Fiche du document
30 août 2017
- handle: 10670/1.qpv223
- hal: hal-01579386
- doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx111
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/intqhc/mzx111
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
Impact evaluation Financial incentives Quality indicators Pay-for-performance Hospital -bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologieSujets proches
Infirmaries Benevolent institutions Medical and sanitary affairs Hospitals, charities, etc Hospitals and sanitoriumsCiter ce document
Benoît Lalloué et al., « Evaluation of the effects of the French Pay-for-Performance program - IFAQ pilot study », HAL-SHS : droit et gestion, ID : 10.1093/intqhc/mzx111
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
ObjectiveMost studies showed no or little effect of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs on different outcomes. In France, the P4P program IFAQ was generalized to all acute care hospitals in 2016. A pilot study was launched in 2012 to design, implement and assess this program. This article aims to assess the immediate impact of the 2012–14 pilot study.Design and settingFrom nine process quality indicators (QIs), an aggregated score was constructed as the weighted average, taking into account both achievement and improvement. Among 426 eligible volunteer hospitals, 222 were selected to participate. Eligibility depended on documentation of QIs and results of hospital accreditation. Hospitals with scores above the median received a financial reward based on their ranking and budget. Several characteristics known to have an influence on P4P results (patient age, socioeconomic status, hospital activity, casemix and location) were used to adjust the models.InterventionTo assess the effect of the program, comparison between the 185 eligible selected hospitals and the 192 eligible not selected volunteers were done using the difference-in-differences method.ResultsWhereas all hospitals improved from 2012 to 2014, the difference-in-differences effect was positive but not significant both in the crude (2.89, P = 0.29) and adjusted models (4.07, P = 0.12).ConclusionThese results could be explained by several reasons: low level of financial incentives, unattainable goals, too short study period. However, the lack of impact for the first year should not undermine the implementation of other P4P programs. Indeed, the pilot study helped to improve the final model used for generalization.