Association of Specialist Physician Payment Model With Visit Frequency, Quality, and Costs of Care for People With Chronic Disease

The Interplay between nighttime/midday sleep duration and the number of new-onset chronic diseases: A decade-long prospective study in China

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the interplay between individual nighttime and midday sleep duration and the number of new-onset chronic diseases and determine the optimal sleep duration associated with lowest number of new-onset chronic diseases.

METHODS

We used data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) covering a decade and involving 10,828 participants. A random intercept cross-lagged model was used to explore the interplay between nighttime/midday sleep durations and new-onset chronic diseases at both the within-individual and between-individual levels, followed by a dose-response analysis at the between-individual level to determine the optimal sleep duration. New-onset chronic diseases include 14 types of self-reported diseases diagnosed by doctors.

RESULTS

Within-individual analysis revealed that increased nighttime/midday sleep duration led to a higher number of new-onset chronic diseases, and an increased number of new-onset chronic diseases resulted in decreased nighttime sleep duration. Between nighttime and midday sleep, one type of sleep duration increase was likely to lead to an increase in another type. Between-individual analysis found a nonlinear relationship between the number of new-onset chronic diseases and nighttime sleep duration, identifying the optimal nighttime sleep duration as 7.46 h.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings elucidate the interplay between sleep duration and number of new-onset chronic diseases and underscore the need for public awareness and comprehensive interventions. Future studies should focus on refining sleep monitoring and exploring the sleep-chronic diseases nexus in greater depth.

Physician Variation and the Impact of Payment Model in Cardiac Imaging

BACKGROUND

The influence of fee-for-service reimbursement on cardiac imaging has not been compared with other payment models. Furthermore, variation in ordering practices is not well understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative data from Alberta, Canada included adults with chronic heart disease (atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and heart failure) seen by cardiac specialists for a new outpatient consultation April 2012 to December 2018. Generalized linear mixed-effects models estimated the association of payment model (including the ability to bill to interpret imaging tests) and the use of cardiac imaging and quantified variation in cardiac imaging. Among 31 685 adults seen by 308 physicians at 136 sites, patients received an observed mean of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.67-0.68) imaging tests per consultation. After adjustment, patients seeing fee-for-service physicians had 2.07 (95% CI, 1.68-2.54) and fee-for-service physicians with ability to interpret had 2.87 (95% CI, 2.16-3.81) times the rate of receiving a test than those seeing salaried physicians. Measured patient, physician, and site effects accounted for 31% of imaging variation and, following adjustment, reduced unexplained site-level variation 40% and physician-level variation 29%.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified substantial variation in the use of outpatient cardiac imaging related to physician and site factors. Physician payment models have a significant association with imaging use. Our results raise concern that payment models may influence cardiac imaging practice. Similar methods could be applied to identify the source and magnitude of variation in other health care processes and outcomes.

Capitated versus fee-for-service reimbursement and quality of care for chronic disease: a US cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Upcoming alternative payment models Primary Care First (PCF) and Kidney Care Choices (KCC) incorporate capitated payments for chronic disease management. Prior research on the effect of capitated payments on chronic disease management has shown mixed results. We assessed the patient, physician, and practice characteristics of practices with capitation as the majority of revenue, and evaluated the association of capitated reimbursement with quality of chronic disease care.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of visits in the United States' National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for patients with hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Our predictor was practice reimbursement type, classified as 1) majority capitation, 2) majority FFS, or 3) other reimbursement mix. Outcomes were quality indicators of hypertension control, diabetes control, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) use, and statin use.

RESULTS

About 9% of visits were to practices with majority capitation revenue. Capitated practices, compared with FFS and other practices, had lower visit frequency (3.7 vs. 5.2 vs. 5.2, p = 0.006), were more likely to be located in the West Census Region (55% vs. 18% vs. 17%, p < 0.001), less likely to be solo practice (21% vs. 37% vs. 35%, p = 0.005), more likely to be owned by an insurance company, health plan or HMO (24% vs. 13% vs. 13%, p = 0.033), and more likely to have private insurance (43% vs. 25% vs. 19%, p = 0.004) and managed care payments (69% vs. 23% vs. 26%, p < 0.001) as the majority of revenue. The prevalence of controlled hypertension, controlled diabetes, ACEi/ARB use, and statin use was suboptimal across practice reimbursement types. Capitated reimbursement was not associated with differences in hypertension, diabetes, or CKD quality indicators, in multivariable models adjusting for patient, physician, and practice characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Practices with majority capitation revenue differed substantially from FFS and other practices in patient, physician, and practice characteristics, but were not associated with consistent quality differences. Our findings establish baseline estimates of chronic disease quality of care performance by practice reimbursement composition, informing chronic disease care delivery within upcoming payment models.

How to Pay for Telemedicine: A Comparison of Ten Health Systems

Telemedicine has the opportunity to improve clinical effectiveness, health care access, cost-savings, and patient care. However, payment systems may form important obstacles to optimally use telemedicine and enable its opportunities. Little is known about payment systems for telemedicine. Therefore, this research aims to increase knowledge on paying for telemedicine by comparing payment systems for telemedicine and identifying similarities and differences. Based on the countries' official physician fee schedules, listing all reimbursed medical services performed by physicians, a comparative analysis of telemedicine payment systems in ten countries was conducted. Findings show that many countries lacked tele-expertise and telemonitoring payment, with the exception for some specific payments such as for telemonitoring in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Moreover, a wide variety of benefit specifications were implemented in all countries to specify which type of clinician contact should be used (remote versus physical) in which circumstances. Payment parity between video and in-person visits was established only in a few countries. Furthermore, fee-for-service was the dominant payment system, although two countries used a capitation-based or hybrid system. The results imply several potential payment challenges when implementing telemedicine: complex benefit specifications, payment parity discussions, and risk of overconsumption due to the dominant fee-for-service system. These challenges appear to be less present in capitation-based or hybrid systems. However, the latter needs to be further explored to harness the full potential of telemedicine.

Optimizing Physician Payment Models to Address Health System Priorities: Perspectives from Specialist Physicians

OBJECTIVE

Despite well-documented data on the mixed impact of physician payment models, there is limited evidence on how to enhance existing payment model designs. This study examines the approaches to optimizing payment models from the perspective of specialist physicians to better support patient and physician experience and other health system objectives.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 specialist physicians across Alberta, Canada. Data from the interviews were analyzed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Respondents emphasized the need to incentivize physicians with the right blend of financial and non-financial incentives, including physician wellness. Respondents also highlighted the need for physician involvement and accountability to optimize the value of physician payment models.

CONCLUSION

To optimize physician payment models, it may be useful to include a blend of financial and non-financial incentives with clear accountability measures as this may better align physician practice with health system priorities.

Primary care physicians' perceptions of the role of alternative payment models in recruitment and retention in rural Alberta: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite well-documented challenges in recruiting physicians to rural practice, few Canadian studies have described the role physician payment models may play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural practice. This study examined the perspectives of rural primary care physicians on the factors that attract and retain physicians in rural locations, including the role that alternative payment models (APMs) might play.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study involving in-depth, open-ended interviews with rural primary care physicians practising under fee-for-service (FFS) models and APMs in Alberta, Canada. Participants were recruited from the Rural Health Professions Action Plan member list (consisting of physicians practising in rural or remote locations in Alberta) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta online database. Interviews were conducted April to June 2020, and data were analyzed using a thematic framework approach.

RESULTS

Fourteen physicians were interviewed. There were 5 themes identified: factors that attract physicians to rural practice, barriers and challenges associated with rural practice, the potential role of APMs in recruitment and retention, factors that physicians consider in deciding to change payment models, and physician perceptions of APMs compared with FFS models. Participants expressed that APMs may have some role to play in retaining rural physicians but identified professional challenges, and family-related and personal factors as key determinants. Most FFS physicians indicated that they were interested in exploring APMs provided specific concerns were addressed (e.g., clear and adequately compensated APM contracts, and physician involvement in the development of APMs).

INTERPRETATION

Primary care physicians practising in rural regions in Alberta view payment models as one consideration among many in their decision to pursue rural practice. Alternative payment model contracts designed with the input of physicians may have a role to play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural practice.

Factors that influence specialist physician preferences for fee-for-service and salary-based payment models: A qualitative study

Most physicians across the world are paid through fee-for-service. However, there is increased interest in alternative payment models such as salary, capitation, episode-based payment, pay-for-performance, and strategic blends of these models. Such models may be more aligned with broad health policy goals such as fiscal sustainability, delivery of high-quality care, and physician and patient well-being. Despite this, there is limited research on physicians' preferences for different models and a disproportionate focus on differences in income over other issues such as physician autonomy and purpose. Using qualitative interviews with 32 specialist physicians in Alberta, Canada, we examined factors that influence preferences for fee-for-service (FFS) and salary-based payment models. Our findings suggest that a series of factors relating to (1) physician characteristics, (2) payment model characteristics, and (3) professional interests influence preferences. Within these themes, flexibility, autonomy, and compatibility with academic roles were highlighted. To encourage physicians to select a specific payment model, the model must appeal to them in terms of income potential as well as non-monetary values. These findings can support constructive discussions about the merits of different payment models and can assist policy makers in considering the impact of payment reform.

Impact of payment model on the behaviour of specialist physicians: A systematic review

Physician payment models are perceived to be an important strategy for improving health, access, quality, and the value of health care. Evidence is predominantly from primary care, and little is known regarding whether specialists respond similarly. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence on the impact of specialist physician payment models across the domains of health care quality; clinical outcomes; utilization, access, and costs; and patient and physician satisfaction. We searched Medline, Embase, and six other databases from their inception through October 2018. Eligible articles addressed specialist physicians, payment models, outcomes of interest, and used an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Of 11,648 studies reviewed for eligibility, 11 articles reporting on seven payment reforms were included. Fee-for-service (FFS) was associated with increased desired utilization and fewer adverse outcomes (in the case of hemodialysis patients) and better access to care (in the case of emergency department services). Replacing FFS with capitation and salary models led to fewer elective surgical procedures (cataracts and tubal ligations) and, with an episode-based model, appeared to increase the use of less costly resources. Four of the seven reforms met their goals but many had unintended consequences. Payment model appears to affect utilization of specialty care, although the association with other outcomes is unclear due to mixed results or lack of evidence. Studies of salary and salary-based reforms point to specialists responding to some incentives differently than theory would predict. Additional research is warranted to improve the evidence driving specialist payment policy.