Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

Towards incentivising integration: A typology of payments for integrated care.

Traditional provider payment mechanisms may not create appropriate incentives for integrating care. Alternative payment mechanisms, such as bundled payments, have been introduced without uniform definitions, and existing payment typologies are not suitable for describing them. We use a systematic review combined with example integrated care programmes identified from practice in the Horizon2020 SELFIE project to inform a new typology of payment mechanisms for integrated care. The typology describes payments in terms of the scope of payment (Target population, Time, Sectors), the participation of providers (Provider coverage, Financial pooling/sharing), and the single provider/patient involvement (Income, Multiple disease/needs focus, and Quality measurement). There is a gap between rhetoric on the need for new payment mechanisms and those implemented in practice. Current payments for integrated care are mostly sector- and disease-specific, with questionable impact on those with the most need for integrated care. The typology provides a basis to improve financial incentives supporting more effective and efficient integrated care systems.

A physician-led initiative to improve clinical documentation results in improved health care documentation, case mix index, and increased contribution margin.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical documentation is the key determinant of inpatient acuity of illness and payer reimbursement. Every inpatient hospitalization is placed into a diagnosis related group with a relative value based on documented procedures, conditions, comorbidities and complications. The Case Mix Index (CMI) is an average of these diagnosis related groups and directly impacts physician profiling, medical center profiling, reimbursement, and quality reporting. We hypothesize that a focused, physician-led initiative to improve clinical documentation of vascular surgery inpatients results in increased CMI and contribution margin. METHODS: A physician-led coding initiative to educate physicians on the documentation of comorbidities and conditions was initiated with concurrent chart review sessions with coding specialists for 3 months, and then as needed, after the creation of a vascular surgery documentation guide. Clinical documentation and billing for all carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and open infrainguinal procedures (OIPs) performed between January 2013 and July 2016 were stratified into precoding and postcoding initiative groups. Age, duration of stay, direct costs, actual reimbursements, contribution margin (CM), CMI, rate of complication or comorbidity, major complication or comorbidity, severity of illness, and risk of mortality assigned to each discharge were abstracted. Data were compared over time by standardizing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) values for each diagnosis related group and using a CMS base rate reimbursement. RESULTS: Among 458 CEA admissions, postcoding initiative CEA patients (n = 253) had a significantly higher CMI (1.36 vs 1.25; P = .03), CM ($7859 vs $6650; P = .048), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($8955 vs $8258; P = .03) than precoding initiative CEA patients (n = 205). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (43% vs 27%; P < .01). Among 504 OIPs, postcoding initiative patients (n = 227) had a significantly higher CMI (2.23 vs 2.05; P < .01), actual reimbursement ($23,203 vs $19,909; P < .01), CM ($12,165 vs $8840; P < .01), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($14,649 vs $13,496; P < .01) than precoding initiative patients (n = 277). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (61% vs 43%; P < .01). For both CEA and OIPs, there were no differences in age, duration of stay, total direct costs, or primary insurance status between the precoding and postcoding patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate and detailed clinical documentation is required for key stakeholders to characterize the acuity of inpatient admissions and ensure appropriate reimbursement; it is also a key component of risk-adjustment methods for assessing quality of care. A physician-led documentation initiative significantly increased CMI and CM.

[Description of the severely injured in the DRG system: is treatment of the severely injured still affordable?]. / Abbildung von Schwerverletzten im DRG-System : Wird die Schwerverletztenversorgung doch bezahlbar?

BACKGROUND: Due to the heterogeneity of severely injured patients (multiple trauma) it is difficult to assign them to homogeneic diagnosis-related groups (DRG). In recent years this has led to a systematic underfunding in the German reimbursement system (G-DRG) for cases of multiply injured patients. This project aimed to improve the reimbursement by modifying the case allocation algorithms of multiply injured patients within the G-DRG system. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of standardized G-DRG data according to §21 of the Hospital Reimbursement Act (§ 21 KHEntgG) including case-related cost data from 3,362 critically injured patients from 2007 and 2008 from 10 university hospitals and 7 large municipal hospitals was carried out. For 1,241 cases complementary detailed information was available from the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society to monitor the case allocation of multiply injured patients within the G-DRG system. Analysis of coding and grouping, performance of case allocation and the homogeneity of costs in the G-DRG versions 2008-2012 was carried out. RESULTS: The results showed systematic underfunding of trauma patients in the G-DRG version 2008 but adequate cost covering in the majority of cases with the G-DRG versions 2011 and 2012. Cost coverage was foundfor multiply injured patients from the clinical viewpoint who were identified as multiple trauma by the G-DRG system. Some of the overfunded trauma patients had high intensive care costs. Also there was underfunding for multiple injured patients not identified as such in the G-DRG system. CONCLUSIONS: Specific modifications of the G-DRG allocation structures could increase the appropriateness of reimbursement of multiply injured patients. Data-based analysis is an essential prerequisite for a constructive development of the G-DRG system and a necessary tool for the active participation of medical specialist societies.

