ArticleHealth services research2016
Effects of Changes in Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Incentive Designs on Patient Risk Selection.
Article in Health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Enrollment in Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Program Reduced Loss of Life Expectancy in Newly-Diagnosed Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Article
- Start Early, Do It Well: Implications of a National Diabetes Care Quality Assessment Program for Life Expectancy.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Article
- Do patients bypass primary care for common health problems under a free-access system? Experience of Taiwan.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Diabetes pay-for-performance program can reduce all-cause mortality in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus.Medicine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTaiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) Program implemented a Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Program (P4P) based on process-of-care measures in 2001. In late 2006, that P4P program was reformed to also include achievement of intermediate health outcomes. This study examined how the change in design affected patient risk selection. DESIGNS/STUDY POPULATIONS: Study populations were identified from a 2002 to 2003 period (Phase 1) and a 2007 to 2008 period (Phase 2), spanning pre- and postimplementation of reforms in the P4P incentive design. Phase 1 had 74,529 newly enrolled P4P patients and 215,572 non-P4P patients, and Phase 2 had 76,901 newly enrolled P4P patients and 299,573 non-P4P patients. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the effect of changes in design on P4P patient selection. PRINCIPAL
findingsPatients with greater disease severity and comorbidity were more likely to be excluded from the P4P program in both phases. Furthermore, the additional financial incentive for patients' intermediate outcomes moderately worsened patient risk selection.
conclusionsPolicy makers need to carefully monitor the care of the diabetes patients with more severe and complex disease statuses after the changes of P4P financial incentive design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.