Gaceta Sanitaria Gaceta Sanitaria
Artículo Sobre los autores Respuestas rápidas Estadísticas
Gac Sanit 2008;22 Supl 1:143-55 - Vol. 22 DOI: 10.1016/S0213-9111(08)76086-2
Capítulo 3. Prioridades generales y prestaciones individuales
Posibilidades y limitaciones de la gestión por resultados de salud, el pago por objetivos y el redireccionamiento de los incentivos. Informe SESPAS 2008
Possibilities and limitations of results-based management, pay-for-performance and the redesign of incentives
Salvador Peiróa,??, , Anna García-Altésb
a Escola Valenciana d’Estudis de la Salut, Valencia, España
b Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Barcelona, España
Correspondencia: Salvador Peiró. Escola Valenciana d’Estudis de la Salut. (Salvador Peiró peiro_bor@gva.es)
Resumen

El concepto de «pago por calidad» (P4P) reúne un conjunto de diferentes estrategias que intentan estimular la mejora de la calidad asistencial remunerando a los proveedores de atención sanitaria según sus resultados en el cumplimiento de objetivos de calidad o productividad predefinidos. Pese a que la efectividad del P4P para mejorar la calidad de la atención está poco establecida, estos sistemas se están difundiendo ampliamente en el Reino Unido, Estados Unidos y otros países, incluida España. Los elementos del diseño de los esquemas de P4P determinantes de su efectividad se refieren a quién debe recibir los incentivos, cuánto debe pagarse, qué debe retribuirse, la necesidad de incorporar ajustes de riesgos (sobre todo en los indicadores de resultados intermedios) y de tener en cuenta el clima organizativo, y la combinación óptima de incentivos financieros y no financieros. Las limitaciones más importantes que cabe considerar son: la orientación exclusiva hacia la reducción de la infrautilización, la afectación de la equidad, el efecto «lupa», la validez de los indicadores, la confusión entre recomendaciones de guías de práctica e indicadores de calidad, la ingeniería documental, el paternalismo con los pacientes, el posible impacto negativo sobre el profesionalismo y la motivación interna de los médicos, y el abordaje de la calidad como un problema de decisiones imperfectas, antes que como un sistema imperfecto.

Abstract

The concept of pay-for-performance (P4P) encompasses different strategies that aim to stimulate health care quality improvement by remunerating healthcare providers according to their performance in specific measures of efficiency or quality. Although the effectiveness of P4P in improving quality of care is largely unknown, these systems are being widely adopted in the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries, including Spain. The elements of P4P design that are most decisive for the effectiveness of these schemes are as follows: 1) who should receive the incentives, how they should be paid, what should be rewarded, the need to incorporate risk adjustments (mainly if surrogate outcomes are used as indicators) and the need to bear organizational climate and the optimal combination of financial and non-financial incentives in mind. The most important limitations to consider are the following: 1) the exclusive focus on reducing subutilization; 2) the effect on equity; 3) the “magnifying glass” effect; 4) the validity of indicators; 5) the confusion between the recommendations of clinical guidelines and quality indicators; 6) “document engineering”; 7) paternalism; 8) the negative impact on professionalism and clinicians’ internal motivation, and 9) the assumption that quality problems result from imperfect individual decisions rather than from an imperfect system.

Palabras clave
Incentivos, Calidad asistencial, Indicadores de calidad
Key words
Incentive, Quality of health care, Quality indicators
El Texto completo solo está disponible en PDF
Bibliografía
1.
J.C. Robinson
Theory and practice in the design of physician payment incentives
Milbank Q, 79 (2001), pp. 149-177
2.
D.A. Conrad,J.B. Christianson
Penetrating the «black box»: financial incentives for enhancing the quality of physician services
Med Care Res Rev, 61 (2004), pp. 37-68
3.
M.B. Rosenthal,B.E. Landon,S.L. Normand,R.G. Frank,T.S. Ahmad,A.M. Epstein
Employers’ use of value-based purchasing strategies
4.
A.M. Epstein
Pay for performance at the tipping point
N Engl J Med, 356 (2007), pp. 515-517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe078002
5.
M. Roland
Linking physician pay to quality of care: a major experiment in the United Kingdom
N Engl J Med, 351 (2004), pp. 1448-1454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr041294
6.
T. Doran,C. Fullwood,H. Gravelle,D. Reeves,E. Kontopantelis,U. Hiroeh
Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom
N Engl J Med, 355 (2006), pp. 375-384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa055505
7.
S. Campbell,D. Reeves,E. Kontopantelis,E. Middleton,B. Sibbald,M. Roland
Quality of primary care in England with the introduction of pay for performance
N Engl J Med, 357 (2007), pp. 181-190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr065990
8.
