When financial incentives do more good than harm: A checklist

Paul P. Glasziou, Heather Buchan, Chris Del Mar, Jenny Doust, Mark Harris, Rosemary Knight, Anthony Scott, Ian A. Scott, Alexis Stockwell

Research output: Contribution to journalShort surveyResearchpeer-review

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Financial incentives (pay for performance) for clinicians are an intuitively reasonable solution to the well documented gaps between evidence based best practice and routine care.1 They were fundamental to the 2004 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), which paid primary care physicians in England up to 25% of their income for achieving 147 performance indicators, including 76 clinical targets (such as recording smoking behaviour, keeping blood pressure and cholesterol levels below targets, and spirometry in patients with asthma).2 Whether the cost (around an extra £1bn (€1.3bn; $1.6bn) annually) was justified has been contested. Similar attempts include over 170 initiatives in public and private US hospitals, and Australia’s Medicare Practice Incentives Program, which targets quality in primary care.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere5047
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume345
Issue number7870
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Aug 2012

Fingerprint

Checklist
Motivation
Incentive Reimbursement
Private Hospitals
Evidence-Based Practice
Spirometry
Primary Care Physicians
Medicare
Practice Guidelines
England
Primary Health Care
Asthma
Smoking
Cholesterol
Blood Pressure
Costs and Cost Analysis

Cite this

Glasziou, Paul P. ; Buchan, Heather ; Del Mar, Chris ; Doust, Jenny ; Harris, Mark ; Knight, Rosemary ; Scott, Anthony ; Scott, Ian A. ; Stockwell, Alexis. / When financial incentives do more good than harm : A checklist. In: British Medical Journal. 2012 ; Vol. 345, No. 7870.
@article{08fae147278e46daae40cecf9d0114b3,
title = "When financial incentives do more good than harm: A checklist",
abstract = "Financial incentives (pay for performance) for clinicians are an intuitively reasonable solution to the well documented gaps between evidence based best practice and routine care.1 They were fundamental to the 2004 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), which paid primary care physicians in England up to 25{\%} of their income for achieving 147 performance indicators, including 76 clinical targets (such as recording smoking behaviour, keeping blood pressure and cholesterol levels below targets, and spirometry in patients with asthma).2 Whether the cost (around an extra £1bn (€1.3bn; $1.6bn) annually) was justified has been contested. Similar attempts include over 170 initiatives in public and private US hospitals, and Australia’s Medicare Practice Incentives Program, which targets quality in primary care.",
author = "Glasziou, {Paul P.} and Heather Buchan and {Del Mar}, Chris and Jenny Doust and Mark Harris and Rosemary Knight and Anthony Scott and Scott, {Ian A.} and Alexis Stockwell",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.e5047",
language = "English",
volume = "345",
journal = "BMJ (Clinical research ed.)",
issn = "0959-535X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7870",

}

Glasziou, PP, Buchan, H, Del Mar, C, Doust, J, Harris, M, Knight, R, Scott, A, Scott, IA & Stockwell, A 2012, 'When financial incentives do more good than harm: A checklist' British Medical Journal, vol. 345, no. 7870, e5047. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5047

When financial incentives do more good than harm : A checklist. / Glasziou, Paul P.; Buchan, Heather; Del Mar, Chris; Doust, Jenny; Harris, Mark; Knight, Rosemary; Scott, Anthony; Scott, Ian A.; Stockwell, Alexis.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 345, No. 7870, e5047, 18.08.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalShort surveyResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - When financial incentives do more good than harm

T2 - A checklist

AU - Glasziou, Paul P.

AU - Buchan, Heather

AU - Del Mar, Chris

AU - Doust, Jenny

AU - Harris, Mark

AU - Knight, Rosemary

AU - Scott, Anthony

AU - Scott, Ian A.

AU - Stockwell, Alexis

PY - 2012/8/18

Y1 - 2012/8/18

N2 - Financial incentives (pay for performance) for clinicians are an intuitively reasonable solution to the well documented gaps between evidence based best practice and routine care.1 They were fundamental to the 2004 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), which paid primary care physicians in England up to 25% of their income for achieving 147 performance indicators, including 76 clinical targets (such as recording smoking behaviour, keeping blood pressure and cholesterol levels below targets, and spirometry in patients with asthma).2 Whether the cost (around an extra £1bn (€1.3bn; $1.6bn) annually) was justified has been contested. Similar attempts include over 170 initiatives in public and private US hospitals, and Australia’s Medicare Practice Incentives Program, which targets quality in primary care.

AB - Financial incentives (pay for performance) for clinicians are an intuitively reasonable solution to the well documented gaps between evidence based best practice and routine care.1 They were fundamental to the 2004 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), which paid primary care physicians in England up to 25% of their income for achieving 147 performance indicators, including 76 clinical targets (such as recording smoking behaviour, keeping blood pressure and cholesterol levels below targets, and spirometry in patients with asthma).2 Whether the cost (around an extra £1bn (€1.3bn; $1.6bn) annually) was justified has been contested. Similar attempts include over 170 initiatives in public and private US hospitals, and Australia’s Medicare Practice Incentives Program, which targets quality in primary care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865245022&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.e5047

DO - 10.1136/bmj.e5047

M3 - Short survey

VL - 345

JO - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

JF - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

SN - 0959-535X

IS - 7870

M1 - e5047

ER -