Impact of pay for performance on quality of chronic disease management by social class group in England

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework

Background

Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.

Objectives

We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.

Design

Realist review.

Main outcome measures

Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.

Review methods

Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.

Limitations

The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.

Conclusions

Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.

Future work

Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The relationship between Quality and Outcomes Framework scores and socioeconomic deprivation: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a pay incentive scheme in England designed to improve and standardise general practice. QOF attainment has been used as a proxy for primary care quality in previous research.

AIM

To investigate whether there is a relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and QOF attainment in primary care in England.

DESIGN & SETTING

Retrospective longitudinal study of primary care providers in England.

METHOD

QOF scores were obtained for individual general practices in England from between 2007-2019 and linked to practice-level Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores derived from census data. Beta regression analyses were used to analyse the relationship with either percentage of total QOF attainment or of domain-specific attainment with multivariate analyses, adjusting for additional practice-level demographics. QOF attainment in the most affluent quintile was used as the reference group.

RESULTS

General practices in less deprived areas have consistently outperformed those in more deprived areas in terms of QOF achievement. Initially, the gap between least and most deprived practices decreased, however since 2015 there has been relatively little change in comparative performance. The magnitude of inequality was reduced after adjusting for demographic factors. Of the independent variables analysed, the proportion of patients aged >65 years ('over 65s') had the strongest relationship with QOF attainment.

CONCLUSION

There remains an inequality in primary care quality by socioeconomic deprivation in England, even after accounting for demographic differences.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice.

The Effectiveness of Pay-for-Performance Program of Diabetes Care for Psychiatric Patients: A Regional Psychiatric Hospital Experience

BACKGROUND

The Pay-for-performance (P4P) program of diabetes care has demonstrated successful outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the effectiveness of this multidisciplinary care model for psychiatric patients has never been evaluated. The objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of P4P program of diabetes for psychiatric patients with diabetes.

METHODS

This study utilized a retrospective cohort design to examine the effectiveness of P4P program of diabetes care for psychiatric patients with diabetes. The participants' HbA1c (hemoglobin A1c) data of the fourth quarter in 2018 were used as baseline value, while P4P program was not applied yet. HbA1c data of every quarter in 2019 were collected. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to analyze the change of HbA1c level.

RESULTS

The HbA1c level increased slightly in the first quarter, and then decreased gradually since the second quarter. The HbA1c level was significantly lower in the fourth quarter after P4P program intervention (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

P4P program of diabetes care is also effective on psychiatric patients with diabetes, and this multidisciplinary care model could be encouraged and promoted for psychiatric patients with diabetes.

Did paying drugs misuse treatment providers for outcomes lead to unintended consequences for hospital admissions? Difference-in-differences analysis of a pay-for-performance scheme in England

AIMS

To estimate how a scheme to pay substance misuse treatment service providers according to treatment outcomes affected hospital admissions.

DESIGN

A controlled, quasi-experimental (difference-in-differences) observational study using negative binomial regression.

SETTING

Hospitals in all 149 organisational areas in England for the period 2009-2010 to 2015-2016.

PARTICIPANTS

572 545 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis indicating drug misuse, defined based on International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes (37 964 patients in 8 intervention areas and 534 581 in 141 comparison areas).

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATORS

Linkage of provider payments to recovery outcome indicators in 8 intervention organisational areas compared with all 141 comparison organisational areas in England. Outcome indicators included: abstinence from presenting substance, abstinent completion of treatment and non-re-presentation to treatment in the 12 months following completion.

MEASUREMENTS

Annual counts of hospital admissions, emergency admissions and admissions including a diagnosis indicating drugs misuse. Covariates included age, sex, ethnic origin and deprivation.

FINDINGS

For 37 245 patients in the intervention areas, annual emergency admissions were 1.073 times higher during the operation of the scheme compared with non-intervention areas (95% CI = 1.049; 1.097). There were an estimated additional 3 352 emergency admissions in intervention areas during the scheme. These findings were robust to a range of secondary analyses.

CONCLUSION

A programme in England from 2012 to 2014 to pay substance misuse treatment service providers according to treatment outcomes appeared to increase emergency hospital admissions.

