Paying more wisely: effects of payment reforms on evidence-based clinical decision-making.

This article reviews the recent research, policy and conceptual literature on the effects of payment policy reforms on evidence-based clinical decision-making by physicians at the point-of-care. Payment reforms include recalibration of existing fee structures in fee-for-service, pay-for-quality, episode-based bundled payment and global payments. The advantages and disadvantages of these reforms are considered in terms of their effects on the use of evidence in clinical decisions made by physicians and their patients related to the diagnosis, testing, treatment and management of disease. The article concludes with a recommended pathway forward for improving current payment incentives to better support evidence-based decision-making.

Paying the doctor: evidence-based decisions at the point-of-care and the role of fee-for-service incentives.

This article develops a framework for understanding how financial and nonfinancial incentives can complicate point-of-care decision-making by physicians, leading to the overuse or underuse of healthcare services. By examining the types of decisions that clinicians and patients make at the point-of-care, the framework clarifies how incentives can distort physicians' decisions about testing, diagnosis and treatment, as well as efforts to enhance patient adherence. The analysis highlights contributing factors that promote and impede evidence-based decision-making, using examples from the 'Choosing Wisely' program. It concludes with a summary of how the existing fee-for-service payment system in the USA may contribute to the problems of over- and under-testing, diagnosis and treatment, highlighted through the efforts of Choosing Wisely.

Hospital response to public reporting of quality indicators.

Senior hospital executives responding to a 2005 national telephone survey conducted for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) report that Hospital Compare and other public reports on hospital quality measures have helped to focus hospital leadership attention on quality matters. They also report increased investment in quality improvement (QI) projects and in people and systems to improve documentation of care. Additionally, more consideration is given to best practice guidelines and internal sharing of quality measure results among hospital staff Large, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) accredited hospitals appear to be responding to public reporting efforts more consistently than small, non-JCAHO accredited hospitals.

National estimates of mental health insurance benefits.

This article presents estimates of the proportion of the U.S. population that had mental health benefits in 1999, of the extent of their coverage, and of the proportion that were enrolled in health plans subject to the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA). Findings indicate that over three-quarters (76%) of the U.S. population had mental health benefits as part of their health insurance. Approximately 18% of the population had no mental health benefits, and for the remaining 6%, mental health benefits could not be determined. Of the 18% with no mental health benefits, most (84%) had no health insurance whatsoever, while the remainder (16%) had health insurance that did not cover mental health benefits. Estimates of the generosity of coverage indicate that 44% of the population had benefits that included prescription drugs, and that provided at least 30 inpatient days and 20 outpatient visits for psychiatric care. For 12% of the population, benefit generosity could not be determined. Finally, study results suggest that the MHPA affected only 42% of the U.S. population.