G.H. Pink,A.D. Brown,M.L. Studer,K.L. Reiter,P. Leatt
Pay-for-performance in publicly financed healthcare: some international experience and considerations for Canada
Healthc Pap, 6 (2006), pp. 8-26
9.
I.A. Scott
Pay for performance in health care: strategic issues for Australian experiments
Med J Aust, 187 (2007), pp. 31-35
10.
E. Bernal,R. Meneu,F. Pradas,S. Peiró,M. Ridao
Sistemas de incentivos en atención primaria
Rev Val Med Fam, 6 (1999), pp. 1-12
11.
J. Gené Badia,P. Gallo de Puelles
Retribución variable vinculada a la calidad asistencial
Aten Primaria, 34 (2004), pp. 198-201
12.
J.J. Martín
Motivación, incentivos y retribuciones de los médicos de atención primaria en el Sistema Nacional de Salud
Rev Adm Sanit, 3 (2005), pp. 111-130
13.
E. Díaz Ojeda,P. Navarro,S. Prados
Sistema Nacional de Salud: la retribución variable
Rev Adm Sanit, 3 (2005), pp. 205-235
14.
J. Gérvas,V. Ortún,L. Palomo,M.A. Ripoll
Seminario de Innovación en Atención Primaria 2007. Incentivos en atención primaria: de la contención del gasto a la salud de la población
Rev Esp Salud Pública, 81 (2007), pp. 589-596
15.
V. Ortún Rubio
Los incentivos para la mejora de la calidad en los servicios de salud
Rev Calidad Asistencial, 22 (2007), pp. 1-6
16.
J. Gené-Badia,G. Escaramis-Babiano,M. Sans-Corrales,L. Sampietro-Colom,F. Aguado-Menguy,C. Cabezas-Peña
Impact of economic incentives on quality of professional life and on end-user satisfaction in primary care
17.
A. Plaza Tesías,C. Zara Yahni,A. Guarga Rojas,J. Farrés Quesada
Resultado de la aplicación del benchmarking en los equipos de atención primaria de Barcelona
Aten Primaria, 35 (2005), pp. 122-127
18.
A. Giuffrida,T. Gosden,F. Forland,I.S. Kristiansen,M. Sergison,B. Leese,L. Pedersen,M. Sutton
Target payments in primary care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2000), pp. 3
19.
R.A. Dudley,A. Frolich,D.L. Robinowitz,J.A. Talavera,P. Broadhead,H.S. Luft
Strategies to support quality-based purchasing: a review of the evidence
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, (2004)
20.
L.A. Petersen,L.D. Woodard,T. Urech,C. Daw,S. Sookanan
Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care?
Ann Intern Med, 145 (2006), pp. 265-272
21.
M.B. Rosenthal,R.G. Frank
What is the empirical basis for paying for quality in health care?
Med Care Res Rev, 63 (2006), pp. 135-157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558705285291
22.
R.A. Dudley
Pay-for-performance research: how to learn what clinicians and policy makers need to know
23.
C.R. Simpson,P.C. Hannaford,K. Lefevre,D. Williams
Effect of the UK incentive-based contract on the management of patients with stroke in primary care
24.
Z. Kmietowicz
New GP contract: modernisation or miscalculation?
25.
A.A. Sanderson
Pay-for-performance programs in the United Kingdom
N Engl J Med, 355 (2006), pp. 1832
26.
J. Gené Badia
Basta de «clicar» casillas
Aten Primaria, 39 (2007), pp. 169-170
27.
M.B. Rosenthal,R. Fernandopulle,H.R. Song,B. Landon
Paying for quality: providers’ incentives for quality improvement
Health Aff (Millwood), 23 (2004), pp. 127-141
28.
E.S. Fisher
Paying for performance: risks and recommendations
N Engl J Med, 355 (2006), pp. 1845-1847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp068221
29.
B.G. Bokhour,J.F. Burgess,J.M. Hook,B. White,D. Berlowitz,M.R. Guldin
Incentive implementation in physician practices: a qualitative study of practice executive perspectives on pay for performance
Med Care Res Rev, 63 (2006), pp. 73-95
30.
J.W. Rowe
Pay-for-performance and accountability: related themes in improving health care
Ann Intern Med, 145 (2006), pp. 695-699
31.
M.B. Rosenthal,R.A. Dudley
Pay-for-performance: will the latest payment trend improve care?
32.
S. Peiró Moreno
De la gestión de lo complementario a la gestión integral de la atención de salud: gestión de enfermedades e indicadores de actividad
Gestión clínica y sanitaria: de la práctica academia, ida y vuelta, pp. 17-87
33.
B.W. Cooper
Public reporting and pay for performance
N Engl J Med, 356 (2007), pp. 1783-1784
34.