The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

BACKGROUND

Although pay-for-performance (P4P) among primary care physicians for enhanced chronic disease management is increasingly common, the evidence base is fragmented in terms of socially equitable impacts in achieving the quadruple aim for healthcare improvement: better population health, reduced healthcare costs, and enhanced patient and provider experiences. This study aimed to assess the literature from a systematic review on how P4P for diabetes services impacts on gender equity in patient outcomes and the physician workforce.

METHODS

A gender-based analysis was performed of studies retrieved through a systematic search of 10 abstract and citation databases plus grey literature sources for P4P impact assessments in multiple languages over the period January 2000 to April 2018, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was restricted to single-payer national health systems to minimize the risk of physicians sorting out of health organizations with a strong performance pay component. Two reviewers scored and synthesized the integration of sex and gender in assessing patient- and provider-oriented outcomes as well as the quality of the evidence.

FINDINGS

Of the 2218 identified records, 39 studies covering eight P4P interventions in seven countries were included for analysis. Most (79%) of the studies reported having considered sex/gender in the design, but only 28% presented sex-disaggregated patient data in the results of the P4P assessment models, and none (0%) assessed the interaction of patients' sex with the policy intervention. Few (15%) of the studies controlled for the provider's sex, and none (0%) discussed impacts of P4P on the work life of providers from a gender perspective (e.g., pay equity).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a dearth of evidence on gender-based outcomes of publicly funded incentivizing physician payment schemes for chronic disease care. As the popularity of P4P to achieve health system goals continues to grow, so does the risk of unintended consequences. There is a critical need for research integrating gender concerns to help inform performance-based health workforce financing policy options in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Design and effects of outcome-based payment models in healthcare: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Outcome-based payment models (OBPMs) might solve the shortcomings of fee-for-service or diagnostic-related group (DRG) models using financial incentives based on outcome indicators of the provided care. This review provides an analysis of the characteristics and effectiveness of OBPMs, to determine which models lead to favourable effects.

METHODS

We first developed a definition for OBPMs. Next, we searched four data sources to identify the models: (1) scientific literature databases; (2) websites of relevant governmental and scientific agencies; (3) the reference lists of included articles; (4) experts in the field. We only selected studies that examined the impact of the payment model on quality and/or costs. A narrative evidence synthesis was used to link specific design features to effects on quality of care or healthcare costs.

RESULTS

We included 88 articles, describing 12 OBPMs. We identified two groups of models based on differences in design features: narrow OBPMs (financial incentives based on quality indicators) and broad OBPMs (combination of global budgets, risk sharing, and financial incentives based on quality indicators). Most (5 out of 9) of the narrow OBPMs showed positive effects on quality; the others had mixed (2) or negative (2) effects. The effects of narrow OBPMs on healthcare utilization or costs, however, were unfavourable (3) or unknown (6). All broad OBPMs (3) showed positive effects on quality of care, while reducing healthcare cost growth.

DISCUSSION

Although strong empirical evidence on the effects of OBPMs on healthcare quality, utilization, and costs is limited, our findings suggest that broad OBPMs may be preferred over narrow OBPMs.

Inequity in cardiovascular care in the English National Health Service (NHS): a scoping review of the literature

There is a general understanding that socioeconomically disadvantaged people are also disadvantaged with respect to their access to NHS care. Insofar as considerable NHS funding has been targeted at deprived areas, it is important to better understand whether and why socioeconomic variations in access and utilisation exist. Exploring this question with reference to cardiovascular care, our aims were to synthesise and evaluate evidence relating to access to and/or use of English NHS services around (i) different points on the care pathway (i.e. presentation, primary management and specialist management) and (ii) different dimensions of inequality (socioeconomic, age- and gender-related, ethnic or geographical). Restricting our search period from 2004 to 2016, we were concerned to examine whether, compared to earlier research, there has been a change in the focus of research examining inequalities in cardiac care and whether the pro-rich bias reported in the late 1990s and early 2000s still applies today. We conducted a scoping study drawing on Arksey & O'Malley's framework. A total of 174 studies were included in the review and appraised for methodological quality. Although, in the past decade, there has been a shift in research focus away from gender and age inequalities in access/use and towards socioeconomic status and ethnicity, evidence that deprived people are less likely to access and use cardiovascular care is very contradictory. Patterns of use appear to vary by ethnicity; South Asian populations enjoying higher access, black populations lower. By contrast, female gender and older age are consistently associated with inequity in cardiovascular care. The degree of geographical variation in access/use is also striking. Finally, evidence of inequality increases with stage on the care pathway, which may indicate that barriers to access arise from the way in which health professionals are adjudicating health needs rather than a failure to seek help in the first place.

