Search

Managers and policymakers are seeking practical guidelines for assessing the outcomes of emerging pay-for-performance (P4P) programs. Evaluations of P4P programs published to date are mixed-some are confusing-and methodological problems with them are common. This article first identifies and summarizes obstacles to implementing effective P4P programs. Second, it describes results from social science research going back several decades to support evidence-based P4P best practices. Among the findings from this research, the zero-sum and "earn it back" P4P incentive systems have important drawbacks and may be counterproductive, neither reducing health system costs nor improving quality. The research suggests that punishing participants for low performance may further reduce individuals' performance, especially when involvement is required. We suggest that optimal P4P systems are those that reward all participants for performance improvements. Third, the article links P4P design to budgetary considerations. P4P program designs that provide incentives while improving quality and reducing costs are critical if budget neutrality is a priority for the organization and its resources are limited. In these types of P4P designs, cost calculations are straightforward: The greater the participation, the higher the savings. The article concludes by recommending an evidence-based P4P approach for practitioners that can be implemented without large upfront investment. More research on this topic is also advised.

With purchasers' increasing frustration with healthcare costs, more innovative approaches to performance-based reimbursement are in demand. Establishing pay-for-performance programs has become a popular strategy for reorienting payments from rewarding volume to rewarding adherence to performance measures. However, while performance on quality measures has improved, no reports exist about the return on investment (ROI) of pay-for-performance programs. This article compares the overall costs of implementing and maintaining a pay-for-performance program with the resulting cost trend savings for diabetes care for a health maintenance organization's (HMO's) population. The program was a five-year partnership (2000-2004) between a health plan and an independent practice association (IPA) for the HMO product. It reported performance scores on quality, patient satisfaction, and practitioner efficiency at the individual physician level. Physician performance reporting began in 1999, and payment for that performance began in 2002. The cost of the program was 1,150,000 dollars yearly. Savings for diabetes alone in 2003, the first post-intervention year, were 1,894,471dollars. Second-year (2004) savings against the two-year rolling trend were 2,923,761 dollars. For 2003, the resulting ROI was 1.6:1, and for 2004, it was 2.5:1. To our knowledge, this article is the first report of a positive ROI for an HMO-based pay-for-performance program, and it begins to answer the question of whether the investment in such programs is worth the effort.