ArticleHealth services research2020
Do physician incentives increase patient medication adherence?
Article in Health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilisation of government-subsidised chronic disease management plans and cardiovascular care in Australian general practices.BMC primary care · 2022Trial
- Interventions to improve adherence to lipid-lowering drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating Financial Incentives as a Tool to Increase Medication Adherence for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- Commentary on "Do physician incentives increase patient medication adherence?"Health services research · 2020Article
- Do physician incentives increase patient medication adherence?Health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo test the effectiveness of physician incentives for increasing patient medication adherence in three drug classes: diabetes medication, antihypertensives, and statins. DATA SOURCES: Pharmacy and medical claims from a large Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan from January 2011 to December 2012. STUDY
designWe conducted a randomized experiment (911 primary care practices and 8,935 nonadherent patients) to test the effect of paying physicians for increasing patient medication adherence in three drug classes: diabetes medication, antihypertensives, and statins. We measured patients' medication adherence for 18 (6) months before (after) the intervention. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsWe obtained data directly from the health insurer. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe found no evidence that physician incentives increased adherence in any drug class. Our results rule out increases in the proportion of days covered by medication larger than 4.2 percentage points.
conclusionsPhysician incentives of $50 per patient per drug class are not effective for increasing patient medication adherence among the drug classes and primary care practices studied. Such incentives may be more likely to improve measures under physicians' direct control rather than those that predominantly reflect patient behaviors. Additional research is warranted to disentangle whether physician effort is not responsive to these types of incentives, or medication adherence is not responsive to physician effort. Our results suggest that significant changes in the incentive amount or program design may be necessary to produce responses from physicians or patients.
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.