The use of different ways of paying primary care physicians in an attempt to increase quality of care, including the use of financial incentives to directly reward ‘performance’ and ‘quality’, is increasing in a number of countries. There are many examples in the US, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) for general practitioners (GPs) in the UK is an example of a major system-wide reform. Despite the popularity of these schemes, there is currently little rigorous evidence of their success in improving the quality of primary health care, or of whether such an approach is cost-effective relative to other ways to improve the quality of care. The aim of this review is to examine the effect of changes in the method and level of payment on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians (PCPs). There is insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of primary health care. Implementation should proceed with caution and incentive schemes should be carefully designed and evaluated.
The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians
September 7, 2011
More like this
- Some evidence to suggest that the way in which primary care physicians are paid may affect their clinical behaviour
- Paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries
- Some evidence to suggest that target payments to physicians increase immunisation rates
- Non-traditional roles of outpatient pharmacists.
- Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes