Six of the seven studies showed positive but modest effects on quality of care for some primary outcome measures , but not all .
The use of financial incentives to reward PCPs for improving the quality of primary healthcare services is growing .
However , there is insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of primary health care .
BACKGROUND The use of blended payment schemes in primary care , including the use of financial incentives to directly reward ' performance ' and ' quality ' is increasing in a number of countries .
There are many examples in the US , and the Quality and Outcomes Framework ( QoF ) for general practitioners ( GPs ) in the UK is an example of a major system-wide reform .
Despite the popularity of these schemes , there is currently little rigorous evidence of their success in improving the quality of primary health care , or of whether such an approach is cost-effective relative to other ways to improve the quality of care .
OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to examine the effect of changes in the method and level of payment on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians ( PCPs ) and to identify : i ) the different types of financial incentives that have improved quality ; ii ) the characteristics of patient population s for whom quality of care has been improved by financial incentives ; and iii ) the characteristics of PCPs who have responded to financial incentives .
Cost-effective primary care-based strategies to improve smoking cessation: more value for money.
BACKGROUND Evidence from cost-effective smoking cessation programs is scarce . This study determined the cost-effectiveness of 3 smoking cessation strategies as provided by general practitioners ( GPs ) in Germany . METHODS In a cluster-r and omized smoking cessation trial , rates and intervention costs for 577 smoking patients of 82 GPs were followed up for 12 months . Three smoking cessation treatments were tested : ( 1 ) GP training plus GP remuneration for each abstinent patient , ( 2 ) GP training plus cost-free nicotine replacement medication and /or bupropion hydrochloride for the patient , and ( 3 ) a combination of both strategies .  Smoking abstinence at 12 months was the primary outcome used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits . RESULTS Intervention 1 was not effective compared with treatment as usual ( TAU ) . Interventions 2 and 3 each proved to be cost-effective compared separately with TAU . When applying a 95 % level of certainty of cost-effectiveness against TAU , euro 9.80 or euro 6.96 , respectively , had to be paid for each additional 1 % of patients abstinent at 12 months ( maximum willingness to pay ) . That means that in intervention 2 , euro 92.12 per patient in the program must be invested to gain 1 additional quitter ( as opposed to euro 39.10 paid per patient during the trial ) . In intervention 2 , the cost was euro 82.82 , as opposed to euro 50.04 . Neither of these 2 cost-effective treatments proved to be superior to the other . The cost-effectiveness of both treatments was stable against TAU in sensitivity analyses . ( The exchange rate from October 1 , 2003 , was used ; euro1 = $ 1.17 . ) CONCLUSIONS Both treatments have a high potential to reduce smoking-related morbidity at a low cost . It is highly recommended that they be implemented as a routine service offered by GPs because in many countries , health insurance plans currently do not fund nicotine replacement therapy
Six of the seven studies showed positive but modest effects on quality of care for some primary outcome measures , but not all .
The use of financial incentives to reward PCPs for improving the quality of primary healthcare services is growing .
However , there is insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of primary health care .
BACKGROUND The use of blended payment schemes in primary care , including the use of financial incentives to directly reward ' performance ' and ' quality ' is increasing in a number of countries .
There are many examples in the US , and the Quality and Outcomes Framework ( QoF ) for general practitioners ( GPs ) in the UK is an example of a major system-wide reform .
Despite the popularity of these schemes , there is currently little rigorous evidence of their success in improving the quality of primary health care , or of whether such an approach is cost-effective relative to other ways to improve the quality of care .
OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to examine the effect of changes in the method and level of payment on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians ( PCPs ) and to identify : i ) the different types of financial incentives that have improved quality ; ii ) the characteristics of patient population s for whom quality of care has been improved by financial incentives ; and iii ) the characteristics of PCPs who have responded to financial incentives .