Using Pay for Performance to Improve Treatment Implementation for Adolescent Substance Use Disorders

Abstract

Objective To test whether pay for performance (P4P) is an effective method to improve adolescent substance use disorder treatment implementation and efficacy. Design Cluster randomized trial. Setting Community-based treatment organizations. Participants Twenty-nine community-based treatment organizations, 105 therapists, and 986 adolescent patients (953 with complete data). Intervention Community-based treatment organizations were assigned to 1 of the following conditions: the implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or the P4P experimental condition. In addition to delivering the same evidence-based treatment (ie, using the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach [A-CRA]), each organization received standardized levels of funding, training, and coaching from the treatment developers. Therapists in the P4P condition received US $50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ie, A-CRA competence) and US $200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions (ie, target A-CRA) that has been found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes. Main Outcome Measures Outcomes included A-CRA competence (ie, a therapist-level implementation measure), target A-CRA (ie, a patient-level implementation measure), and remission status (ie, a patient-level treatment effectiveness measure). Results Relative to therapists in the IAU control condition, therapists in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to demonstrate A-CRA competence (24.0% vs 8.9%; event rate ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.12-4.48; P=.02). Relative to patients in the IAU control condition, patients in the P4P condition were significantly more likely to receive target A-CRA (17.3% vs 2.5%; odds ratio, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.53-17.62; P=.01). However, no significant differences were found between conditions with regard to patients' end-of-treatment remission status. Conclusion Pay for performance can be an effective method of improving treatment implementation. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01016704

Applying the Policy Ecology Framework to Philadelphia’s Behavioral Health Transformation Efforts

“…Admittedly, existing capacity for tracking the provision of EBPs is limited; thus, this is a major priority moving forward. While there is a need for more research on the impact of financial incentives at all levels (system, provider, and clinician), some studies in behavioral health have demonstrated that they are effective in increasing clinicians’ intentions to deliver high quality treatment (Garner, Godley, & Bair, 2011) and the competent delivery of EBPs (Garner et al, 2012). …”

Two-Year Impact of the Alternative Quality Contract on Pediatric Health Care Quality and Spending

“…[27][28][29] Despite these concerns, there is a paucity of information about how payment incentives can promote care quality or spending for CSHCN. [30][31][32][33] To our knowledge, there is no published information on the intended and unintended effects of a global budget arrangement in a general pediatric population or in CSHCN. [30][31][32][34][35][36] Thus, this study aims to examine whether BCBSMA' s AQC was effective in its first 2 years at improving care quality for CSHCN and non-CSHCN across measures that are and are not tied to P4P and at slowing pediatric spending growth for CSHCN and non-CSHCN.…”

An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation

“…The effect of providing incentives or supports for succeeding to implement or penalties for failing to implement can be evaluated with such a design. An example involves the pay for performance (P4P) strategy to increase therapist adherence to a protocol for adolescent substance abusers (45), as therapists receive financial compensation if they achieve a specified level of competence and have the adolescent complete treatment sessions.…”