Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29974285›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2019

Design and effects of outcome-based payment models in healthcare: a systematic review.

F P Vlaanderen, M A Tanke, B R Bloem, M J Faber, F Eijkenaar, F T Schut, P P T Jeurissen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Value-Based Healthcare: A Primer for the Dermatologist.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

F P VlaanderenRadboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. floris.vlaanderen@radboudumc.nl.
M A TankeRadboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
B R BloemRadboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
M J FaberRadboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
F EijkenaarRadboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
F T SchutRadboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
P P T JeurissenRadboudumc, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOutcome-based payment models (OBPMs) might solve the shortcomings of fee-for-service or diagnostic-related group (DRG) models using financial incentives based on outcome indicators of the provided care. This review provides an analysis of the characteristics and effectiveness of OBPMs, to determine which models lead to favourable effects.

methodsWe first developed a definition for OBPMs. Next, we searched four data sources to identify the models: (1) scientific literature databases; (2) websites of relevant governmental and scientific agencies; (3) the reference lists of included articles; (4) experts in the field. We only selected studies that examined the impact of the payment model on quality and/or costs. A narrative evidence synthesis was used to link specific design features to effects on quality of care or healthcare costs.

resultsWe included 88 articles, describing 12 OBPMs. We identified two groups of models based on differences in design features: narrow OBPMs (financial incentives based on quality indicators) and broad OBPMs (combination of global budgets, risk sharing, and financial incentives based on quality indicators). Most (5 out of 9) of the narrow OBPMs showed positive effects on quality; the others had mixed (2) or negative (2) effects. The effects of narrow OBPMs on healthcare utilization or costs, however, were unfavourable (3) or unknown (6). All broad OBPMs (3) showed positive effects on quality of care, while reducing healthcare cost growth. DISCUSSION: Although strong empirical evidence on the effects of OBPMs on healthcare quality, utilization, and costs is limited, our findings suggest that broad OBPMs may be preferred over narrow OBPMs.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareQuality of Health CareDiagnosis-Related GroupsFee-for-Service PlansHealth Care CostsHumansQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveTreatment OutcomeHealthcare costsHealth outcomesHealth reformOutcome-based payment modelsPayment models in healthcareQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID29974285
PMCPMC6438941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.