The impact of reimbursement systems on equity in access and quality of primary care: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Reimbursement systems provide incentives to health care providers and may drive physician behaviour. This review assesses the impact of reimbursement system on socioeconomic and racial inequalities in access, utilization and quality of primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in Web of Science and PubMed for English language studies published between 1980 and 2013, supplemented by reference tracking. Articles were selected based on inclusion criteria, and data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by two authors independently. Data were synthesized in a narrative manner and categorized according to study outcome and reimbursement system.

RESULTS

Twenty seven articles, mostly from the United States and United Kingdom, were included in the data synthesis. Reimbursement systems seem to have limited effect on socioeconomic and racial inequity in access, utilization and quality of primary care. Capitation might have a more beneficial impact on inequity in access to primary care and number of ambulatory care sensitive admissions than fee-for-service, but did worse in patient satisfaction. Pay-for-performance had little or no impact on socioeconomic and racial inequity in the management of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and preventive services.

CONCLUSION

We found little scientific evidence supporting an association between reimbursement system and socioeconomic or racial inequity in access, utilization and quality of primary care. Overall, few studies addressed this research question, and heterogeneity in context and outcomes complicates comparisons across studies. Further empirical studies are warranted.

Is the distribution of care quality provided under pay-for-performance equitable? Evidence from the Advancing Quality programme in England

BACKGROUND

The limited number of existing previous studies of the distribution of quality under NHS Pay-for-performance (P4P) by income deprivation have not analysed the relationship at the individual level and have been restricted to assessing P4P in the primary care setting. In this study, we set out to examine how achievement of P4P 'quality measures' for which NHS hospitals were paid was distributed by income deprivation.

METHODS

Design: Retrospective analysis of performance data reported by hospitals, examining how the probability of receiving 23 indicators varied by patients' area deprivation using logistic regression controlling for age and gender.

SAMPLE

We use anonymised observational data on 73,002 patients admitted to hospitals in the North West of England between October 2008 and March 2010 for the following five reasons: acute myocardial infarction; coronary artery bypass grafting; heart failure; hip and knee replacement; and pneumonia.

RESULTS

The relationship between quality and deprivation varies depending on the point of delivery in the treatment pathway, and on whether delivered for conditions in scheduled or unscheduled care. For diagnostic tests on arrival, receipt of quality was: pro-rich in scheduled care and pro-poor in unscheduled care. Receipt of quality was pro-poor for pre-surgery measures in scheduled care. Receipt of quality at discharge was pro-rich.

CONCLUSION

Unlike in primary care, in secondary care quality is not systemically distributed by income deprivation under P4P. Whilst improvements in health inequalities are important system objectives; they may not necessarily be achieved by the adoption of P4P schemes in hospitals.

Equity of utilisation of cardiovascular care and mental health services in England: a cohort-based cross-sectional study using small-area estimation

Background

A strong policy emphasis on the need to reduce both health inequalities and unmet need in deprived areas has resulted in the substantial redistribution of English NHS funding towards deprived areas. This raises the question of whether or not socioeconomically disadvantaged people continue to be disadvantaged in their access to and utilisation of health care.

Objectives

To generate estimates of the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and common mental health disorders (CMHDs) at a variety of scales, and to make these available for public use via Public Health England (PHE). To compare these estimates with utilisation of NHS services in England to establish whether inequalities of use relative to need at various stages on the health-care pathway are associated with particular sociodemographic or other factors.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of practice-, primary care trust- and Clinical Commissioning Group-level variations in diagnosis, prescribing and specialist management of CVD and CMHDs relative to the estimated prevalence of those conditions (calculated using small-area estimation).

