Association of Primary Care Physician Compensation Incentives and Quality of Care in the United States, 2012-2016

David S. Burstein*, David T. Liss, Jeffrey A. Linder

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Physician compensation incentives may have positive or negative effects on clinical quality. Objective: To assess the association between various physician compensation incentives on technical indicators of primary care quality. Design: Cross-sectional, nationally representative retrospective analysis. Participants: Visits by adults to primary care physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012-2016. We analyzed 49,580 sampled visits, representing 1.45 billion primary care visits. Main Measures: We assessed the association between 5 compensation incentives – quality measure performance, patient experience scores, individual productivity, practice financial performance, or practice efficiency – and 10 high-value and 7 low-value care measures as well as high-value and low-value care composites. Key Results: Quality measure performance was an incentive in 22% of visits; patient experience scores, 17%; individual productivity, 57%; practice financial performance, 63%; and practice efficiency, 12%. In adjusted models, none of the compensation incentives were consistently associated with individual high- and low-value measures. None of the compensation incentives were associated with high- or low-value care composites. For example, quality measure performance compensation was not significantly associated with high-value care (visits with quality incentive, 47% of eligible measures met; without quality incentive, 43%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.15) or low-value care (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19). Physician compensation incentives that might be expected to increase low-value care did not: patient experience (aOR for low-value care composite, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05), individual productivity (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), and practice financial performance (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.36). Conclusion: In this retrospective, cross-sectional, nationally representative analysis of care in the United States, physician compensation incentives were not generally associated with more or less high- or low-value care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)359-366
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of general internal medicine
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2022

Funding

This work was supported by the Northwestern University Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics Clinical Research Fellowship and the 2019 Founder’s Grant from the Society of General Internal Medicine. Dr. Linder is supported by a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HHSP233201500020I) and grants from the National Institute on Aging (R33AG057383, R33AG057395, P30AG059988, R01AG069762), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS026506, R01 HS028127), and the Peterson Center on Healthcare.

Keywords

  • Incentives
  • Physician Compensation
  • Primary Care
  • Quality of Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Association of Primary Care Physician Compensation Incentives and Quality of Care in the United States, 2012-2016'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this