History Bias, Study Design, and the Unfulfilled Promise of Pay-for-Performance Policies in Health Care
| Autor: | Huseyin Naci, Stephen B. Soumerai |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Quality Assurance Health Care Health information technology Essay Pay for performance 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Nursing Bias RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine Health care Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Medicine Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Reimbursement Incentive health care economics and organizations Health policy business.industry Health Policy Public health 1. No poverty Public Health Environmental and Occupational Health Administrative Personnel Public relations 3. Good health Research Design Health care reform business Medicaid |
| Zdroj: | Preventing Chronic Disease |
| ISSN: | 1545-1151 |
| Popis: | The ongoing flip-flopping of research findings about the effects of medical or health policies weakens the credibility of health science among the general public, clinicians, members of Congress, and the National Institutes of Health (1–3). Even worse, poorly designed studies, combined with widespread reporting on those studies by the news media, can distort the decisions of policy makers, leading them to fund ineffective, costly, or even harmful policies. Several reports in top medical journals in 2015 (4–6) pronounced that economic incentives in Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations saved medical costs, but the reports did not control for major biases created by unfairly comparing selected high-performing organizations with less-experienced control organizations (7). The result? The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services cited the findings as a reason for expanding the program nationwide. Building on an earlier article in Preventing Chronic Disease (8), this article focuses on a widely accepted but questionably effective (9) health policy that compensates physicians for meeting certain quality-of-care standards, such as measuring or treating high blood pressure. Policy makers often believe that such financial incentives motivate physicians to improve their performance to maintain or increase their incomes, thereby improving patient outcomes (10). Health care systems in the United States, Canada, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom have committed billions of dollars to this approach in the hope that such incentives will improve the quality of health care (11). Although this monetary approach sounds good theoretically, international scientific reviews overwhelmingly find little evidence to support it (12). Giving physicians small incremental payments to do things they already do routinely (eg, measuring blood pressure) may be counterproductive and even insulting, may divert their attention from more critical concerns, and does not increase quality of care (13). Some studies even find that such compensation encourages unethical behavior by incentivizing doctors to “cherry-pick” healthy, active, wealthy patients over “costly” sick patients who are less likely to reach the performance targets. Nevertheless, this financial-incentive policy is entrenched in many components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as Obamacare), including Accountable Care Organizations, patient-centered medical homes, and health information technology (14). In this article, our aim is to help the public and policy makers understand how a pervasive bias can undermine the results of poorly designed studies of pay-for performance programs published in even the world’s leading medical journals. We also point to observational study designs and systematic reviews of the total body of evidence to find more trustworthy conclusions on the efficacy of pay-for-performance (12). Although randomization is frequently not feasible for evaluating such public policies (15), we also present an example of a randomized controlled trial that supports the conclusions drawn from strong observational study designs. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|