4.7 Article

Effects of Individual Physician-Level and Practice-Level Financial Incentives on Hypertension Care A Randomized Trial

Journal

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 310, Issue 10, Pages 1042-1050

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.276303

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) Investigator-Initiated Research (IIR) program [04-349]
  2. National Institutes of Health [RO1 HL079173-01]
  3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [NHLBI]) [1R01HL079173-S2]
  4. Houston VA HSR&D Center of Excellence [HFP90-020]
  5. American Heart Association [0540043N]
  6. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [045444]
  7. NHLBI [1R01HL079173-S1]
  8. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [1 K23 HD056298-01]
  9. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Care Financing and Organization Program [63214]
  10. [CDA 07-0181]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IMPORTANCE Pay for performance is intended to align incentives to promote high-quality care, but results have been contradictory. OBJECTIVE To test the effect of explicit financial incentives to reward guideline-recommended hypertension care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cluster randomized trial of 12 Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics with 5 performance periods and a 12-month washout that enrolled 83 primary care physicians and 42 nonphysician personnel (eg, nurses, pharmacists). INTERVENTIONS Physician-level (individual) incentives, practice-level incentives, both, or none. Intervention participants received up to 5 payments every 4 months; all participants could access feedback reports. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Among a random sample, number of patients achieving guideline-recommended blood pressure thresholds or receiving an appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure, number of patients prescribed guideline-recommended medications, and number who developed hypotension. RESULTS Mean (SD) total payments over the study were $4270 ($459), $2672 ($153), and $1648 ($248) for the combined, individual, and practice-level interventions, respectively. The unadjusted baseline and final percentages and the adjusted absolute change over the study in patients meeting the combined blood pressure/appropriate response measure were 75% to 84% and 8.84%(95% CI, 4.20% to 11.80%) for the individual group, 80% to 85% and 3.70% (95% CI, 0.24% to 7.68%) for the practice-level group, 79% to 88% and 5.54%(95% CI, 1.92% to 9.52%) for the combined group, and 86% to 86% and 0.47%(95% CI, -3.12% to 4.04%) for the control group. The adjusted absolute estimated difference in the change between the proportion of patients with blood pressure control/appropriate response for individual incentive and control groups was 8.36%(95% CI, 2.40% to 13.00%; P=.005). The other incentive groups did not show a significant change compared with controls for this outcome. For medications, the unadjusted baseline and final percentages and the adjusted absolute change were 61% to 73% and 9.07%(95% CI, 4.52% to 13.44%), 56% to 65% and 4.98%(95% CI, 0.64% to 10.08%), 65% to 80% and 7.26%(95% CI, 2.92% to 12.48%), and 63% to 72% and 4.35%(95% CI, -0.28% to 9.28%), respectively. These changes in the use of guideline-recommended medications were not significant in any of the incentive groups compared with controls, nor was the incidence of hypotension. The effect of the incentive was not sustained after a washout. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Individual financial incentives, but not practice-level or combined incentives, resulted in greater blood pressure control or appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure; none of the incentives resulted in greater use of guideline-recommended medications or increased incidence of hypotension compared with controls. Further research is needed on the factors that contributed to these findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available