All kinds of incentives, positive and negative, are being provided to physicians these days to engage in a variety of supposedly desirable behavior. It is unlikely physicians can keep track of them all, so their effect has to be uncertain. A study reported on in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked at the effects of individual physician incentives, incentives to a whole practice, or combined incentives with the goal of improving blood pressure control. (JAMA Article) Hypertension is a wide-spread and potentially dangerous and costly condition and one which many patients are not aware of and others struggle to reduce blood pressure to an acceptable level. The study used 12 Veterans Affairs clinics and randomized the physicians who were participating to an individual incentive, a practice incentive, a combined incentive or no incentive. The end measure was compliance with recommended blood pressure levels and treatment guidelines for uncontrolled hypertension. The authors also looked at the extent to which physicians tracked results of the study and feedback reports. During the study the average physician in the combined group received $4270, in the individual group $2672 and $1648 in the practice group. While the absolute performance increased for each incentive group, the individual incentive group showed the only adjusted improvement. When the incentive was stopped, the effect went away, which certainly suggests physicians are financially motivated. The study did not test the effect of incentives of varying sizes, this might seem like a small incentive given typical physician pay, but everyone likes a little more. No effort was made either to track any return on the investment in incentives–did spending decline, increase or stay the same. And other measures, like mortality, hospitalizations, ER visits, etc. were also not tracked. The study nonetheless is a worthwhile addition to the science of optimizing incentives to improve care.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
March 27, 2023
Why You Can’t Trust People Who Make Up Stuff About Vax Safety
A couple of studies offer a far better explanation for heart issues in athletes and…
Commentary
March 25, 2023
Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 201
Tired of March Madness? A boringly refreshing dip into some CV-19 research summaries is recommended.
Commentary
March 24, 2023
The CDC Is a Font of Methodological and Statistical Error
Several times in the last three years I and others have pointed out serious flaws…