Cited by 168Primary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Policy and ManagementHealthcare Quality and Management

Quality Improvement With Pay-for-Performance Incentives in Integrated Behavioral Health Care

Open access
Unützer, Jürgen, Chan, Ya-Fen, Hafer, Erin, Knaster, Jessica, Shields, Anne, Powers, Diane, Veith, Richard C.·2012·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Objectives. We evaluated a quality improvement program with a pay-for-performance (P4P) incentive in a population-focused, integrated care program for safety-net patients in 29 community health clinics. Methods. We used a quasi-experimental design with 1673 depressed adults before and 6304 adults after the implementation of the P4P program. Survival analyses examined the time to improvement in depression before and after implementation of the P4P program, with adjustments for patient characteristics and clustering by health care organization. Results. Program participants had high levels of depression, other psychiatric and substance abuse problems, and social adversity. After implementation of the P4P incentive program, participants were more likely to experience timely follow-up, and the time to depression improvement was significantly reduced. The hazard ratio for achieving treatment response was 1.73 (95% confidence interval = 1.39, 2.14) after the P4P program implementation compared with pre-program implementation. Conclusions. Although this quasi-experiment cannot prove that the P4P initiative directly caused improved patient outcomes, our analyses strongly suggest that when key quality indicators are tracked and a substantial portion of payment is tied to such quality indicators, the effectiveness of care for safety-net populations can be substantially improved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2011.300555

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Unützer, J., Chan, Y.-F., Hafer, E., Knaster, J., Shields, A., Powers, D., & Veith, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Washington State Department of Health (US)
  • Jürgen Unützer, Ya-Fen Chan, Diane Powers, and Richard C. Veith are with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle. Erin Hafer is with the Community Health Plan of Washington, Seattle. Jessica Knaster is with Public Health of Seattle and King County, Seattle, WA. Anne Shields is with the Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA.
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2012-06
Volume
102
Issue
6
Pages
e41-e45
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2103940893
Cited by
167
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 5
FWCI
36.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Washington
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
performance-based pay, quality improvement, behavioral health integration, depression treatment, community clinics, quality indicators, treatment response, social adversity, substance abuse, mental illness
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Community Health Services, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician Incentive Plans, Primary Health Care, Quality of Health Care, Reimbursement, Incentive, United States, Washington, Treatment Outcome, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review