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
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