2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of pay-for-performance on the quality of care in ophthalmology: Empirical evidence from Germany

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a result of the five year of follow-up, they have reported that the P4P system did not make a significant contribution to the parameters of the study, such as quality, patient satisfaction, hospitalization time. Also their outcomes of surgical procedures were similar to the outcomes of patients who did not participate in the study (36).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…As a result of the five year of follow-up, they have reported that the P4P system did not make a significant contribution to the parameters of the study, such as quality, patient satisfaction, hospitalization time. Also their outcomes of surgical procedures were similar to the outcomes of patients who did not participate in the study (36).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…These "pay for performance," or "value-based incentives," have served as powerful motivators in healthcare organizations to move to new services or redesign existing programs with mixed outcomes regarding actual improvements in quality and cost (5,6). Bundled payments, long considered an improvement over fee-for-service reimbursement models, have been shown to forcefully drive changes in care delivery which do not necessarily result in improvements in quality or reductions in the actual cost to the healthcare system (7).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The QOF has, however, received increasing criticism with several studies suggesting it has not led to improvements in the quality of primary care and population health metrics, and that it is poor value for money (Ashworth & Gulliford, 2017; Campbell et al, 2009; Doran et al, 2006; Doran et al, 2011; Doran et al, 2014; Doran et al, 2017; Fleetcroft et al, 2010; Forbes et al, 2017; Gillam et al, 2012; Grigoroglou et al, 2018; Hamel et al, 2014; Kontopantelis et al, 2015; Lester et al, 2010; Mandavia et al, 2017; Marshall & Roland, 2017; Raleigh, 2018; Roland, 2016; Roland & Guthrie, 2016; Roland & Olesen, 2016; Ryan et al, 2016; Steel & Shekelle, 2016; Thorne, 2016). There have been a considerable number of studies and systematic reviews investigating the effects of incentive schemes on quality, cost, efficiency, and equity of primary care provision (Alshamsan et al, 2010; Alshamsan et al, 2012; Conrad & Perry, 2009; Damberg et al, 2014; Doran et al, 2006; Eijkenaar et al, 2013; Emmert et al, 2012; Flodgren et al, 2011; Girault et al, 2017; Glidewell et al, 2015; Grimaldi, 2018; Herbst et al, 2018; Houle et al, 2012; Kondo et al, 2016; Lee et al, 2011; Markovitz & Ryan, 2017; Mendelson et al, 2017; Pandya et al, 2018; Petersen et al, 2006; Petersen et al, 2013; Roland & Dudley, 2015; Scott et al, 2011; Soucat et al, 2017; Van Herck et al, 2010;…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%