Results

The utilisation of CVD care appears more equitable than the utilisation of care for CMHDs. In contrast to the reviewed literature, we found little evidence of underutilisation of services by older populations. Indeed, younger populations appear to be less likely to access care for some CVD conditions. Nor did deprivation emerge as a consistent predictor of lower use relative to need for either CVD or CMHDs. Ethnicity is a consistent predictor of variations in use relative to need. Rates of primary management are lower than expected in areas with higher percentages of black populations for diabetes, stroke and CMHDs. Areas with higher Asian populations have higher-than-expected rates of diabetes presentation and prescribing and lower-than-expected rates of secondary care for diabetes. For both sets of conditions, there are pronounced geographical variations in use relative to need. For instance, the North East has relatively high levels of use of cardiac care services and rural (shire) areas have low levels of use relative to need. For CMHDs, there appears to be a pronounced ‘London effect’, with the number of people registered by general practitioners as having depression, or being prescribed antidepressants, being much lower in London than expected. A total of 24 CVD and 41 CMHD prevalence estimates have been provided to PHE and will be publicly available at a range of scales, from lower- and middle-layer super output areas through to Clinical Commissioning Groups and local authorities.

Conclusions

We found little evidence of socioeconomic inequality in use for CVD and CMHDs relative to underlying need, which suggests that the strong targeting of NHS resources to deprived areas may well have addressed longstanding concerns about unmet need. However, ethnicity has emerged as a significant predictor of inequality, and there are large and unexplained geographical variations in use relative to need for both conditions which undermine the principle of equal access to health care for equal needs. The persistence of ethnic variations and the role of systematic factors (such as rurality) in shaping patterns of utilisation deserve further investigation, as does the fact that the models were far better at explaining variation in use of CVD than mental health services.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Impact of pay for performance on behavior of primary care physicians and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pay-for-performance is a financial incentive which links physicians' income to the quality of their services. Although pay-for-performance is suggested to be an effective payment method in many pilot countries (ie the UK) and enjoys a wide application in primary health care, researches on it are yet to reach an agreement. Thus, a systematic review was conducted on the evidence of impact of pay-for-performance on behavior of primary care physicians and patient outcomes aiming to provide a comprehensive and objective evaluation of pay-for-performance for decision-makers.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library. Electronic search was conducted in the fourth week of January 2013. As the included studies had significant clinical heterogeneity, a descriptive analysis was conducted. Quality Index was adopted for quality assessment of evidences.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 651 candidate articles, of which 44 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. An overall positive effect was found on the management of disease, which varied in accordance with the baseline medical quality and the practice size. Meanwhile, it could bring about new problems regarding the inequity, patients' dissatisfaction and increasing medical cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-makers should consider the baseline conditions of medical quality and the practice size before new medical policies are enacted. Furthermore, most studies are retrospective and observational with high level of heterogeneity though, the descriptive analysis is still of significance.

Equity impact of a choice reform and change in reimbursement system in primary care in Stockholm County Council

Background

In 2008 reforms were introduced in primary care in Stockholm County Council to increase patient choice. These reforms included changes to the reimbursement system from one that was primarily based on need-weighted capitation system (75 %) to a system largely based on fee-for-service (60 %) and freedom of establishment of primary care clinics. The new reimbursement system created incentives for producing many visits and additional primary care clinics were established, particularly in areas that were already well served. This study analyses if and how the choice reform and change of reimbursement system has affected equity in primary care consumption by investigating whether the increase in visits reflects levels of need and to what extent the reform have affected equity in health care between areas.

Methods

Cross-sectional data from the public health survey in Stockholm County 2006 (n = 34,707) and 2010 (n = 30,767) were linked to individual register data on socio-demographic characteristics and health care utilization in 2007 and 2011. Information on self-reported health status and disability pension was used as indicators of need of health care. Negative binomial regression was used to analyse the differences in GP visits between the two years.

