ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022
Association of Primary Care Physician Compensation Incentives and Quality of Care in the United States, 2012-2016.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary care stability as a social determinant.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- What Are Doctors For? A Call for Compassion-Based Metrics as a Measure of Physician Value.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysician compensation incentives may have positive or negative effects on clinical quality.
objectiveTo assess the association between various physician compensation incentives on technical indicators of primary care quality.
designCross-sectional, nationally representative retrospective analysis.
participantsVisits by adults to primary care physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012-2016. We analyzed 49,580 sampled visits, representing 1.45 billion primary care visits. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed the association between 5 compensation incentives - quality measure performance, patient experience scores, individual productivity, practice financial performance, or practice efficiency - and 10 high-value and 7 low-value care measures as well as high-value and low-value care composites. KEY
resultsQuality measure performance was an incentive in 22% of visits; patient experience scores, 17%; individual productivity, 57%; practice financial performance, 63%; and practice efficiency, 12%. In adjusted models, none of the compensation incentives were consistently associated with individual high- and low-value measures. None of the compensation incentives were associated with high- or low-value care composites. For example, quality measure performance compensation was not significantly associated with high-value care (visits with quality incentive, 47% of eligible measures met; without quality incentive, 43%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.15) or low-value care (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19). Physician compensation incentives that might be expected to increase low-value care did not: patient experience (aOR for low-value care composite, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05), individual productivity (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), and practice financial performance (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.36).
conclusionIn this retrospective, cross-sectional, nationally representative analysis of care in the United States, physician compensation incentives were not generally associated with more or less high- or low-value care.
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.