| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
SPECIAL COMMUNICATION |
From the Christiana Health Care Center Division of Neonatology in the Department of Pediatrics at the Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine (Dr Locke) in Newark, Del, and the Department of Medicine at the University of California Davis School of Medicine (Dr Srinivasan) in Sacramento.
Address correspondence to Robert G. Locke, DO, Neonatalogy, MAP-1 Suite 217, 4745 Ogletown-Stanton Rds, Newark, DE 19713-2074. E-mail: rlocke{at}christianacare.org
Context: Pay-for-performance (P4P) programs reward physicians who meet—and electronically document—specific healthcare standards during patient encounters, incentivizing certain aspects of medical care. Although such documentation can be time consuming and technology intensive, noncompliance can result in decreased physician reimbursement.
Objective: To assess the attitudes of primary care osteopathic physicians toward P4P initiatives.
Methods: In 2006, a 20-item questionnaire was mailed to 1000 osteopathic physicians randomly pulled from the American Osteopathic Association database for this cross-sectional, survey-based study. Distinctions were not made between physician practice type or group size when the mailing list was compiled.
Results: Two hundred thirty responses were received for a response rate of 23%. Of these respondents, 123 physicians (54%) were in primary care practices comprising fewer than five physicians. Of these practitioners, 94% felt unprepared for P4P initiatives, 81% did not have the resources for appropriate technological investments, and 75% required additional P4P education and training to respond to P4P initiatives. In addition, the 28% of respondents who used electronic medical records were almost five times more likely (odds ratio, 4.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-12.06) to report that they could meet P4P reporting requirements. The majority of survey respondents were skeptical that P4P would appropriately capture the quality of their work and did not believe that health outcomes should influence their reimbursement.
Conclusions: Although the current study's sample size may limit generalizability, small group primary care osteopathic physicians will need assistance—both technological and educational—to meet P4P measures.
Although many P4P models exist, these programs generally use financial incentives to promote improved care via measurable outcome measures. Likewise, under the current Medicare concept of P4P, physicians who do not meet bench-marks for improved performance will receive decreased reimbursement for their services.4 While the impact of financial incentives is debatable,5-8 concerns remain for P4P's unintended effects on patients and physicians.9,10
The P4P outcome measures have thus far concentrated on patients with common and often chronic conditions (eg, diabetes), regardless of comorbidities, self-care (eg, medication adherence), or financial resources, and sometimes without risk adjustment. These patients are typically treated by primary care physicians, who are therefore disproportionately impacted by early P4P measures. However, documenting improvement in P4P outcome measures requires a technological infrastructure to capture laboratory information, medical records, and radiologic data. Because of this necessary infrastructure, P4P initiatives have been focused on large healthcare entities, which can leverage internal resources to meet the technological needs and system redesign requirements fundamental to P4P quality initiatives.11
By contrast, solo or small group practice settings of fewer than five practitioners, in which approximately 67% of all ambulatory care is delivered,12 may not be able to generate the internal resources critical to meet technological system requirements.
According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in 5 years all physicians should be engaged in P4P programs.13 For practice groups in which more than 50% of the physicians are Medicaid recipients, P4P incentives should be implemented within 1 year.13 However, a paucity of research exists on the capability and willingness of small group practices to meet the P4P reporting functions proposed by Medicare and private insurers.14,15 The current study examines the self-assessed technological readiness and attitudes toward P4P measures among primary care osteopathic physicians (DOs) in small group practices.
 |
Methods |
|---|
 Top Methods ResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
In October 2006, a cover letter, 20-question survey, and business reply envelope were mailed to each DO generated in the randomized list. A mailed survey was used instead of a internet-based survey to prevent bias selection of individuals with higher levels of technological comfort. The cover letter introduced the P4P initiatives and the purpose of the study. Information was included for participants to contact the survey administrator (R.G.L.) if they had any questions.
The questionnaire was developed through expert consensus in the following domains:
Initial questions were tested and revised for clarity and intent by a panel of primary care physicians before the mailing. Respondents who were not in primary care and not in small practice groups were asked to return the survey without completing the remaining 19 questions.
Surveys that were returned within 45 days were analyzed in the current study. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software (version 15.0 for Windows; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). The study was approved by the Christiana Care Health System Institutional Review Board.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
Responses were received from 39 states: 28% from northeastern states; 20%, southern states; 35%, Midwestern states; and 16%, western states. These regional response rates accurately reflect the percent of surveys mailed to each region. According to survey responses, 80% were in practice for more than 5 years. Less than half of the respondents (40%) were optimistic about "the practice of delivering medicine." A super-majority (68%) believed they would be significantly affected by P4P measures within 5 years.
Attitudes Toward Pay for Performance
Survey respondents were asked to consider a theoretical P4P reimbursement
scheme regarding general patient care (Figure). After reviewing the
proposed quality measures, 66% of respondents believed that "attention
to meet these performance goals" would not cause significant change in
the healthcare of their patients. However, 20% indicated that such measures
would cause decreased attention to healthcare items not included in the
reimbursement scheme.
