Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 122, Issue 6, June 2018, Pages 667-673
Health Policy

The impact of pay-for-performance on the quality of care in ophthalmology: Empirical evidence from Germany

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.013Get rights and content

Highlights

  • So far, empirical evidence regarding P4P in ophthalmology is limited.

  • P4P implementation did not lead to significant effects on the quality of care.

  • No significant differences were found between P4P and lump-sum reimbursement schemes.

Abstract

Background

Pay-for-performance (P4P) has become a popular approach to increase effectiveness and efficiency in healthcare. So far, there is little evidence regarding the potential of P4P in the German healthcare setting. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of P4P on the quality of care in cataract surgery.

Methods

In 2012, a P4P program was implemented in a German surgical centre for ophthalmology. Five quality measures regarding process quality, outcomes, and patient satisfaction were measured over a period of 4.5 years. The P4P scheme consisted of bonus and penalty payments accounting for five per cent of total compensation. Overall, 1657 P4P cases were examined and compared with 4307 control cases. Interrupted time series and group comparisons were conducted to identify quality and spill-over effects.

Results

We found a positive impact on process quality and patient satisfaction before the implementation of the P4P scheme, but declining trends during and after the implementation. Our findings did not show an impact of P4P on outcome measures. Furthermore, P4P did not result in better quality of care, compared with the German hospital-based reimbursement scheme.

Conclusion

This study did not show any positive long-term effects of the implementation of P4P on quality of care. Therefore, our results do not support the hypothesis that P4P leads to significant improvements in quality of care.

Introduction

Cataract surgery has become a routine surgical procedure in most developed countries. Approximately 19 million procedures are performed every year worldwide [1], of which approximately 800,000 procedures are performed in Germany [2]. According to the WHO, it is estimated that the total number of cataract procedures will rise to 32 million by the year 2020 [[1], [3], [4]]. Different approaches aim to capture the quality of care in cataract surgery. With regard to measurement of clinical reported outcomes (CROs), clinical metrics such as visual acuity and complication rates are most frequently used. Further, patient questionnaires are used in order to measure patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) [[5], [6]]. Although there is a high number of procedures performed, research has demonstrated that quality of care in cataract surgery may differ between surgery centres and/or surgeons [[7], [8]].

Pay-for-performance (P4P) intends to solve quality deficits, or to decrease existing quality gaps, by linking payments with quality of care measurements. So far, the reimbursement schemes in German hospitals usually comprise of fixed lump-sum payment elements, but do not consider quality of care elements [9]. P4P pursues the aim of quality improvements by stimulating the extrinsic motivation of participants; that is, achieving a predefined target level and/or quality improvements may result in financial rewards, while the opposite may lead to shortfalls in remuneration. Although many studies have been carried out to assess the impact of P4P on quality of care, it remains difficult to draw firm conclusions [10]; while some studies found positive effects [[11], [12], [13]], others found no effects [[14], [15]], or even adverse effects [16]. The inconsistent evidence is mainly attributed to the limited number of studies with strong designs [10], or differences in the design of P4P reimbursement schemes [17]. Regarding the latter, the design of P4P approaches differs, especially with regard to quality-related (e.g., number of quality indicators, included patient population) and incentive-related elements (e.g., incentive structure, amount of bonus/penalty payments, payment frequency) [[17], [18]]. In this context, Ogundeji et al. showed that positive effects were three times higher for schemes with larger incentives (>5% of salary/usual budget) [19]. Regarding the incentivized quality measurements, empirical findings showed that process indicators generally led to higher improvement rates compared to outcome measures [20].

Regarding the current state of P4P in Germany, a systematic review by Veit et al. [21] found 14 different approaches across several medical fields. These were mainly implemented based on selective contracting with single health insurers, or because of quality deficits in healthcare delivery [21]. However, it still remains unclear whether any of these programs have had any impact on the quality of care. To the best of our knowledge, no rigorous evaluations have been published showing the effects of the implementation of these P4P programs. With regard to the speciality field of ophthalmology, four P4P programs from the US have been described in the literature [[22], [23], [24], [25]]; however, empirical evidence is only available for two of these approaches [[22], [23]]. As such, the first results from these programs indicate that P4P may indeed lead to both quality improvements and cost reductions [[22], [23], [26]].

Therefore, this study aims to address this research gap by evaluating whether P4P has an impact on the quality of care in Germany. In particular, our study aims to address the following two research questions: (1) Does the implementation of a comprehensive P4P reimbursement scheme have an impact on the quality of care in cataract surgery? (2) Does P4P lead to better quality of care compared with the German lump-sum payment system [9]? The following paper is divided into two parts; each part addresses one research question. In the first part of the paper, we analyse the quality of care before, during, and after the implementation of a P4P reimbursement scheme in cataract surgery. The second part contains an analysis of whether P4P leads to better quality of care results compared with the German hospital-based lump-sum remuneration scheme. As such, the quality of care of patients being treated under a P4P scheme will be compared with the quality of care of patients being treated under a lump-sum payment scheme.

Section snippets

Part 1: the impact of the implementation of P4P on the quality of care in cataract surgery

The P4P reimbursement scheme (see below) was implemented in April 2012 on the basis of an integrated care contract between a large surgical centre for ophthalmology in Northern Germany (nordBLICK Augenklinik Bellevue) and one German statutory health insurance. We conducted interrupted time series (ITS) analyses to identify whether the implementation of the P4P reimbursement scheme led to significant changes in the quality of care. Therefore, the quality of care of cataract surgery was measured

Results

Overall, 5964 cataract cases were included in the analyses, of which 1657 cases were assigned to the P4P group and 4307 cases to the control group. As shown, there were no significant differences between the study groups in terms of age, gender, type of admission and relative share of bonus and penalty payments (Table 2).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine whether P4P leads to significant improvements in quality of care. Our study was guided by two major questions. First, we analysed whether the implementation of a comprehensive P4P reimbursement scheme in cataract surgery had an impact on the quality of care. Second, we examined whether P4P resulted in better quality of care results compared with results that were observed under a lump-sum remuneration scheme.

In the first part of our study, we found that the

Conclusions for health policy makers

Several conclusions can be drawn from our study. First, our study provides the first empirical evidence from Germany showing that the promising proposal of P4P might not prove true. In line with the literature from the international P4P landscape, we did not find any evidence that the implementation of P4P reimbursement led to significant quality improvements. Second, the selective implementation of a P4P scheme for a certain patient group does not automatically lead to significant differences

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgement

none.

References (41)

  • S. Trikha et al.

    The journey to femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: new beginnings or a false dawn?

    Eye (London, England)

    (2013)
  • E. Wille et al.

    Die Bewertung von Kataraktoperationen aus gesundheitsökonomischer Sicht.: Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesverbandes Deutscher Opthalmochirurgen eV (BDOC)

    (2012)
  • G. Brian et al.

    Cataract blindness–challenges for the 21st century

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2001)
  • K.E. Donaldson et al.

    Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

    Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

    (2013)
  • M. Lundström et al.

    Catquest-9SF patient outcomes questionnaire: nine-item short-form Rasch-scaled revision of the Catquest questionnaire

    Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

    (2009)
  • C. McAlinden et al.

    A head-to-head comparison of 16 cataract surgery outcome questionnaires

    Ophthalmology

    (2011)
  • Z.A. Syed et al.

    Cataract surgery outcomes at a UK independent sector treatment centre

    The British Journal of Ophthalmology

    (2015)
  • C.J. Wright et al.

    Evaluation of indications for and outcomes of elective surgery

    Canadian Medical Association Journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne

    (2002)
  • J. Hoffmann et al.

    Breast cancer surgery and financial reimbursement in Germany

    Breast care (Basel, Switzerland)

    (2012)
  • F. Eijkenaar et al.

    Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews

    Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

    (2013)
  • T.A. Nahra et al.

    Cost-effectiveness of hospital pay-for-performance incentives

    Medical Care Research and Review

    (2006)
  • L.C. An et al.

    A randomized trial of a pay-for-performance program targeting clinician referral to a state tobacco quitline

    Archives of Internal Medicine

    (2008)
  • D.B. Christensen et al.

    Frequency and characteristics of cognitive services provided in response to a financial incentive

    Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Washington, D.C.: 1996)

    (2000)
  • A.L. Hillman et al.

    Physician financial incentives and feedback: failure to increase cancer screening in Medicaid managed care

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1998)
  • A.L. Hillman et al.

    The use of physician financial incentives and feedback to improve pediatric preventive care in Medicaid managed care

    Pediatrics

    (1999)
  • M.B. Rosenthal et al.

    Impact of financial incentives for prenatal care on birth outcomes and spending

    Health Services Research

    (2009)
  • P. van Herck et al.

    Pay-for-performance step-by-step: introduction to the MIMIQ model

    Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

    (2011)
  • K.K. Kondo et al.

    Implementation processes and pay for performance in healthcare: a systematic review

    Journal of General Internal Medicine

    (2016)
  • Y.K. Ogundeji et al.

    The effectiveness of payment for performance in health care: a meta-analysis and exploration of variation in outcomes

    Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

    (2016)
  • P. van Herck et al.

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

    BMC Health Services Research

    (2010)
  • Cited by (7)

    • Individual performance-based incentives for health care workers in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries: a systematic literature review

      2022, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most studies were quasi-experimental, using retrospective data to assess the impact of natural experiments. This group of studies included 11 interrupted time-series analyses [18–28], eight difference-in-differences analyses [29–36], and 12 retrospective cohort studies [37–47]. There were also ten randomized control trials [48–57] and one non-randomized controlled trial [58] included in our final list of studies.

    • Does an alignment of employment policies and individual preferences affect intention to stay in the profession? Evidence from Canadian Midwives

      2021, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Based on these theories and the empirical research that presented below, we developed the following conceptual model to guide this study (See Fig. 1). Research has established that different compensation methods for physicians are associated with differences in practice [30,31] and patient/client satisfaction [32,33]. Moreover, researchers have reported how different compensation methods influence physicians’ overall satisfaction [34] and have discussed which compensation methods they prefer [35,36].

    • Rethinking organizational change in the COVID-19 era

      2021, Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text