Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis

Abstract Background This study investigated if the evidence on the success of the Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes in healthcare is changing as the schemes continue to evolve by updating a previous systematic review. Methods A meta-regression analysis using 116 studies evaluating P4P schemes publis...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Arezou Zaresani, Anthony Scott
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-02-01
Series:BMC Health Services Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06118-8
id doaj-1cb3c0dea03946e4aa17b5762259942c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1cb3c0dea03946e4aa17b5762259942c2021-03-11T11:24:33ZengBMCBMC Health Services Research1472-69632021-02-0121111010.1186/s12913-021-06118-8Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysisArezou Zaresani0Anthony Scott1University of Manitoba, Institute for Labor Studies (IZA) and Tax and Transfer Policy Institute (TTPI), 15 Chancellors CircleThe University of MelbourneAbstract Background This study investigated if the evidence on the success of the Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes in healthcare is changing as the schemes continue to evolve by updating a previous systematic review. Methods A meta-regression analysis using 116 studies evaluating P4P schemes published between January 2010 to February 2018. The effects of the research design, incentive schemes, use of incentives, and the size of the payment to revenue ratio on the proportion of statically significant effects in each study were examined. Results There was evidence of an increase in the range of countries adopting P4P schemes and weak evidence that the proportion of studies with statistically significant effects have increased. Factors hypothesized to influence the success of schemes have not changed. Studies evaluating P4P schemes which made payments for improvement over time, were associated with a lower proportion of statistically significant effects. There was weak evidence of a positive association between the incentives’ size and the proportion of statistically significant effects. Conclusion The evidence on the effectiveness of P4P schemes is evolving slowly, with little evidence that lessons are being learned concerning the design and evaluation of P4P schemes.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06118-8Financial incentivesPay for performance (P4P)Value-based healthcareAccountable care organizationMeta-regression analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Arezou Zaresani
Anthony Scott
spellingShingle Arezou Zaresani
Anthony Scott
Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis
BMC Health Services Research
Financial incentives
Pay for performance (P4P)
Value-based healthcare
Accountable care organization
Meta-regression analysis
author_facet Arezou Zaresani
Anthony Scott
author_sort Arezou Zaresani
title Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis
title_short Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis
title_full Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis
title_fullStr Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis
title_sort is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? evidence from a meta-regression analysis
publisher BMC
series BMC Health Services Research
issn 1472-6963
publishDate 2021-02-01
description Abstract Background This study investigated if the evidence on the success of the Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes in healthcare is changing as the schemes continue to evolve by updating a previous systematic review. Methods A meta-regression analysis using 116 studies evaluating P4P schemes published between January 2010 to February 2018. The effects of the research design, incentive schemes, use of incentives, and the size of the payment to revenue ratio on the proportion of statically significant effects in each study were examined. Results There was evidence of an increase in the range of countries adopting P4P schemes and weak evidence that the proportion of studies with statistically significant effects have increased. Factors hypothesized to influence the success of schemes have not changed. Studies evaluating P4P schemes which made payments for improvement over time, were associated with a lower proportion of statistically significant effects. There was weak evidence of a positive association between the incentives’ size and the proportion of statistically significant effects. Conclusion The evidence on the effectiveness of P4P schemes is evolving slowly, with little evidence that lessons are being learned concerning the design and evaluation of P4P schemes.
topic Financial incentives
Pay for performance (P4P)
Value-based healthcare
Accountable care organization
Meta-regression analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06118-8
work_keys_str_mv AT arezouzaresani istheevidenceontheeffectivenessofpayforperformanceschemesinhealthcarechangingevidencefromametaregressionanalysis
AT anthonyscott istheevidenceontheeffectivenessofpayforperformanceschemesinhealthcarechangingevidencefromametaregressionanalysis
_version_ 1724225571523657728