Financial incentives for integrated care: A scoping review and lessons for evidence-based design.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increasing prevalence of people with chronic conditions, healthcare systems restructure to integrate care across providers. However, many systems fail to achieve the desired outcomes. One likely explanation is lack of financial incentives for integrating care. OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify financial incentives used to promote integrated care across different types of providers for patients with common chronic conditions and assess the evidence on (cost-)effectiveness and the facilitators/barriers to their implementation. METHODS: This scoping review identifies studies published before December 2021, and includes 33 studies from the United States and the Netherlands. RESULTS: We identify four types of financial incentives: shared savings, bundled payments, pay for performance, and pay for coordination. Substantial heterogeneity in the (cost-)effectiveness of these incentives exists. Key implementation barriers are a lack of infrastructure (e.g., electronic medical records, communication channels, and clinical guidelines). To facilitate integration, financial incentives should be easy to communicate and implement, and require additional financial support, IT support, training, and guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: All four types of financial incentives may promote integrated care but not in all contexts. Shared savings appears to be the most promising incentive type for promoting (cost-)effective care integration with the largest number of favourable studies allowing causal interpretations. The limited evidence pool makes it hard to draw firm conclusions that are transferable across contexts.

Mapping GPs' motivation ­ it's not all about the money: a nationwide cross-sectional survey study from Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Understanding physicians' motivation may be essential for policymakers if they are to design policies that cater to physicians' wellbeing, job retention, and quality of care. However, physicians' motivation remains an understudied area. AIM: To map GPs' work motivation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis using registry and survey data from Denmark. METHOD: Survey data were used to measure four types of motivation: extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, user orientation, and public service motivation. These were combined with register data on the characteristics of the GP, practice, and area. Using latent profile analysis, the heterogeneity in GPs' motivation was explored; the associations between GPs' motivation and the GP, practice, and area characteristics were estimated using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: There was substantial heterogeneity in GPs' motivations. Five classes of GPs were identified with different work motivations: class 1 'it is less about the money' - probability of class membership 53.2%; class 2 'it is about everything' - 26.5%; class 3 'it is about helping others' - 8.6%; class 4 'it is about the work' - 8.2%; and class 5 'it is about the money and the patient' - 3.5%. Linear regression analyses showed that motivation was associated with GP, practice, and area characteristics to a limited extent only. CONCLUSION: GPs differ in their work motivations. The finding that, for many GPs, 'it is not all about the money' indicated that their different motivations should be considered when designing new policies and organisational structures to retain the workforce and ensure a high quality of care.