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 impact of physician bonuses, enhanced fees, and feedback on childhood immunization coverage rates.
OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to examine the effects on immunization coverage of 3 incentives for physicians -- a cash bonus for practice --wide increases , enhanced fee for service , and feedback . METHODS Incentives were applied at 4-month intervals over 1 year among 60 inner-city office-based pediatricians . At each interval , charts of 50 r and omly selected children between 3 and 35 months of age were review ed per physician . RESULTS The percentage of children who were up to date for diphtheria , tetanus , and pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type b ; polio ; and measles-mumps-rubella immunization in the study 's bonus group improved by 25.3 percentage points ( P < .01 ) . No significant changes occurred in the other groups . However , percentage of immunizations received outside the participating practice also increased significantly in the bonus group ( P < .01 ) . Levels of missed opportunities to immunize were high in all groups and did not change over time . Physicians ' knowledge of contraindications was low . CONCLUSIONS Bonuses sharply and rapidly increased immunization cover-age in medical records . However , much of the increase was the result of better documentation . A bonus is a powerful incentive , but more structure or education may be necessary to achieve the desired results
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 .