ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2010
Pay-for-Performance Initiatives: Modest Benefits for Improving Healthcare Quality.
Article in American health & drug benefits, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Echocardiography in Stroke Management: Necessary or Overused?Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2026Article
- Performance-based payment systems for general practitioners and specialists in selected countries: a comparative study.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Enhancing Quality of Congenital Heart Care Within Resource-Limited Settings.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Review
- Ranking Surgeon Performance After ACL Reconstruction Using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Subscales.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Development of an assessment tool for designated medical institutions in China--Based on the application of an online assessment system.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Impact of multimodal strategies including a pay for performance strategy in the improvement of infection prevention and control practices in healthcare facilities during an Ebola virus disease outbreak.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Community-based health insurance service utilization and associated factors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Public health challenges · 2022Article
- Association of Income Disparities with Patient-Reported Healthcare Experience.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Community-based health insurance and communities' scheme requirement compliance in Thehuldere district, northeast Ethiopia: cross-sectional community-based study.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPay-for-performance initiatives have been suggested as a way to improve the quality of patient care and provide incentives to improve providers' performance. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has endorsed such programs to improve quality of care.
objectiveTo examine the state of quality initiatives endorsed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in which institutions, provider groups, and physicians are awarded incentives based on adherence to composite metrics.
methodA literature search was conducted using the keywords "pay-for-performance," "quality improvement," "medical errors," and "physician incentive plans."
resultsAlthough quality of care has improved in healthcare settings that engage in pay-for-performance initiatives, what can be attributed to payer-incentive programs is uncertain. Studies demonstrate that, of the 25 hospitals classified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to be in the lowest decile of quality improvements, all still made significant progress in adhering to quality metrics after participation in the study. Financial rewards, however, were distributed based on a predetermined threshold established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to be given only to participants who fell in the top 2 deciles. Penalties were incurred by the 51 hospitals that were within the bottom 2 deciles despite making substantial improvements. At such institutions, large minority communities and Medicaid populations comprise the patient populations. Other pay-for-performance schemes, such as employer-based purchasing, consumer health-spending accounts, and collaborative groups, were studied, with little data to support definite benefits.
conclusionsExamining rates of improvement in adherence to pay-for-performance initiatives when determining how to distribute financial rewards should be studied alongside the current classification by absolute deciles. By rewarding rates of improvement, potential elimination of quality disparities for hospitals that serve large Medicaid and minority populations can be achieved, because such organizations are encouraged to invest in quality improvement as a result of substantial progress made. Although alternative strategies like employer-driven value-based purchasing and collaboratives seem promising, the long-term effects of such initiatives still need to be studied. Creating greater financial incentives for individual providers to participate in pay-for-performance programs for many years to come will remain a challenge.
Identifiers
25126315PMC4106521What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.