From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Pay for Performance in England: Some Surprising Results

Quality-of-care measures rose faster before P4P was instituted than they did afterward.

In 2004, the U.K. introduced a pay-for-performance (P4P) program for family practices. Substantial payments are made for meeting 136 different indicators of high-quality care.

Researchers reviewed medical records in 42 representative practices for 2 years before the P4P system started (1998 and 2003) and for 2 years after it commenced (2005 and 2007). Quality scores increased annually for asthma, diabetes, and coronary heart disease during the pre-P4P evaluation period. Scores continued to rise, but more slowly, for asthma and diabetes in the post-P4P evaluation period; however, scores did not rise for coronary disease after P4P was instituted. Researchers noted no changes in patients' perception of access to care or of interpersonal aspects of care after introduction of P4P. For each of the three target diseases, after P4P commenced, some specific quality-of-care practices that were not encouraged by the incentive system actually declined. By one measure, continuity of care also declined.

Comment: To me, the most striking result of this study is that quality of care rose at a faster rate in the years before P4P than in the years afterward. The authors don't comment on what forces fueled this rise before P4P was instituted. Because this study suggests that P4P could have some pernicious effects, understanding those forces is important.

Anthony L. Komaroff, MD

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine July 23, 2009

Citation(s):

Campbell SM et al. Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N Engl J Med 2009 Jul 23; 361:368.

Reader Remarks:

Read all Reader Remarks on this article

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2009. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.