Position Papers4 December 2007
    Author, Article, and Disclosure Information

    Abstract

    Pay-for-performance programs are growing, but little evidence exists on their effectiveness or on their potential unintended consequences and effects on the patient–physician relationship. Pay-for-performance has the potential to help improve the quality of care, if it can be aligned with the goals of medical professionalism. Initiatives that provide incentives for a few specific elements of a single disease or condition, however, may neglect the complexity of care for the whole patient, especially the elderly patient with multiple chronic conditions. Such programs could also result in the deselection of patients, “playing to the measures” rather than focusing on the patient as a whole, and misalignment of perceptions between physicians and patients. The primary focus of the quality movement in health care should not be on “pay for” or “performance” based on limited measures, but rather on the patient. The American College of Physicians hopes to move the pay-for-performance debate forward with a patient-centered focus—one that puts the needs and interests of the patient first—as these programs evolve.

    References

    • 1. Petersen LAWoodard LDUrech TDaw CSookanan SDoes pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann Intern Med2006;145:265-72. [PMID: 16908917] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Rosenthal MBFrank RGLi ZEpstein AMEarly experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA2005;294:1788-93. [PMID: 16219882] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3. American College of PhysiciansEthics manual: fifth edition. Ann Intern Med2005;142:560-82. [PMID: 15809467] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Povar GJGlumen HDaniel JDaub SEvans LHolm RPet alMedicine as a Profession Managed Care Ethics Working GroupEthics in practice: managed care and the changing health care environment: medicine as a profession managed care ethics working group statement. Ann Intern Med2004;141:131-6. [PMID: 15262669] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 5. American College of Physicians. Linking physician payments to quality care. Accessed at www.acponline.org/hpp/link_pay.pdf on 21 September 2007. Google Scholar
    • 6. American College of Physicians. The use of performance measurements to improve physician quality of care. Accessed at www.acponline.org/hpp/performance_measure.pdf on 21 September 2007. Google Scholar
    • 7. Fitzgerald FThe perils of pay for performance. IM News2006;39:14-5. Google Scholar
    • 8. Wolff JLBoult CMoving beyond round pegs and square holes: restructuring Medicare to improve chronic care. Ann Intern Med2005;143:439-45. [PMID: 16172442] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Boyd CMDarer JBoult CFried LPBoult LWu AWClinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA2005;294:716-24. [PMID: 16091574] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Woo BPrimary care—the best job in medicine? N Engl J Med2006;355:864-6. [PMID: 16943397] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Braddock CHSnyder LThe doctor will see you shortly. The ethical significance of time for the patient–physician relationship. J Gen Intern Med2005;20:1057-62. [PMID: 16307634] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. ABIM FoundationAmerican Board of Internal MedicineMedical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med2002;136:243-6. [PMID: 11827500] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 13. American Medical Association. Principles for Pay-for-Performance Programs. Accessed at www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/principles4pay62705.pdf on 21 September 2007. Google Scholar