1. Evaluation of the effects of the French Pay-for-Performance program - IFAQ pilot study
- Author
-
Anne Girault, Marie Ferrua, Philippe Loirat, Benoît Lalloué, Etienne Minvielle, Shu Jiang, EA Management des Organisations de Santé (EA MOS), École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP)-PRES Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut Gustave Roussy (IGR), École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP), Direction Générale de l'offre de soin, and Haute autorité de santé
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Pay-for-performance ,Impact evaluation ,Pilot Projects ,Quality indicators ,Pay for performance ,Accreditation ,03 medical and health sciences ,Hospital ,0302 clinical medicine ,Documentation ,Nursing ,[MATH.MATH-ST]Mathematics [math]/Statistics [math.ST] ,Acute care ,medicine ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Reimbursement, Incentive ,Socioeconomic status ,Quality of Health Care ,business.industry ,030503 health policy & services ,Health Policy ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,General Medicine ,Quality Improvement ,Hospitals ,3. Good health ,Family medicine ,[SHS.GESTION]Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration ,Financial incentives ,[SDV.SPEE]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologie ,France ,0305 other medical science ,business ,Weighted arithmetic mean ,Hospital accreditation - Abstract
International audience; ObjectiveMost studies showed no or little effect of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs on different outcomes. In France, the P4P program IFAQ was generalized to all acute care hospitals in 2016. A pilot study was launched in 2012 to design, implement and assess this program. This article aims to assess the immediate impact of the 2012–14 pilot study.Design and settingFrom nine process quality indicators (QIs), an aggregated score was constructed as the weighted average, taking into account both achievement and improvement. Among 426 eligible volunteer hospitals, 222 were selected to participate. Eligibility depended on documentation of QIs and results of hospital accreditation. Hospitals with scores above the median received a financial reward based on their ranking and budget. Several characteristics known to have an influence on P4P results (patient age, socioeconomic status, hospital activity, casemix and location) were used to adjust the models.InterventionTo assess the effect of the program, comparison between the 185 eligible selected hospitals and the 192 eligible not selected volunteers were done using the difference-in-differences method.ResultsWhereas all hospitals improved from 2012 to 2014, the difference-in-differences effect was positive but not significant both in the crude (2.89, P = 0.29) and adjusted models (4.07, P = 0.12).ConclusionThese results could be explained by several reasons: low level of financial incentives, unattainable goals, too short study period. However, the lack of impact for the first year should not undermine the implementation of other P4P programs. Indeed, the pilot study helped to improve the final model used for generalization.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF