Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in Ontario primary care
- PMID: 25024239
- PMCID: PMC4096468
- DOI: 10.1370/afm.1664
Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in Ontario primary care
Abstract
Purpose: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of pay for performance despite its widespread use. We assessed whether the introduction of a pay-for-performance scheme for primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada, was associated with increased cancer screening rates and determined the amounts paid to physicians as part of the program.
Methods: We performed a longitudinal analysis using administrative data to determine cancer screening rates and incentive costs in each fiscal year from 1999/2000 to 2009/2010. We used a segmented linear regression analysis to assess whether there was a step change or change in screening rate trends after incentives were introduced in 2006/2007. We included all Ontarians eligible for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening.
Results: We found no significant step change in the screening rate for any of the 3 cancers the year after incentives were introduced. Colon cancer screening was increasing at a rate of 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3% to 3.7%) per year before the incentives were introduced and 4.7% (95% CI, 3.7% to 5.7%) per year after. The cervical and breast cancer screening rates did not change significantly from year to year before or after the incentives were introduced. Between 2006/2007 and 2009/2010, $28.3 million, $31.3 million, and $50.0 million were spent on financial incentives for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively.
Conclusions: The pay-for-performance scheme was associated with little or no improvement in screening rates despite substantial expenditure. Policy makers should consider other strategies for improving rates of cancer screening.
Keywords: cancer screening; delivery of health care; pay for performance; primary health care; quality of health care.
© 2014 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Patient-centered medical home implementation and use of preventive services: the role of practice socioeconomic context.JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr;175(4):598-606. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.8263. JAMA Intern Med. 2015. PMID: 25686468 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of provider and patient reminders, deployment of nurse practitioners, and financial incentives on cervical and breast cancer screening rates.Can Fam Physician. 2013 Jun;59(6):e282-9. Can Fam Physician. 2013. PMID: 23766067 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of financial incentives on breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening delivery rates: Results from a systematic literature review.Health Policy. 2019 Dec;123(12):1210-1220. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.09.012. Epub 2019 Sep 27. Health Policy. 2019. PMID: 31587819
-
The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 7;(9):CD008451. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008451.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. PMID: 21901722 Review.
-
Effects of financial incentives on medical practice: results from a systematic review of the literature and methodological issues.Int J Qual Health Care. 2000 Apr;12(2):133-42. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/12.2.133. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000. PMID: 10830670 Review.
Cited by
-
Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2024 Feb 12;25:e12. doi: 10.1017/S1463423623000713. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2024. PMID: 38345096 Free PMC article.
-
Breast Cancer Screening Among Females With and Without Schizophrenia.JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Nov 1;6(11):e2345530. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45530. JAMA Netw Open. 2023. PMID: 38019514 Free PMC article.
-
Factors influencing family physician engagement in practice-based quality improvement: Qualitative study.Can Fam Physician. 2023 May;69(5):e113-e119. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6905e113. Can Fam Physician. 2023. PMID: 37173000 Free PMC article.
-
Primary care for individuals with serious mental illness (PriSMI): protocol for a convergent mixed methods study.BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 20;12(9):e065084. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065084. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 36127095 Free PMC article.
-
How to make universal, voluntary testing for COVID-19 work? A behavioural economics perspective.Health Policy. 2021 Aug;125(8):972-980. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.05.003. Epub 2021 May 16. Health Policy. 2021. PMID: 34090724 Free PMC article.
References
-
- The National Commission on Physician Payment Reform. Report of the National Commission on Physician Payment Reform.Washington, DC; 2013
-
- The Commonwealth Fund. The Commonwealth Fund Health Care Opinion Leaders Survey: Assessing Health Care Experts’ Views on Health Care Costs. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund; 2005
-
- Cassel CK, Jain SH. Assessing individual physician performance: does measurement suppress motivation? JAMA. 2012;307(24):2595–2596 - PubMed
-
- Jha AK. Time to get serious about pay for performance. JAMA. 2013; 309(4):347–348 - PubMed
-
- Wodchis WP, Ross JS, Detsky AS. Is P4P really FFS? JAMA. 2007;298 (15):1797–1799 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources