new in their application to physician behavior, behavioral economic principles have primarily been used to construct optimized financial incentives. This review introduces and evaluates the essential components of building successful financial incentive programs for physicians, adhering to the principles of behavioral economics. Referencing conceptual publications, observational studies, and the relatively sparse controlled studies, the authors offer physician leaders, healthcare administrators, and practicing anesthesiologists the issues to consider when designing physician incentive programs to maximize effectiveness and minimize unintended consequences.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. A463
Author(s):  
S.O. Jensen ◽  
V.E. Amelung ◽  
T.R. Hermanowski ◽  
C. Krauth

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Terry

Some would argue that if taking an examination to receive an incentive is not mandatory, it’s voluntary no matter the size of the monetary reward. Others have concerns with how often employers use the word “required” when communicating how employees can earn an incentive. This in spite of clear rules that indicate “health contingent” incentive designs (those based on health measures rather than on completing activities) are an either/or proposition. That is, you can either earn (this amount) by (achieving a clinical standard) or by (participating in or attaining an alternative standard). This editorial examines the merits and demerits of organizational health contingent use of incentives. It is posited that employers can best satisfy a voluntariness standard in their use of financial incentives in wellness programs when the use of incentives are well integrated into a measurably robust, organizational culture that visibly values health; and when all employees are well versed in the meaning of, and opportunities for, reasonable alternatives for earning an incentive. Concerns about the administrative burden behind this idea and other potential unintended consequences of including measures of a culture of health to meet a voluntariness standard are also presented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document