J.E. Wennberg,A.M. O’Connor,E.D. Collins,J.N. Weinstein
Extending the P4P agenda (I): how Medicare can improve patient decision making and reduce unnecessary care
Health Aff (Millwood), 26 (2007), pp. 1564-1574
35.
J.E. Wennberg,E.S. Fisher,J.S. Skinner,K.K. Bronner
Extending the P4P agenda (II): how Medicare can reduce waste and improve the care of the chronically ill
Health Aff (Millwood), 26 (2007), pp. 1575-1585
36.
A.G. Gosfield,J.L. Reinertsen
Paying physicians for high-quality care
N Engl J Med, 350 (2004), pp. 1910
37.
A.S. Bierman,J.P. Clark
Performance measurement and equity
38.
C. Millett,S. Saxena,A. Ng,A. Mainous 3rd,A. Majeed
Socioeconomic status, ethnicity and diabetes management: an analysis of time trends using the health survey for England
J Public Health (Oxf), 29 (2007), pp. 413-419
39.
J. Hippisley-Cox,S. O’Hanlon,C. Coupland
Association of deprivation, ethnicity, and sex with quality indicators for diabetes: population based survey of 53,000 patients in primary care
40.
G. McLean,M. Sutton,B. Guthrie
Deprivation and quality of primary care services: evidence for persistence of the inverse care law from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework
J Epidemiol Community Health, 60 (2006), pp. 917-922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.044628
41.
G. McLean,B. Guthrie,M. Sutton
Differences in the quality of primary medical care for CVD and diabetes across the NHS: evidence from the quality and outcomes framework
BMC Health Serv Res, 7 (2007), pp. 74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-74
42.
B. Guthrie,G. McLean,M. Sutton
Workload and reward in the Quality and Outcomes Framework of the 2004 general practice contract
Br J Gen Pract, 56 (2006), pp. 836-841
43.
I. Heath,J. Hippisley-Cox,L. Smeeth
Measuring performance and missing the point?
44.
R.A. Hayward
Performance measurement in search of a path
N Engl J Med, 356 (2007), pp. 951-953 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe068285
45.
K.S. Yarnall,K.I. Pollak,T. Østbye,K.M. Krause,J.L. Michener
Primary care: is there enough time for prevention?
Am J Public Health, 93 (2003), pp. 635-641
46.
T. Østbye,K.S. Yarnall,K.M. Krause,K.I. Pollak,M. Gradison,J.L. Michener
Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care?
Ann Fam Med, 3 (2005), pp. 209-214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1370/afm.310
47.
Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M. Comorbidity of Diseases in the New General Medical Services Contract for General Practitioners: Analysis of QRESEARCH Data. Nottingham: QRESEARCH; 2005. Disponible en: www.qresearch.org/Public_Documents/DataValidation/Comorbidity%20of%20diseases%20in%20the%20new%20GMS%20contract%20for%20GPs.pdf
48.
D.A. Ganz,N.S. Wenger,C.P. Roth,C.J. Kamberg,J.T. Chang,C.H. MacLean
The effect of a quality improvement initiative on the quality of other aspects of health care: the law of unintended consequences?
49.
R.M. Werner,D.A. Asch
The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information
50.
C. Brown,R. Lilford
Cross sectional study of performance indicators for English Primary Care Trusts: testing construct validity and identifying explanatory variables
BMC Health Serv Res, 6 (2006), pp. 81 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-81
51.
D.A. Ganz,N.S. Wenger,C.P. Roth,C.J. Kamberg,J.T. Chang,C.H. MacLean
The effect of a quality improvement initiative on the quality of other aspects of health care: the law of unintended consequences?
52.
S.W. Glickman,F.S. Ou,E.R. DeLong,M.T. Roe,B.L. Lytle,J. Mulgund
Pay for performance, quality of care, and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction
53.
G.C. Fonarow,W.T. Abraham,N.M. Albert,W.G. Stough,M. Gheorghiade,B.H. Greenberg
Association between performance measures and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with heart failure
54.
R.M. Werner,E.T. Bradlow
Relationship between Medicare's hospital compare performance measures and mortality rates
55.
S.D. Horn
Performance measures and clinical outcomes
56.
O.J. Wang,Y. Wang,J.H. Lichtman,E.H. Bradley,S.L. Normand,H.M. Krumholz
«America's Best Hospitals» in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction
Arch Intern Med, 167 (2007), pp. 1345-1351 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.13.1345
57.
E.H. Bradley,J. Herrin,B. Elbel,R.L. McNamara,D.J. Magid,B.K. Nallamothu
Hospital quality for acute myocardial infarction: correlation among process measures and relationship with short-term mortality
58.
