Paying for Prevention: Associations between Pay for Performance and Cessation Counseling in Primary Care Practices

Abstract

Purpose.

To examine associations between pay for performance (P4P) and recommended cessation counseling among primary care practices (PCPs).

Design.

Cross-sectional survey of 89 PCPs participating in a joint Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)–Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) health promotion initiative.

Setting and Participants.

100% response rate from PCPs participating in the RWJF-AHRQ initiative.

Measures.

Survey data on cessation counseling, practice involvement with P4P, practice size, public reporting of performance, practice competition, linkages with community resources, integration of evidence-based guidelines, patient recommendations for cessation, and state-specific smoking rates.

Analysis.

Logistic regression was used to examine associations between practice involvement with P4P and cessation counseling offered by PCPs. Practice characteristics, including size and availability of other cessation services, were included in the analysis.

Results.

Practices that were involved with P4P had greater odds of offering recommended cessation counseling (odds ratio [OR] = 27.6, p < .01). Practices that linked patients to community resources, experienced greater competition, and were larger in size also provided more counseling (p < .05). Publicly reporting performance information and being located in states with higher smoking rates were associated with decreased odds of offering counseling support (p < .10).

Conclusions.

Findings suggest that P4P is associated with recommended counseling for smoking cessation. Study limitations include small sample size and unavailability of information on the magnitude of P4P incentives and program design. Further analysis considering these programmatic details is warranted.

Keywords

Smoking Cessation Behavioral Counseling Pay for Performance Organization/Delivery of Care Quality Improvement Primary Care Prevention Research Manuscript format: applied research brief Research purpose: modeling/relationship testing Study design: observational,nonexperimental Outcome measure: care delivery (behavioral counseling)Setting: clinical/health care Health focus: smoking control Strategy: skill building/behavior change Target population age: NA–primary care practices Target population circumstances (specify all that apply): practices involved with P4P targeting smoking as a priority area

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Maciosek

Coffield

Edwards

. Priorities among effective clinical preventive serivces: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:52–61.

Solberg

Maciosek

Edwards

. Repeated tobacco-use screening and intervention in clinical practice: health impact and cost effectiveness. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:62–71.

Fiore

Bailen

Cohen

. Treating Tobacco Use and dependence: Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.

Amundson

Solberg

Reed

. Paying for quality improvement: compliance with tobacco cessation guidelines. Jt Comm J Qual Safe. 2003;29:59–65.

Roski

Jeddeloh

. The impact of financial incentives and a patient registry on preventive care quality: increasing physician adherence to evidence-based smoking cessation practice guidelines. Prev Med. 2003;36:291–299.

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 2001.

Cherry

Woodwell

Rechtsteiner

. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2005 summary. Advanced Data. 2007;29(387):1–39.

Young

Burgess

White

. Pioneering pay-for-quality: lessons from the Rewarding Results program. Health Care Financing Review. 2007;29:59–70.

Mehrotra

Sorbero

Damberg

. Using the lessons of behavioral economics to design more effective pay-for-performance programs. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:497–503.

10.

Volpp

Pauly

Loewenstein

Bangsberg

. P4P4P: an agenda for research on pay-for-performance for patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28:206–214.