Doctors and Nurses
Physicians in California and Massachusetts generally are amenable to pay-for-performance programs, although they harbor some reservations about their ability to meet quality targets and whether the financial incentives are adequate, a study in Medical Care Research and Review found.
Researchers found that monetary incentives from pay-for-performance programs range widely but that such compensation accounts for no more than 10% of a typical primary care physician's annual income. In addition, the authors found that many physicians do not understand the details of pay-for-performance programs, including the amount of financial rewards and how the program affects quality of care.
The study noted that California physicians seemed more accepting of pay-for-performance initiatives than doctors in Massachusetts, possibly because California physicians have greater experience with such programs.
The authors concluded that the future success of pay-for-performance programs relies on how well the concerns and problems of participating physicians are addressed and resolved (Young et al., Medical Care Research and Review, June 2007).
Only one-third of physician group leaders view pay-for-performance programs as financially valuable, a study in the American Journal of Managed Care found.
Researchers found that 91% of physician group leaders said incentives of at least 5% of overall revenue for physician practices would be necessary to increase the importance of pay-for-performance incentives. Such incentives currently account for about 2% of total revenue, according to the study.
The authors conclude that physician group leaders are receptive to an expansion of pay-for-performance programs and that such changes could play an important role in improving health care outcomes (Mehrotra et al., American Journal of Managed Care, May 2007).