Less than half of responding DOs (42%) believed that there are "existing outcome measures that reflect the quality of care [they provide] to a patient." In addition, 72% felt that health outcome measurements should not influence their reimbursement. Almost two-thirds of respondents indicated that the insurer should rate them as individuals as opposed to being pooled in their practice group. Also, only 2% of DOs surveyed believed it was fair to "withhold 20% of [his or her] normal reimbursement if [the respondent] was able to earn an additional 30%" by meeting all P4P benchmarks. The remainder of the respondents were either "unsure" (24%) or thought this scenario was unfair (74%).
Technological and Educational Preparedness
Almost all of the respondents (94%) felt that if P4P were enacted
"today," their practice would not be ready to practice, report,
and meet reimbursement requirements of a P4P scheme. In addition, 60% of
respondents stated that they would not be able to "include health
outcomes when completing an electronic claims submission," could not
currently "comply with reporting measures," and could not use
their current billing method to monitor and track the hypothetical
reimbursement scheme. In response to a question regarding the need for
additional infrastructure to comply with P4P measures, 81% stated that they
did not have the investment capital needed to develop such a system. Only 28%
of respondents currently used electronic medical records.
A minority of physicians (12%) felt that "existing external resources" would adequately assist their practice in responding to the requirements of new P4P models. Seventy-five percent stated that "both learning additional medical information and methods" would assist their group's ability to respond to P4P initiatives. Another 68% would find on-site training helpful for physicians and staff members (eg, physician assistants, nurse practitioners), while 54% thought off-site training (eg, conferences, books, CD [compact disc] or DVD [digital video disc] course materials) would be helpful. Finally, 42% believed that low-interest loans for building the necessary technological P4P infrastructure would be helpful.
Analysis
Unadjusted analysis revealed that DOs whose practices used electronic
medical records were almost five times more likely to report that they could
meet P4P reporting requirements (odds ratio, 4.80; 95% confidence interval,
1.91-12.06). This result remained true after controlling for potentially
confounding variables such as length of time in practice, positive or negative
attitude toward the practice of medicine, or self-predicted time until
significantly affected by P4P measures. In testing the validity of these
relationships by randomly sampling 75% of the physician surveys recurrently,
we found only minor changes in the odds ratios.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
|
The P4P measures, which will be difficult to implement for many primary care physicians, may also penalize practitioners who treat patients in underserved populations that may not have the resources to follow physician recommendations. As such, there is considerable public and private value in investing and supporting the ability of these healthcare providers to participate in a P4P program and provide "best practice" physician services to their patients.
While the survey response rate was low, the current study is the largest survey of small group DOs' readiness to implement and attitudes toward P4P initiatives. However, several limitations of note exist. First, the randomized AOA mailing list did not distinguish between DOs based on specialty or practice size, limiting our ability to selectively survey physicians who met the study criteria. Second, responding physicians were concerned enough about P4P to respond to the survey, representing a response bias. Third, this survey did not explore the influences of regional differences, practice location, or alternate theoretical outcome measures. Finally, though DOs traditionally provide a greater proportion of primary care for patients per graduate, we did not survey allopathic physicians, who constitute the majority of physicians in the United States. Despite these limitations, our results indicate that a substantial number of smaller practices will have difficulty "buying into" P4P initiatives—both conceptually and technologically.
According to the current study, the majority of small group and solo-practice DOs felt that mandatory participation in existing P4P initiatives would place a burden on their practice but that personalized technical assistance would be beneficial. The Medicare Quality Improvement Organization Program does address the need for technical assistance, but these efforts are primarily focused on large practice groups.17
Two-thirds of respondents felt that their performance should be rated individually. Although this revised model may seem ideal, many individual physicians do not encounter enough patients with certain disorders to adequately apply a statistical measure to assess performance. For example, the IOM suggests a minimum of 25 patients to generate valid and reliable estimates of individual physician care per content area.13 Alternatively, it has been proposed that individuals combine their outcomes with other physicians in their region to generate performance data on the treatment of patients with specific diseases.14 However, whether this structure would help or hinder the individual practitioner is not clear.14
Previous studies indicate that small group physicians have less sophisticated electronic medical record and billing resources compared with larger entities.11,15 Although the usage rate of electronic medical records in the current study (28%) is consistent with other studies,18 it is unclear whether these records will assist physicians in meeting P4P reporting measures.18-20 In the current study, analysis revealed a nearly five-fold increase in the perceived ability of these physicians to comply with P4P measures.