Results

The total number of visits to GPs increased by 46 % from 2007 to 2011 and the proportion visiting a GP increased by 17 %. Both men and women reporting poor mental health and women with limiting longstanding illness and poor self-rated health had significantly smaller increase in number of visits than healthy women and men. Men with poor health status living in disadvantaged areas had a smaller increase than men with poor health status living in other areas of Stockholm County.

Conclusions

The reform did not particularly benefit those with greater health care needs, and there are indications of a negative impact on equity in primary care after the introduction of the reform. There were signs of a lesser increase in total number of visits to GPs among those with poor mental health, among women with poor self-rated health and limiting longstanding illness, and among men living in disadvantaged areas.

A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Perceived Quality of Primary Care by Hypertensive Patients in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China

Hypertension should be best managed under primary care settings. This study aimed to compare, between Shanghai and Shenzhen, the perceived quality of primary care in terms of accessibility, continuity, co-ordination, and comprehensiveness among hypertensive patients.A cross-sectional study was conducted in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China. Multistage random sampling method was used to select 8 community health centers. Data from primary care users were collected through on-site face-to-face interviews using the primary care assessment tool. Good quality standard was set as a value of 3 for each attribute and a value of 18 for total score.We included 568 patients in Shanghai and 128 patients in Shenzhen. Compared with those in Shenzhen, hypertensive patients in Shanghai reported a higher score in co-ordination of information (3.37 vs 3.66; P < 0.001), but lower scores in continuity of care (3.36 vs 3.27; P < 0.001), and comprehensiveness-service provision (3.26 vs 2.79; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in total scores between the 2 cities (18.19 vs 18.15). Over 3-quarters of hypertensive patients in both cities reported accessibility (97.2% vs 91.4%) and co-ordination of services (76.1% vs 80.5%) under good quality standard, while <1-quarter of them rated continuity of care (23.6% vs 22.7%), co-ordination of information (4.8% vs 21.1%), and comprehensiveness-service availability (15.1% vs 25.0%) under that standard.Compared with Shenzhen, the perceived quality of primary care for hypertensive patients in Shanghai was better in terms of co-ordination of information, but poorer on continuity of care and comprehensiveness-service provision. Our study suggests that there is room for quality improvement in both cities.

Comparing quality of public primary care between Hong Kong and Shanghai using validated patient assessment tools

OBJECTIVES

Primary care is the key element of health reform in China. The objective of this study was to compare patient assessed quality of public primary care between Hong Kong, a city with established primary care environment influenced by its colonial history, and Shanghai, a city leading primary care reform in Mainland China; and to measure the equity of care in the two cities.

METHODS

Cross sectional stratified random sampling surveys were conducted in 2011. Data were collected from 1,994 respondents in Hong Kong and 811 respondents in Shanghai. A validated Chinese version of the primary care assessment tool was employed to assess perceived quality of primary care with respect to socioeconomic characteristics and health status.

RESULTS

We analyzed 391 and 725 respondents in Hong Kong and Shanghai, respectively, who were regular public primary care users. Respondents in Hong Kong reported significant lower scores in first contact accessibility (1.59 vs. 2.15), continuity of care (2.33 vs. 3.10), coordination of information (2.84 vs. 3.64), comprehensiveness service availability (2.43 vs. 3.31), comprehensiveness service provided (2.11 vs. 2.40), and the total score (23.40 vs. 27.40), but higher scores in first contact utilization (3.15 vs. 2.54) and coordination of services (2.67 vs. 2.40) when compared with those in Shanghai. Respondents with higher income reported a significantly higher total primary care score in Hong Kong, but not in Shanghai.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents in Shanghai reported better quality of public primary care than those in Hong Kong, while quality of public primary care tended to be more equitable in Shanghai.

