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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Feb;37(3):556-564.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06714-8. Epub 2021 Apr 26.

The Effect of Financial Incentives on Quality Measures in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Rahel Meier  1   2 , Corinne Chmiel  3   4 , Fabio Valeri  3   4 , Leander Muheim  3   4 , Oliver Senn  3   4 , Thomas Rosemann  3   4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The Effect of Financial Incentives on Quality Measures in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Rahel Meier et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Financial incentives are often used to improve quality of care in chronic care patients. However, the evidence concerning the effect of financial incentives is still inconclusive.

Objective: To test the effect of financial incentives on quality measures (QMs) in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care. We incentivized a clinical QM and a process QM to test the effect of financial incentives on different types of QMs and to investigate the spill-over effect on non-incentivized QMs.

Design/participants: Parallel cluster randomized controlled trial based on electronic medical records database involving Swiss general practitioners (GPs). Practices were randomly allocated.

Intervention: All participants received a bimonthly feedback report. The intervention group additionally received potential financial incentives on GP level depending on their performance.

Main measures: Between-group differences in proportions of patients fulfilling incentivized QM (process QM of annual HbA1c measurement and clinical QM of blood pressure level below 140/95 mmHg) after 12 months.

Key results: Seventy-one GPs (median age 52 years, 72% male) from 43 different practices and subsequently 3838 patients with diabetes mellitus (median age 70 years, 57% male) were included. Proportions of patients with annual HbA1c measurements remained unchanged (intervention group decreased from 79.0 to 78.3%, control group from 81.5 to 81.0%, OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90-1.32, p = 0.39). Proportions of patients with blood pressure below 140/95 improved from 49.9 to 52.5% in the intervention group and decreased from 51.2 to 49.0% in the control group (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99-1.36, p = 0.06). Proportions of non-incentivized process QMs increased significantly in the intervention group.

Conclusion: GP level financial incentives did not result in more frequent HbA1c measurements or in improved blood pressure control. Interestingly, we could confirm a spill-over effect on non-incentivized process QMs. Yet, the mechanism of spill-over effects of financial incentives is largely unclear.

Trial registration: ISRCTN13305645.

Keywords: diabetes mellitus; financial incentives; improvement; primary care; quality of care; spill-over effect.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study including dropouts of GPs and patient fluctuation. GP general practitioner, pat patient.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportions of patients fulfilling the quality measures during the observation period. Primary outcomes are surrounded by thick frames. Illustrated are mean and Wald 95% confidence interval for each group. QM quality measure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization. Global report on diabetes. Geneva 2016.
    1. Tricco AC, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Moher D, Turner L, Galipeau J, et al. Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Strategies on the Management of Diabetes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2252–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60480-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Herck P, De Smedt D, Annemans L, Remmen R, Rosenthal MB, Sermeus W. Systematic Review: Effects, Design Choices, and Context of Pay-for-Performance in Health Care. Bmc Health Serv Res. 2010;10:247. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-247. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mendelson A, Kondo K, Damberg C, Low A, Motúapuaka M, Freeman M, et al. The Effects of Pay-for-Performance Programs on Health, Health Care Use, and Processes of Care: a Systematic Review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2017;166(5):341–53. doi: 10.7326/M16-1881. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Scott A, Sivey P, Ait Ouakrim D, Willenberg L, Naccarella L, Furler J, et al. The Effect of Financial Incentives on the Quality of Health Care Provided by Primary Care Physicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9:CD008451. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008451.pub2. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data