The results of this study indicate that the development and dissemination of ambulatory quality standards alone, even when attached to monetary incentives, will not be sufficient to improve compliance with "best practices." The healthcare community will need to ensure that small group and solo practitioners and their patients are able to meet new challenges. Many for-profit and nonprofit programs, including Bridges to Excellence Physician Office Link (http://www.bridgestoexcellence.org/PhysicianOffice), the National Committee for Quality Assurance (http://web.ncqa.org/), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/pay4per.htm), support and enact P4P measures for physicians but require that practice groups have existing P4P participation.21
One way to improve physician P4P readiness could be achieved by modeling the program on existing governmental programs in nonmedical settings. For example, the US Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension System (USDA CES), a voluntary, federally authorized, interactive program, provides education, development, and technical support adjusted to meet the specific needs of local farmers via state extension offices.22 By separating educational and support processes from oversight activity, the USDA CES has encouraged public use of the program. Such a service model might work well for the development of physician services to improve technological readiness for P4P and healthcare outcomes for patients.
|
Conclusion |
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
|
Acknowledgment |
|---|
Submitted June 13, 2007; revision received August 8, 2007; accepted August 17, 2007.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
2. Milgate K, Cheng SB. Pay-for-performance: the MedPAC perspective.
Health Aff (Millwood).2006; 25:413
-419.
3. Sinco P. Pay for performance: exploring the incentive-laden payment model. The DO. March2005; 46:24 -32.
4. MedPAC. Strategies to improve care: pay for performance and information technology. In: Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy. Washington, DC; MedPAC: 2005:181-223. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/publications/congressional_reports/Mar05_Ch04.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2008.
5. Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, Rothberg MB, Benjamin EM, Ma A, et
al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement.
N Engl J Med.2007; 356:486
-496.
6. Young GJ, Meterko M, Beckman H, Baker E, White B, Sautter KM, et al. Effects of paying physicians based on their relative performance for quality. J Gen Intern Med.2007; 22:872 -876.[Medline]
7. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with
pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA.2005; 294:1788
-1793.
8. Christianson JB, Knutson DJ, Mazze RS. Physician pay-for-performance. Implementation and research issues. J Gen Intern Med.2006; 21(suppl 2):S9 -S13.
9. Fitzgerald F. The pitfalls of pay for performance. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99:123 -124.[Medline]
10. Casalino LP, Elster A, Eisenberg A, Lewis E, Montgomery J, Ramos D.
Will pay-for-performance and quality reporting affect health care disparities
[published correction appears in Health Aff (Millwood).
2007;26:1794]? Health Aff (Millwood).2007; 26:w405
-w414.
11. Bodenheimer T, May JH, Berenson RA, Coughlan J. Can money buy quality? Physician response to pay for performance. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. December 2005;102:1-4. Available at: http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/807/. Accessed January 10, 2008.
12. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2006. Hyattsville, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2006:384. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#117. Accessed January 23, 2008.
13. Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance Performance Measures, Payment, and Performance Improvement Programs. Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning Incentives in Medicare. Pathways to Quality Health Care series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press;2007 .
14. Casalino LP, Alexander GC, Jin L, Konetzka RT. General internists'
views on pay-for-performance and public reporting of quality scores: a
national survey. Health Aff (Millwood).2007; 26:492
-499.
15. Mehrotra A, Pearson SD, Coltin KL, Kleinman KP, Singer JA, Rabson B, et al. The response of physician groups to P4P incentives. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13:249 -255.[Medline]
16. Archive for January of 2008. AOA daily report page. American Osteopathic Association Web site. 2008. Available at: http://blogs.do-online.org/dailyreport.php?blogid=4&archive=2008-01. Accessed January 14, 2008.
17. Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance Performance Measures, Payment, and Performance Improvement Programs. Medicare's Quality Improvement Organization Program: Maximizing Potential [executive summary]. Pathways to Quality Health Care series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006. Available at: http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/QIOConference/SubstantiveInfo/ExecutiveSummaryOfIoMReportOnQIOs.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2008.
18. Burt CW, Hing E, Woodwell D. Electronic medical record use by office-based physicians: United States, 2005. National Center for Health Statistics Web site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/electronic/electronic.htm. Accessed January 23, 2008.
19. Poon EG, Jha AK, Christino M, Honour MM, Fernandopulle R, Middleton B, et al. Assessing the level of healthcare information technology adoption in the United States: a snapshot. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006;6:1 .[Medline]
20. Kaushal R, Bates DW, Poon EG, Jha AK, Blumenthal D; Harvard
Interfaculty Program for Health Systems Improvement NHIN Working Group.
Functional gaps in attaining a national health information network.
Health Aff (Millwood).2005; 24:1281
-1289.
21. Bridges to Excellence and The American Health Quality Association. QIO Participation Toolkit. The American Health Quality Association Web site. Available at: http://www.ahqa.org/pub/uploads/QIO_Participation_Toolkit_Final.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2008.
22. United States Department of Agriculture. Extension page. US Department of Agriculture Web site. 2007. Available at: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html. Accessed January 10, 2008.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