A comparison of the quality of hypertension management in primary care between Shanghai and Shenzhen: a cohort study of 3196 patients

Strong primary care is in urgent need for the management and control of hypertension. This study aimed to compare the quality of hypertensive care delivered by community health centers (CHCs) in Shanghai and Shenzhen. Multistage random sampling method was used to select 4 CHCs in each city as study settings. A cohort of hypertensive patients under the hypertensive management program in the CHCs was selected from the electronic information system by using a systematic random sampling method. Binary logistic regression models were constructed for comparison between the 2 cities. A total of 3196 patients' records were assessed. The proportions of hypertensive patients who received advice on smoking cessation (33.8 vs 7.7%, P < 0.001), increasing physical activity (52.4 vs 16.8%, P < 0.001), low-sodium diet (72.0 vs 64.1%, P < 0.001), and regular follow-up (37.8 vs 8.6%, P < 0.001) were higher in Shenzhen than in Shanghai. However, the drug treatment rate in Shenzhen was lower than that in Shanghai (74.2 vs 95.2%, P < 0.001). The hypertension control rate in Shenzhen was lower than that in Shanghai (76.3 vs 83.2%, P < 0.001). Better performance in the process of hypertensive care in terms of increasing physical activity advice, low-sodium diet advice, regular follow-up, and drug prescription was associated with a higher rate of hypertension control. The study indicates that primary care is effective in managing hypertension irrespective of management and operation models of CHCs in urban China. Our study suggests that improvements in the process of hypertensive care may lead to better hypertension control.

Performance-based financial incentives for diabetes care: an effective strategy?

The use of financial incentives provided to primary care physicians who achieve target management or clinical outcomes has been advocated to support the fulfillment of care recommendations for patients with diabetes. This article explores the characteristics of incentive models implemented in the context of universal healthcare systems in the United Kingdom, Australia, Taiwan and Canada; the extent to which these interventions have been successful in improving diabetes outcomes; and the key challenges and concerns around implementing incentive models. Research in the effect of incentives in the United Kingdom demonstrates some improvements in process outcomes and achievement of cholesterol, blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets. Evidence of the efficacy of programs implemented outside of the United Kingdom is very limited but suggests that physicians participating in these enhanced billing incentive programs were already completing the guideline-recommended care prior to the introduction of the incentive. A shift to pay-for-performance programs may have important implications for professionalism and patient-centred care. In the absence of definitive evidence that financial incentives drive the quality of diabetes management at the level of primary care, policy makers should proceed with caution. It is important to look beyond simply modifying physicians' behaviours and address the factors and systemic barriers that make it challenging for patients and physicians to manage diabetes in partnership.

Provider and patient directed financial incentives to improve care and outcomes for patients with diabetes

Incentive programs directed at both providers and patients have become increasingly widespread. Pay-for-performance (P4P) where providers receive financial incentives to carry out specific care or improve clinical outcomes has been widely implemented. The existing literature indicates they probably spur initial gains which then level off or partially revert if incentives are withdrawn. The literature also indicates that process measures are easier to influence through P4P programs but that intermediate outcomes such as glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol control are harder to influence, and the long-term impact of P4P programs on health is largely unknown. Programs directed at patients show greater promise as a means to influence patient behavior and intermediate outcomes such as weight loss; however, the evidence for long-term effects are lacking. In combination, both patient and provider incentives are potentially powerful tools but whether they are cost-effective has yet to be determined.

The effects of pay for performance on disparities in stroke, hypertension, and coronary heart disease management: interrupted time series study

BACKGROUND

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a major pay-for-performance programme, was introduced into United Kingdom primary care in April 2004. The impact of this programme on disparities in health care remains unclear. This study examines the following questions: has this pay for performance programme improved the quality of care for coronary heart disease, stroke and hypertension in white, black and south Asian patients? Has this programme reduced disparities in the quality of care between these ethnic groups? Did general practices with different baseline performance respond differently to this programme?

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Retrospective cohort study of patients registered with family practices in Wandsworth, London during 2007. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series was used to take into account the previous time trend. Primary outcome measures were mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and cholesterol levels. Our findings suggest that the implementation of QOF resulted in significant short term improvements in blood pressure control. The magnitude of benefit varied between ethnic groups with a statistically significant short term reduction in systolic BP in white and black but not in south Asian patients with hypertension. Disparities in risk factor control were attenuated only on few measures and largely remained intact at the end of the study period.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Pay for performance programmes such as the QOF in the UK should set challenging but achievable targets. Specific targets aimed at reducing ethnic disparities in health care may also be needed.

Cardiovascular multimorbidity: the effect of ethnicity on prevalence and risk factor management

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is common in primary care populations. Within cardiovascular disease, important differences in disease prevalence and risk factor management by ethnicity are recognised.

AIM

To examine the population burden of cardiovascular multimorbidity and the management of modifiable risk factors by ethnicity.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional study of general practices (148/151) in the east London primary care trusts of Tower Hamlets, City and Hackney, and Newham, with a total population size of 843 720.

METHOD

Using MIQUEST, patient data were extracted from five cardiovascular registers. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the risk of being multimorbid by ethnic group, and the control of risk factors by ethnicity and burden of cardiovascular multimorbidity.

RESULTS

The crude prevalence of cardiovascular multimorbidity among patients with at least one cardiovascular condition was 34%. People of non-white ethnicity are more likely to be multimorbid than groups of white ethnicity, with adjusted odds ratios of 2.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.94 to 2.15) for South Asians and 1.23 (95% CI = 1.18 to 1.29) for groups of black ethnicity. Achievement of targets for blood pressure, cholesterol, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was higher for patients who were multimorbid than unimorbid. For cholesterol and blood pressure, South Asian patients achieved better control than those of white and black ethnicity. For HbA(1c) levels, patients of white ethnicity had an advantage over other groups as the morbidity burden increased.

CONCLUSION

The burden of multiple disease varies by ethnicity. Risk factor management improves with increasing levels of cardiovascular multimorbidity, but clinically important differences by ethnicity remain and contribute to health inequalities.

The equity dimension in evaluations of the quality and outcomes framework: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pay-for-performance systems raise concerns regarding inequity in health care because providers might select patients for whom targets can easily be reached. This paper aims to describe the evolution of pre-existing (in)equity in health care in the period after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the UK and to describe (in)equities in exception reporting. In this evaluation, a theory-based framework conceptualising equity in terms of equal access, equal treatment and equal treatment outcomes for people in equal need is used to guide the work.

METHODS

A systematic MEDLINE and Econlit search identified 317 studies. Of these, 290 were excluded because they were not related to the evaluation of QOF, they lacked an equity dimension in the evaluation, their qualitative research focused on experiences or on the nature of the consultation, or unsuitable methodology was used to pronounce upon equity after the introduction of QOF.

RESULTS

None of the publications (n = 27) assessed equity in access to health care. Concerning equity in treatment and (intermediate) treatment outcomes, overall quality scores generally improved. For the majority of the observed indicators, all citizens benefit from this improvement, yet the extent to which different patient groups benefit tends to vary and to be highly dependent on the type and complexity of the indicator(s) under study, the observed patient group(s) and the characteristics of the study. In general, the introduction of QOF was favourable for the aged and for males. Total QOF scores did not seem to vary according to ethnicity. For deprivation, small but significant residual differences were observed after the introduction of QOF favouring less deprived groups. These differences are mainly due to differences at the practice level. The variance in exception reporting according to gender and socio-economic position is low.

CONCLUSIONS

Although QOF seems not to be socially selective at first glance, this does not mean QOF does not contribute to the inverse care law. Introducing different targets for specific patient groups and including appropriate, non-disease specific and patient-centred indicators that grasp the complexity of primary care might refine the equity dimension of the evaluation of QOF. Also, information on the actual uptake of care, information at the patient level and monitoring of individuals' health care utilisation tracks could make large contributions to an in-depth evaluation. Finally, evaluating pay-for-quality initiatives in a broader health systems impact assessment strategy with equity as a full assessment criterion is of utmost importance.

Prescribing in general practice for people with coronary heart disease; equity by age, sex, ethnic group and deprivation

OBJECTIVE

Differences in drug prescribing for coronary heart disease have previously been identified by age, sex and ethnic group. Set in the UK, our study utilises routinely collected data from 98 general practices serving a socially diverse population in inner East London, to examine differences in prescribing rates among patients aged 35 years and over with coronary heart disease.

DESIGN

10,933 patients aged 35 years or more, with recorded coronary heart disease, from 98 practices in two Primary Care Trusts (PCT) in East London during 2009/2010 were included for this cross-sectional study. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the odds of prescribing for recommended coronary heart disease drugs by age, sex, ethnicity, social deprivation, co-morbidity and recorded reasons for not prescribing.

RESULTS

Women are prescribed fewer recommended coronary heart disease drugs than men; Black African/Caribbean patients are prescribed fewer lipid modifying drugs and other cardiovascular drugs than White patients. Patients over age 84 are prescribed fewer lipid modifying drugs and beta blockers than patients aged 45-54. South Asian patients had the highest levels of prescribing and higher prevalence of coronary heart disease and diabetes co-morbidity. No difference in prescribing rates by social deprivation was found.

DISCUSSION

Overall levels of prescribing are high but small differences between sex and ethnic groups remain and prescribing may be inequitable for women, for Black/African Caribbeans and at older ages. These differences were not explained by recorded intolerance, contraindications or declining treatment.

Impact of a pay-for-performance incentive scheme on age, sex, and socioeconomic disparities in diabetes management in UK primary care

We examined the impact of a major pay-for-performance initiative introduced into UK primary care in 2004 on disparities in diabetes management between age, sex, and socioeconomic groups in this retrospective cohort study. We used data from the General Practice Research Database enrolling 422 family practices. Existing disparities in risk factor management (HbA1c, blood pressure, cholesterol) narrowed between men and women. Younger patients (<45 years) with diabetes appear to have benefited less from Quality and Outcomes Framework than older patients, resulting in some widening of existing age group disparities. Patients living in affluent and deprived areas appeared to have derived a similar level of benefit from pay for performance.

Does general practice reduce health inequalities? Analysis of quality and outcomes framework data

BACKGROUND

The government set a series of targets to reduce health inequalities in England by 2010. Primary care has an important role in reducing health inequalities. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of general practice on reducing area-based health inequalities.

METHODS

Analysis of differences in achievement on clinical indicators between practices in Spearhead and non-Spearhead Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) using data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) for 2004/05 and 2005/06, practice characteristics and Spearhead status of PCTs. The study used data on 8339 primary care practices in England. Unweighted mean reported achievement on subset of 26 clinical indicators was calculated. The study analysed differences in achievement by Spearhead status and deprivation in both years and the change between years. Multiple regression analysis of relationship between Spearhead status, income deprivation, reported achievement and other factors also were carried out.

RESULTS

Practices in Spearhead PCTs performed worse than practices in non-Spearhead PCTs in both years but showed greater improvement. Among the most deprived practices, there were no differences in QOF achievement between Spearhead and non-Spearhead PCTs. Previous year's achievement was the strongest predictor of performance.

CONCLUSION

The narrowing in performance between practices in Spearhead and non-Spearhead PCTs may have indirectly contributed to a reduction in area-based health inequalities but the differences are small. The lack of difference between the most deprived practices in Spearhead and non-Spearhead PCTs suggest that area-based initiatives to tackle inequalities have not yet had an observable impact on deprived practices. Unobserved factors explain most of the variation in achievement.

Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care

BACKGROUND

Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced.Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level.

CONCLUSIONS

P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.

Has pay for performance improved the management of diabetes in the United Kingdom?

Over the past decade the UK government has introduced a number of major policy initiatives to improve the quality of health care. One such initiative was the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a pay for performance scheme launched in April 2004, which aims to improve the primary care management of common chronic conditions including diabetes. Some evidence suggest that introduction of QOF has been associated with improvements in the quality indicators for diabetes care included in the framework. However, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of QOF from other quality initiatives as few studies adjusted for underlying trends in quality. There is some evidence that QOF may have reduced inequalities in diabetes care between affluent and deprived areas but women and individuals from ethnic minority groups appear to have benefited least from this initiative. Less is known about the impact of QOF on aspects of diabetes care not reflected in the framework, including self-management and continuity of care.