Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul;12(4):317-23.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1664.

Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in Ontario primary care

Affiliations

Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in Ontario primary care

Tara Kiran et al. Ann Fam Med. 2014 Jul.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Age- and sex-standardized cancer screening rates and annual incentive costs from 1990–2000 to 2009–2010.

References

    1. The National Commission on Physician Payment Reform. Report of the National Commission on Physician Payment Reform.Washington, DC; 2013
    1. 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
    1. Cassel CK, Jain SH. Assessing individual physician performance: does measurement suppress motivation? JAMA. 2012;307(24):2595–2596 - PubMed
    1. Jha AK. Time to get serious about pay for performance. JAMA. 2013; 309(4):347–348 - PubMed
    1. Wodchis WP, Ross JS, Detsky AS. Is P4P really FFS? JAMA. 2007;298 (15):1797–1799 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources