» Articles » PMID: 10908475

Target Payments in Primary Care: Effects on Professional Practice and Health Care Outcomes

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2000 Jul 25
PMID 10908475
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The method by which physicians are paid may affect their professional practice. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. improving quality of care, cost containment and recruitment to under-served areas), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Target payments are a payment system which remunerate professionals only if they provide a minimum level of care.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of target payments on the professional practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) and health care outcomes.

Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles.

Selection Criteria: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of target payments to primary care professionals with alternative methods of payment, on patient outcomes, health services utilisation, health care costs, equity of care, and PCP satisfaction with working environment.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality.

Main Results: Two studies were included involving 149 practices. The use of target payments in the remuneration of PCPs was associated with improvements in immunisation rates, but the increase was statistically significant in only one of the two studies.

Reviewer's Conclusions: The evidence from the studies identified in this review is not of sufficient quality or power to obtain a clear answer to the question as to whether target payment remuneration provides a method of improving primary health care. Additional efforts should be directed in evaluating changes in physicians' remuneration systems. Although it would not be difficult to design a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of such payment systems, it would be difficult politically to conduct such trials.

Citing Articles

Testing cost containment of future healthcare with maintained or improved quality-The COSTCARES project.

Swedberg K, Cawley D, Ekman I, Rogers H, Antonic D, Behmane D Health Sci Rep. 2021; 4(2):e309.

PMID: 34141903 PMC: 8180514. DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.309.


Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings.

Jia L, Meng Q, Scott A, Yuan B, Zhang L Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 1:CD011865.

PMID: 33469932 PMC: 8094987. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011865.pub2.


Budget impact analysis of lens material on the posterior capsule opacification (PCO) as a complication after the cataract surgery.

Raulinajtys-Grzybek M, Grabska-Liberek I, Opala A, Slomka M, Chrobot M Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020; 18:19.

PMID: 32549794 PMC: 7296914. DOI: 10.1186/s12962-020-00214-y.


Supporting Innovative Person-Centred Care in Financially Constrained Environments: The WE CARE Exploratory Health Laboratory Evaluation Strategy.

Lloyd H, Ekman I, Rogers H, Raposo V, Melo P, Marinkovic V Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(9).

PMID: 32353939 PMC: 7246834. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17093050.


Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using AMSTAR and ROBIS checklists.

Jaca A, Ndze V, Wiysonge C Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019; 15(12):2824-2835.

PMID: 31348722 PMC: 6930111. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1631567.


References
1.
Hughes D, Yule B . The effect of per-item fees on the behaviour of general practitioners. J Health Econ. 1992; 11(4):413-37. DOI: 10.1016/0167-6296(92)90014-r. View

2.
Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen I, Sutton M, Leese B, Giuffrida A . Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; (3):CD002215. PMC: 9879313. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002215. View

3.
Morrow R, Gooding A, Clark C . Improving physicians' preventive health care behavior through peer review and financial incentives. Arch Fam Med. 1995; 4(2):165-9. DOI: 10.1001/archfami.4.2.165. View

4.
Kouides R, Bennett N, Lewis B, Cappuccio J, Barker W, LaForce F . Performance-based physician reimbursement and influenza immunization rates in the elderly. The Primary-Care Physicians of Monroe County. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 14(2):89-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(97)00028-7. View

5.
Ritchie L, Bisset A, Russell D, Leslie V, Thomson I . Primary and preschool immunisation in Grampian: progress and the 1990 contract. BMJ. 1992; 304(6830):816-9. PMC: 1881680. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.304.6830.816. View