A. Bottle,S. Gnani,S. Saxena,P. Aylin,A.G. Mainous,A. Majeed
Association between quality of primary care and hospitalization for coronary heart disease in England: national cross-sectional study
J Gen Intern Med, (2007),
59.
A. Downing,G. Rudge,Y. Cheng,Y.K. Tu,J. Keen,M.S. Gilthorpe
Do the UK government's new Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores adequately measure primary care performance? A cross-sectional survey of routine healthcare data
BMC Health Serv Res, 7 (2007), pp. 166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-166
60.
A.K. Jha,E.J. Orav,Z. Li,A.M. Epstein
The inverse relationship between mortality rates and performance in the Hospital Quality Alliance measures
Health Aff (Millwood), 26 (2007), pp. 1104-1110
61.
L.C. Walter,N.P. Davidowitz,P.A. Heineken,K.E. Covinsky
Pitfalls of converting practice guidelines into quality measures: lessons learned from a VA performance measure
62.
A.M. Garber
Evidence-based guidelines as a foundation for performance incentives
Health Aff (Millwood), 24 (2005),
63.
D.M. Kent,R.A. Hayward
Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification
64.
R.A. Hayward,T.P. Hofer,E.A. Kerr,S.L. Krein
Quality improvement initiatives: issues in moving from diabetes guidelines to policy
Diabetes Care, 27 (2004), pp. 54-60
65.
M.M. Safford,R. Shewchuk,H. Qu,J.H. Williams,C.A. Estrada,F. Ovalle
Reasons for not intensifying medications: differentiating «clinical inertia» from appropriate care
J Gen Intern Med, 22 (2007), pp. 1648-1655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0433-8
66.
R.A. Hayward,T.P. Hofer,S. Vijan
Narrative review: lack of evidence for recommended low-density lipoprotein treatment targets: a solvable problem
Ann Intern Med, 145 (2006), pp. 520-530
67.
L.F. McMahon Jr,T.P. Hofer,R.A. Hayward
Physician-level P4PDOA? Can quality-based payment be resuscitated?
Am J Manag Care, 13 (2007), pp. 233-236
68.
R.A. Hayward
All-or-nothing treatment targets make bad performance measures
Am J Manag Care, 13 (2007), pp. 126-128
69.
R.A. Hayward,D.M. Kent
Using clinical trial summary results to establish quality measures
70.
S. Vijan,T. Hofer,R.A. Hayward
Cost-utility analysis of screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
JAMA, 283 (2000), pp. 889-896
71.
S. Vijan,T.P. Hofer,R.A. Hayward
How often should patients with diabetes Be screened for retinopathy?
JAMA, 284 (2000), pp. 437-439
72.
A. Dicker
Target tyranny
J R Soc Med, 97 (2004), pp. 496-497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.97.10.496
73.
I.M. Carey,S. Dewilde,T. Harris,P.H. Whincup,D.G. Cook
Spurious trends in coronary heart disease incidence: unintended consequences of the new GP contract?
Br J Gen Pract, 57 (2007), pp. 486-489
74.
G. Elwyn,S. Buetow,J. Hibbard,M. Wensing
Measuring quality through performance. Respecting the subjective: quality measurement from the patient's perspective
75.
J.T. Chang,R.D. Hays,P.G. Shekelle,C.H. MacLean,D.H. Solomon,D.B. Reuben
Patients’ global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care
Ann Intern Med, 144 (2006), pp. 665-672
76.
S.D. Pearson,K. Kleinman,D. Rusinak,W. Levinson
A trial of disclosing physicians’ financial incentives to patients
Arch Intern Med, 166 (2006), pp. 623-628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.6.623
77.
A.G. Pereira,S.D. Pearson
Patient attitudes toward physician financial incentives
Arch Intern Med, 161 (2001), pp. 1313-1317
78.
R. McDonald,S. Harrison,K. Checkland,S.M. Campbell,M. Roland
Impact of financial incentives on clinical autonomy and internal motivation in primary care: ethnographic study
79.
M. Marshall,S. Harrison
It's about more than money: financial incentives and internal motivation
Qual Saf Health Care, 14 (2005), pp. 4-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.013193
80.
B.H. Gray
Individual incentives to fix organizational problems?
Med Care Res Rev, 61 (2004), pp. 76-79
81.
B. Fleming,A. Silver,K. Ocepek-Welikson,D. Keller
The relationship between organizational systems and clinical quality in diabetes care
Am J Manag Care, 10 (2004), pp. 934-944
82.
E.M. Yano,L.M. Soban,P.H. Parkerton,D.A. Etzioni
Primary care practice organization influences colorectal cancer screening performance
Health Serv Res, 42 (2007), pp. 1130-1149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00643.x
83.
E.A. Kerr,B. Fleming
Making performance indicators work: experiences of US Veterans Health Administration
Copyright © 2008. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria