Incentives for physician teams: Effectiveness of performance feedback and payment distribution methods.

Best practices in team-based incentive design remain underexplored. This study examines under group-based pay-for-performance, how managers incentivize physicians for teamwork through internal feedback and payment distribution methods. In collaboration with Taiwan Association of Family Medicine, authors conducted a national survey of physician groups, with a response rate of 48.3%. Multilevel linear regression was applied to 134 groups, collectively consisting of 1,245 physicians in Taiwan. The outcome variables were two manager-rated scores for group performance on achieving (a) comprehensive, coordinated, continuous care, and (b) patient health improvement. The results indicate that providing each physician feedback on peer performance is superior to not providing it; when providing peer information within a group, concealing identities is superior to revealing them. These findings imply that application of the principle of social comparison can be effective; however, caution should be taken when disclosure of identifiable peer performance may intensify peer competition and undermine care coordination in team-based models. Further, groups that distribute payments equally among physicians perform better than groups that distributed payment proportionally to physicians' patient shares. The findings are germane to small teams, where physicians do not have full control over care processes and outcomes, and need to work cooperatively to maximize group-based payment.

Development and Psychometric Analysis of the Revised Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey.

This article describes the development and psychometric testing of the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care (PPIC 2.1) survey, which we administered to 12,364 Medicare beneficiaries who received treatment from 150 randomly selected physician organizations, receiving 3,067 responses (26%). Psychometric analyses, performed using two methods to adjust for respondent inherent optimism (as a measure of response tendency), supported a 6-factor, 22-item model with excellent fit. These factors were (1) Staff Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History, (2) Provider Support for the Patient's Self-Directed Care, (3) Test Result Communication, (4) Provider Knowledge of the Patient, (5) Provider Support for Medication Adherence and Home Health Management, and (6) Specialist Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History. Per Spearman-Brown prophesy calculations, reliability would exceed 0.7 for all factors at 33 or more responses per organization. The PPIC 2.1 survey can distinguish six dimensions of integrated patient care with high physician organization-level reliability at reasonable sample sizes.

Motivators and barriers to using patient experience reports for performance improvement.

Increasingly, patient experience surveys are available to provide performance feedback to physician groups. However, limited published literature addresses factors influencing use of these reports for performance improvement. To address this gap, we conducted semistructured interviews with leaders of Massachusetts physician groups. We asked about factors influencing groups' use of performance data and report characteristics. Motivating characteristics included having group leaders who emphasized a positive patient experience and prioritized patient retention; public reporting was not an important motivator for most groups. Full physician panels were perceived as a barrier to use of reports. Performance reports from a statewide public reporting collaborative were not sufficient for the majority of groups, with many seeking external reports. As policy makers create financial incentives to support performance improvement, assisting leaders to articulate the professional case for patient experience and enhancing the content and timing of performance reports may be important.