A key component of efforts to improve the quality of care in the United States is the use of public reporting and pay-for-performance programs. Little is known, however, about the extent to which small- and medium-sized physician practices are participating in these programs. This study examined the participation of small- and medium-sized physician practices in pay-for-performance and public reporting programs and the characteristics of the participating practices. Using cross-sectional data from a national sample of 1,734 small- and medium-sized physician practices throughout the United States, we found that many practices (61.2%) were participating in at least one program, while far fewer (19.2%) were participating in multiple programs. Among practices participating in multiple programs, relatively few (21.9%) reported high levels of administrative problems due to a lack of standardization on performance measures. The study also suggests that some structural features are associated with participation and may provide leverage points for fostering participation.
AartsJ.AshJ.BergM. (2007). Extending the understanding of computerized physician order entry: Implications for professional collaboration, workflow, and quality of care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(Suppl. 1), S4-S13.
2.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2007). AHRQ conference on health care data collection and reporting. Collecting and reporting data for performance measurement moving toward alignment. Rockville, MD: Author.
3.
AlexanderJ. A.MaengD.CasalinoL. P.RittenhouseD. (2012). Use of care management practices in small- and medium-sized physician groups: Do public reporting of physician quality and financial incentives matter?Health Services Research, 48(2 Pt. 1), 376-397.
4.
BakerG.CarterB. (2005). Provider pay-for-performance incentive programs: 2004 national study results. San Francisco, CA: Med-Vantage.
5.
BatesD. W.EbellM.GottliebE.ZappJ.MullinsH. C. (2003). A proposal for electronic medical records in U.S. primary care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10(1), 1-10.
6.
BodenheimerT. (1999). The movement for improved quality in health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 340, 488-492.
7.
CampbellE. M.SittigD. F.AshJ. S.GuapponeK. P.DykstraR. H. (2006). Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 547-556.
8.
CasalinoL. P.ElsterA.EisenbergA.LewisE.MontgomeryJ.RamosD. (2007). Will pay-for-performance and quality reporting affect health care disparities?Health Affairs, 26, w405-w414.
9.
CasalinoL. P.WuF. M.RyanA. M.CopelandK.RittenhouseD. R.RamsayP. P.ShortellS. M. (2013). Independent practice associations and physician-hospital organizations can improve care management for smaller practices. Health Affairs, 32, 1376-1382.
10.
EddyD. M. (1996). Clinical decision making: From theory to practice. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
11.
FriedbergM.SafranD.ColtinK.DresserM.SchneiderE. (2009). Readiness for the patient-centered medical home: Structural capabilities of Massachusetts primary care practices. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 24, 162-169.
12.
HalladayJ. R.StearnsS. C.WrothT.SpragensL.HofstetterS.ZimmermanS.SloaneP. D. (2009). Cost to primary care practices of responding to payer requests for quality and performance data. Annals of Family Medicine, 7, 495-503.
13.
HarrisonM. I.KoppelR.Bar-LevS. (2007). Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—An interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14, 542-549.
14.
HillestadR.BigelowJ.BowerA.GirosiF.MeiliR.ScovilleR.TaylorR. (2005). Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Affairs, 24, 1103-1117.
15.
Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rewarding provider performance: Aligning incentives in Medicare. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
16.
KaneC. (2009). The practice arrangements of patient care physicians, 2007-2008: An analysis by age cohort and gender (Policy Research Perspectives). Chicago, IL: American Medical Association.
17.
KuhmerkerK.HartmanT. (2007). Pay-for-performance in state Medicaid programs. New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund.
18.
MarshallM. N. (2004). How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care?International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16(Suppl. 1), i57-i63.
19.
MartsolfG. R.AlexanderJ. A.ShiY.CasalinoL. P.RittenhouseD. R.ScanlonD. P.ShortellS. M. (2012). The patient-centered medical home and patient experience. Health Services Research, 47, 2273-2295.
20.
RittenhouseD. R.CasalinoL. P.ShortellS. M.McClellanS. R.GilliesR. R.AlexanderJ. A.DrumM. L. (2011). Small and medium-size physician practices use few patient-centered medical home processes. Health Affairs, 30, 1575-1584.
21.
RobinsonJ. C.ShortellS. M.RittenhouseD. R.Fernandes-TaylorS.GilliesR. R.CasalinoL. P. (2009). Quality-based payment for medical groups and individual physicians. Inquiry, 46, 172-181.
22.
RosenthalM. B.FrankR. G.BuchananJ. L.EpsteinA. M. (2002). Transmission of financial incentives to physicians by intermediary organizations in California. Health Affairs, 21, 197-205.
23.
RosenthalM. B.LandonB. E.NormandS.-L. T.FrankR. G.EpsteinA. M. (2006). Pay for performance in commercial HMOs. New England Journal of Medicine, 355, 1895-1902.
24.
ScanlonD.AlexanderJ.BeichJ.ChristiansonJ.Hasnain-WyniaR.McHughM.. . . BodenschatzL. (2012). Evaluating a community-based program to improve healthcare quality: Research design for the Aligning Forces for Quality initiative. American Journal of Managed Care, 18(6 Suppl.), eS165-eS176.
25.
WolfsonD.BernabeoE.LeasB.SofaerS.PawlsonG.PillittereD. (2009). Quality improvement in small office settings: an examination of successful practices. BMC Family Practice, 10(1), 14.
