ArticleHealth promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice2021
Effects of removing a fee-for-service incentive on specialist chronic disease services: a time-series analysis.
Article in Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of zero-markup consumable policy and national procurement of orthopedic spinal devices in China: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPhysician payment models are known to affect the nature and volume of services provided. Our objective was to study the effects of removing a financial incentive, the fee-for-service premium, on the provision of chronic disease follow-up services by internal medicine, cardiology, nephrology and gastroenterology specialists.
methodsWe collected linked administrative health care data for the period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2017 from databases held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Ontario, Canada. We conducted a time-series analysis before and after the removal of the fee-for-service premium on 1 April 2015. The primary outcome was total monthly visits for chronic disease follow-up services. Secondary outcomes were monthly visits for total follow-up services and new patient consultations. We compared internal medicine, cardiology, nephrology and gastroenterology specialists practising during the study timeframe with respirology, hematology, endocrinology, rheumatology and infectious diseases specialists who remained eligible to claim the premium. We chose this comparison group as these are all subspecialties of internal medicine, providing similar services.
resultsThe number of chronic disease follow-up visits decreased significantly after removal of the premium, but there was no decrease in total follow-up visits. There was also a significant downward trend in new patient consultations. No changes were observed in the comparison group.
conclusionThe decrease in volume of chronic disease follow-up visits can be explained by diagnostic criteria being met less often, rather than an actual reduction in services provided. Potential effects on patient outcomes require further exploration.
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.