Cargando…

Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer and the cost of its treatment continue to rise. The effect of these dual forces is a major burden on the system of health care financing. One cost containment approach involves changing the way physicians are paid. Payers are testing reimbursement methods such as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McPherson, Emily, Hedden, Lindsay, Regier, Dean A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5031322/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27653974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0341-2
_version_ 1782454787872129024
author McPherson, Emily
Hedden, Lindsay
Regier, Dean A
author_facet McPherson, Emily
Hedden, Lindsay
Regier, Dean A
author_sort McPherson, Emily
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer and the cost of its treatment continue to rise. The effect of these dual forces is a major burden on the system of health care financing. One cost containment approach involves changing the way physicians are paid. Payers are testing reimbursement methods such as capitation and prospective payment while also evaluating how the changes impact health outcomes, resource utilization, and quality of care. The purpose of this study is to identify evidence related to physician payment methods’ impacts, with a focus on cancer control. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review. This involved defining eligibility criteria, identifying a search strategy, performing study selection according to the eligibility criteria, and abstracting data from included studies. This process was accompanied by a gray literature search for special topics. RESULTS: The incentives in fee-for-service payment systems generally lead to health care services being applied inconsistently because providers practice independently with few systems in place for developing treatment protocols and practice reviews. This inconsistency is pronounced in cancer care because much of the total per patient spending occurs in the last month of life. Some insurers are predicting that this variation can be reduced through the use of prospective or bundled payments combined with decision support systems. Workload, recruitment, and retention are all affected by changes to physician payment models; effects seem to be magnified in the specialist context as their several extra years of training lower their overall supply. CONCLUSIONS: Experimentation with physician payment methods has tended to neglect cancer care providers. Policymakers designing cancer-focused physician reimbursement pilot programs should incorporate quality measurement since very ill patients may receive too little treatment when payment models do not cover oncologists’ total costs, e.g., fee-for-service systems whose prices do not account for the possible presence of other diseases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0341-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5031322
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50313222016-09-29 Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review McPherson, Emily Hedden, Lindsay Regier, Dean A Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer and the cost of its treatment continue to rise. The effect of these dual forces is a major burden on the system of health care financing. One cost containment approach involves changing the way physicians are paid. Payers are testing reimbursement methods such as capitation and prospective payment while also evaluating how the changes impact health outcomes, resource utilization, and quality of care. The purpose of this study is to identify evidence related to physician payment methods’ impacts, with a focus on cancer control. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review. This involved defining eligibility criteria, identifying a search strategy, performing study selection according to the eligibility criteria, and abstracting data from included studies. This process was accompanied by a gray literature search for special topics. RESULTS: The incentives in fee-for-service payment systems generally lead to health care services being applied inconsistently because providers practice independently with few systems in place for developing treatment protocols and practice reviews. This inconsistency is pronounced in cancer care because much of the total per patient spending occurs in the last month of life. Some insurers are predicting that this variation can be reduced through the use of prospective or bundled payments combined with decision support systems. Workload, recruitment, and retention are all affected by changes to physician payment models; effects seem to be magnified in the specialist context as their several extra years of training lower their overall supply. CONCLUSIONS: Experimentation with physician payment methods has tended to neglect cancer care providers. Policymakers designing cancer-focused physician reimbursement pilot programs should incorporate quality measurement since very ill patients may receive too little treatment when payment models do not cover oncologists’ total costs, e.g., fee-for-service systems whose prices do not account for the possible presence of other diseases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0341-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5031322/ /pubmed/27653974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0341-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
McPherson, Emily
Hedden, Lindsay
Regier, Dean A
Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review
title Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review
title_full Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review
title_fullStr Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review
title_full_unstemmed Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review
title_short Impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review
title_sort impact of oncologist payment method on health care outcomes, costs, quality: a rapid review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5031322/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27653974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0341-2
work_keys_str_mv AT mcphersonemily impactofoncologistpaymentmethodonhealthcareoutcomescostsqualityarapidreview
AT heddenlindsay impactofoncologistpaymentmethodonhealthcareoutcomescostsqualityarapidreview
AT regierdeana impactofoncologistpaymentmethodonhealthcareoutcomescostsqualityarapidreview