RESUMEN
Purpose of Review: Physician burnout, which is prevalent in neurology, has accelerated in recent years. While multifactorial, a major contributing factor to burnout is a payment model that rewards volume over quality, leaving physicians overburdened and unfulfilled. The aim of this review was to investigate ways of reducing burnout while improving quality-based outcomes in a value-based health care model. Recent Findings: Burnout affects researchers, educators, clinicians, and administrators in all fields and tracks, but neurologists experience some of the worst burnout rates among specialties. Transitioning to a value-based health care model, which rewards quality and outcomes over volume, may contribute to reversing the burnout trend. However, this requires that physicians feel valued in the workplace in ways corresponding to their preferences. We propose to stratify neurologists using the "basket of motivators" framework, which operates multiple individual-based and team-based motivators including balance among work responsibilities, work-life balance, institutional pride, self-actualization at work, work environment, and finances. By tailoring individual-based and team-based financial and nonfinancial incentives, neurologists are empowered to work at the top of their license to provide high-impact clinical care while combating the most prominent causes of burnout. Summary: To address the neurologist burnout epidemic, a transition to value-based health care is needed that rewards quality-based performance outcomes through both individual-based and team-based approaches that apply financial and nonfinancial incentives. Understanding the underlying motivations behind neurologists' drives to work can inform tailored incentives that allow neurologists to provide value to their patients and feel valued by their organizations.
RESUMEN
Mandatory measurement and disclosure of outcome measures are commonly used policy tools in healthcare. The effectiveness of such disclosures relies on the extent to which the new information produced by the mandatory system is internalized by the healthcare organization and influences its operations and decision-making processes. We use panel data from the Japanese National Hospital Organization to analyze performance improvements following regulation mandating standardized measurement and peer disclosure of patient satisfaction performance. Drawing on value of information theory, we document the absolute value and the benchmarking value of new information for future performance. Controlling for ceiling effects in the opportunities for improvement, we find that the new patient satisfaction measurement system introduced positive, significant, and persistent mean shifts in performance (absolute value of information) with larger improvements for poorly performing hospitals (benchmarking value of information). Our setting allows us to explore these effects in the absence of confounding factors such as incentive compensation or demand pressures. The largest positive effects occur in the initial period, and improvements diminish over time, especially for hospitals with poorer baseline performance. Our study provides empirical evidence that disclosure of patient satisfaction performance information has value to hospital decision makers.