Comparison of primary care models in the prevention of cardiovascular disease - a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers play an important role in preventing and managing cardiovascular disease. This study compared the quality of preventive cardiovascular care delivery amongst different primary care models. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a larger randomized control trial, known as the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) through Outreach Facilitation. Using baseline data collected through IDOCC, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 82 primary care practices from three delivery models in Eastern Ontario, Canada: 43 fee-for-service, 27 blended-capitation and 12 community health centres with salary-based physicians. Medical chart audits from 4,808 patients with or at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease were used to examine each practice's adherence to ten evidence-based processes of care for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, weight management, and smoking cessation care. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for age, sex, rurality, number of cardiovascular-related comorbidities, and year of data collection were used to compare guideline adherence amongst the three models. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with diabetes that received two hemoglobin A1c tests during the study year was significantly higher in community health centres (69%) than in fee-for-service (45%) practices (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.4 [95% CI 1.4-4.2], p = 0.001). Blended capitation practices had a significantly higher percentage of patients who had their waistlines monitored than in fee-for-service practices (19% vs. 5%, AOR = 3.7 [1.8-7.8], p = 0.0006), and who were recommended a smoking cessation drug when compared to community health centres (33% vs. 16%, AOR = 2.4 [1.3-4.6], p = 0.007). Overall, quality of diabetes care was higher in community health centres, while smoking cessation care and weight management was higher in the blended-capitation models. Fee-for-service practices had the greatest gaps in care, most noticeably in diabetes care and weight management. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the evidence suggesting that primary care delivery model impacts quality of care. These findings support current Ontario reforms to move away from the traditional fee-for-service practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808.

[Do the New German OPS codes map the relevant therapeutic activities in psychiatric clinics?]. / Abbildung des psychiatrisch-psychotherapeutischen Leistungsspektrums durch die aktuellen OPS-Komplexcodes.

OBJECTIVE: Actual codes for operations and procedures (OPS) in psychiatry and psychosomatics should map cost separating therapeutic activities so far defined in Germany by the normative specifications of the psychiatry staff enactment (PsychPV). OPS codes should also allow re-estimating underlying therapy times. METHOD: Therapeutic activities of the PsychPV fulfilling the minimal criteria of the OPS definition were classified as multiples of a therapeutic 25 minute unit. RESULTS: Therapeutic activities of the PsychPV are mapped to OPS complex codes in a variable degree (psychiatrists 35 %, psychologists 42 %, nurses 43 %, special therapists 59 %). CONCLUSION: Actual OPS codes are inappropriate for identifying relevant cost-separating factors in the therapy of psychiatric in-patients. They cannot assure in their actual form the standards given by the PsychPV and need substantial revision.

Income development of General Practitioners in eight European countries from 1975 to 2005.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to gain insight into the international development of GP incomes over time through a comparative approach. The study is an extension of an earlier work (1975-1990, conducted in five yearly intervals). The research questions to be addressed in this paper are: 1) How can the remuneration system of GPs in a country be characterized? 2) How has the annual GP income developed over time in selected European countries? 3) What are the differences in GP incomes when differences in workload are taken into account? And 4) to what extent do remuneration systems, supply of GPs and gate-keeping contribute to the income position of GPs? METHODS: Data were collected for Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Written sources, websites and country experts were consulted. The data for the years 1995 and 2000 were collected in 2004-2005. The data for 2005 were collected in 2006-2007. RESULTS: During the period 1975-1990, the income of GPs, corrected for inflation, declined in all the countries under review. During the period 1995-2005, the situation changed significantly: The income of UK GPs rose to the very top position. Besides this, the gap between the top end (UK) and bottom end (Belgium) widened considerably. Practice costs form about 50% of total revenues, regardless of the absolute level of revenues. Analysis based on income per patient leads to a different ranking of countries compared to the ranking based on annual income. In countries with a relatively large supply of GPs, income per hour is lower. The type of remuneration appeared to have no effect on the financial position of the GPs in the countries in this study. In countries with a gate-keeping system the average GP income was systematically higher compared to countries with a direct-access system. CONCLUSION: There are substantial differences in the income of GPs among the countries included in this study. The discrepancy between countries has increased over time. The income of British GPs showed a marked increase from 2000 to 2005, due to the introduction of a new contract between the NHS and GPs.

[The German DRG system and its effect on imaging quality in ENT, and head and neck surgery]. / Das G-DRG-System 2006 und seine Auswirkungen auf die Abbildungsqualität der HNO-Heilkunde und Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: The new G-DRG system for 2006 was published in September 2005. This article presents, analyses, and comments essential changes in the G-DRG system for 2006 and their consequences for ENT-Medicine. RESULTS: The complexity of the G-DRG system has increased significantly. In 2006, the case allocation will be more differentiated for common surgical procedures on the middle ear, nose, paranasal sinuses, salivary glands, and for head and neck cancer. Furthermore, the patient's age and the clinical and complexity level (PCCL) will be of increased relevance in selected case constellations. However, diagnostic endoscopies with rigid instruments will still not be regarded as OR procedures. CONCLUSION: Essential adjustments proposed by the German Association for ENT Medicine (DGHNOKHC) and the ENT Medical Professional Association (HNO-Berufsverband) have been made, and the quality of case allocation of ENT-patients within the G-DRG system improved. Nevertheless, further adjustments to the G-DRG system are necessary.