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 feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.
OBJECTIVE : To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features : appropriate for assessing both r and omised and non-r and omised studies ; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting , internal validity ( bias and confounding ) and power , but also for external validity . DESIGN : A pilot version was first developed , based on epidemiological principles , review s , and existing checklists for r and omised studies . Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced review ers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 r and omised and 10 non-r and omised studies . Using different raters , the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency ( Kuder-Richardson 20 ) , test-retest and inter-rater reliability ( Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test ; kappa statistics ) , criterion validity , and respondent burden . MAIN RESULTS : The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version . The Quality Index had high internal consistency ( KR-20 : 0.89 ) as did the subscales apart from external validity ( KR-20 : 0.54 ) . Test-retest ( r 0.88 ) and inter-rater ( r 0.75 ) reliability of the Quality Index were good . Reliability of the subscales varied from good ( bias ) to poor ( external validity ) . The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing , established instrument for assessing r and omised studies ( r 0.90 ) . There was little difference between its performance with non-r and omised and with r and omised studies . Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper ( range 10 to 45 minutes ) . CONCLUSIONS : This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the method ological quality not only of r and omised controlled trials but also non-r and omised studies . It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper , alerting review ers to its particular method ological strengths and weaknesses . Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity
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 .