The intervention sites admitted statistically significantly more severely ill patients  than nursing homes in the control group .
Despite the
In the report Crossing the Quality Chasm ( 1 ) , the Institute of Medicine called attention to the poor quality of health care in the United States .
The Institute identified numerous factors contributing to poor quality , including the structure of the present health care payment system .
The Institute found that , for certain clinical situations , health care payment arrangements may actually produce disincentives for quality .
The largely untapped potential of the health care payment system to change physician and health care system behavior has stimulated interest in both the scientific literature ( 2 , 3 ) and the popular press ( 4 - 6 ) for linking payments to performance on quality measures .
Several health plans ( 3 , 7 ) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are using explicit financial incentives for quality ( 8 , 9 ) .
For example , what types of clinical conditions or health care services should be the target of financial incentives to improve quality : chronic diseases , acute care , or preventive care services ?
How effective ( and cost-effective ) are financial incentives for quality ?
What are the optimum magnitude , frequency , and duration of financial incentives for quality ?
What is the optimum package of nonfinancial interventions ( if any ) to include with financial incentives for quality , for example , audit and feedback , recognition , clinical reminders , academic detailing , or information technology support ( 12 , 13 ) ?
Can we expect the effect of financial incentives to persist after they are stopped ?
Because any effective intervention will have some unanticipated effects , will important patient care activities that are not rewarded financially be neglected ?
The purpose of this paper is to assess the relationship between explicit financial incentives and the provision of high- quality health care by systematic ally review ing empirical studies .
Because the evidence regarding the relationship between the financial incentives embedded in fee-for-service and capitation arrangements and the quality of health care has been thoroughly review ed in previous work ( 14 ) , we focused our review on literature that addresses explicit financial rewards for improving health care quality .
Methods Study Identification and Selection We conducted a systematic search of the English- language literature in PubMed to find articles published between 1 January 1980 and 14 November 2005 whose main objective was to assess the use of explicit financial incentives to improve health care quality .
Access to care is the patient 's attainment of timely and appropriate health care .
Structure of care is a feature of a health care organization or clinician relevant to the provision of health care .
Process of care is a health care service provided to or on behalf of a patient .
Outcome of care is a health state of a patient result ing from health care .
Concurrent comparison groups are important because some studies of quality may show dramatic improvement over time but no statistically significant differences between intervention and comparison groups .
The Use of Physician Financial Incentives and Feedback to Improve Pediatric Preventive Care in Medicaid Managed Care
Objective . Immunizations and other cost-effective preventive services remain underused by many children , especially those living in poverty . Given the effectiveness of provider-based tracking systems and the widespread use by managed care organizations of financial incentives to influence physician practice patterns , we design ed and tested an intervention combining these strategies . We studied whether a system of semiannual assessment and feedback , coupled with financial incentives , could improve pediatric preventive care in a Medicaid health maintenance organization ( HMO ) . Methodology . We r and omly assigned primary care sites serving children in a Medicaid HMO to one of three groups : a feedback group ( where physicians received written feedback about compliance scores ) , a feedback and incentive group ( where physicians received feedback and a financial bonus when compliance criteria were met ) , and a control group . We evaluated compliance with pediatric preventive care guidelines  through semiannual chart audits during the years 1993 to 1995 . Results . Compliance with pediatric preventive care improved dramatically in the study period . Repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated a significant increase in all three study groups throughout the time in total compliance scores ( from 56%–73 % ) , as well as scores for immunizations ( from 62%–79 % ) and other preventive care ( from 54%–71 % ) . However , no significant differences were observed between either intervention group and the control group , nor were there any interaction ( group-by-time ) effects . Conclusions . Feedback to physicians , with or without financial incentives , did not improve pediatric preventive care in this Medicaid HMO during a time of rapid , secular improvements in care . Possible explanations include the context and timing of the intervention , the magnitude of the financial incentives , and lack of physician awareness of the intervention
The intervention sites admitted statistically significantly more severely ill patients  than nursing homes in the control group .
Despite the
In the report Crossing the Quality Chasm ( 1 ) , the Institute of Medicine called attention to the poor quality of health care in the United States .
The Institute identified numerous factors contributing to poor quality , including the structure of the present health care payment system .
The Institute found that , for certain clinical situations , health care payment arrangements may actually produce disincentives for quality .
The largely untapped potential of the health care payment system to change physician and health care system behavior has stimulated interest in both the scientific literature ( 2 , 3 ) and the popular press ( 4 - 6 ) for linking payments to performance on quality measures .
Several health plans ( 3 , 7 ) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are using explicit financial incentives for quality ( 8 , 9 ) .
For example , what types of clinical conditions or health care services should be the target of financial incentives to improve quality : chronic diseases , acute care , or preventive care services ?
How effective ( and cost-effective ) are financial incentives for quality ?
What are the optimum magnitude , frequency , and duration of financial incentives for quality ?
What is the optimum package of nonfinancial interventions ( if any ) to include with financial incentives for quality , for example , audit and feedback , recognition , clinical reminders , academic detailing , or information technology support ( 12 , 13 ) ?
Can we expect the effect of financial incentives to persist after they are stopped ?
Because any effective intervention will have some unanticipated effects , will important patient care activities that are not rewarded financially be neglected ?
The purpose of this paper is to assess the relationship between explicit financial incentives and the provision of high- quality health care by systematic ally review ing empirical studies .
Because the evidence regarding the relationship between the financial incentives embedded in fee-for-service and capitation arrangements and the quality of health care has been thoroughly review ed in previous work ( 14 ) , we focused our review on literature that addresses explicit financial rewards for improving health care quality .
Methods Study Identification and Selection We conducted a systematic search of the English- language literature in PubMed to find articles published between 1 January 1980 and 14 November 2005 whose main objective was to assess the use of explicit financial incentives to improve health care quality .
Access to care is the patient 's attainment of timely and appropriate health care .
Structure of care is a feature of a health care organization or clinician relevant to the provision of health care .
Process of care is a health care service provided to or on behalf of a patient .
Outcome of care is a health state of a patient result ing from health care .
Concurrent comparison groups are important because some studies of quality may show dramatic improvement over time but no statistically significant differences between intervention and comparison groups .