Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 5/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Paper

Impact assessment of a pay-for-performance program on breast cancer screening in France using micro data

Authors: Jonathan Sicsic, Carine Franc

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A voluntary-based pay-for-performance (P4P) program (the CAPI) aimed at general practitioners (GPs) was implemented in France in 2009. The program targeted prevention practices, including breast cancer screening, by offering a maximal amount of €245 for achieving a target screening rate among eligible women enrolled with the GP.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of the French P4P program (CAPI) on the early detection of breast cancer among women between 50 and 74 years old.

Methods

Based on an administrative database of 50,752 women aged 50–74 years followed between 2007 and 2011, we estimated a difference-in-difference model of breast cancer screening uptake as a function of visit to a CAPI signatory referral GP, while controlling for both supply-side and demand-side determinants (e.g., sociodemographics, health and healthcare use).

Results

Breast cancer screening rates have not changed significantly since the P4P program implementation. Overall, visiting a CAPI signatory referral GP at least once in the pre-CAPI period increased the probability of undergoing breast cancer screening by 1.38 % [95 % CI (0.41–2.35 %)], but the effect was not significantly different following the implementation of the contract.

Conclusion

The French P4P program had a nonsignificant impact on breast cancer screening uptake. This result may reflect the fact that the low-powered incentives implemented in France through the CAPI might not provide sufficient leverage to generate better practices, thus inviting regulators to seek additional tools beyond P4P in the field of prevention and screening.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The referral doctor scheme (“dispositif médecin traitant”) was introduced in France in 2005. Each insured patient must appoint a doctor (a generalist or other doctor), whose role is to update the patient’s medical record, coordinate his/her care pathway and centralize other caregiver notices. In the case of non-compliance with the referral doctor’s pathway, the patient must pay non-refundable penalties. In 2011, 90 % of insured patients had selected a referral doctor, and 95 % of them had appointed a GP (Annual Report of the Audit Court, 2013).
 
Literature
1.
Scott, A., Sivey, P., Ait Ouakrim, D., Willenberg, L., Naccarella, L., Furler, J., Young, D.: The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. CD008451. doi:10.​1002/​14651858
2.
Campbell, S.M., Reeves, D., Kontopantelis, E., Sibbald, B., Roland, M.: Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 368–378 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
3.
Cheng, S.-H., Lee, T.-T., Chen, C.-C.: A longitudinal examination of a pay-for-performance program for diabetes care. Med. Care 50, 109–116 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ryan, A.M., Doran, T.: The effect of improving processes of care on patient outcomes: evidence from the United Kingdom’s quality and outcomes framework. Med. Care 50, 191–199 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
5.
Eijkenaar, F.: Pay for performance in health care an international overview of initiatives. Med. Care Res. Rev. 69, 251–276 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
6.
Doran, T., Fullwood, C., Gravelle, H., Reeves, D., Kontopantelis, E., Hiroeh, U., Roland, M.: Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 375–384 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Petersen, L.A., Woodard, L.D., Urech, T., Daw, C., Sookanan, S.: Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann. Intern. Med. 145, 265–272 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Ryan, A., Sutton, M., Doran, T.: Does winning a pay-for-performance bonus improve subsequent quality performance? Evidence from the hospital quality incentive demonstration. Health Serv. Res. 49, 568–587 (2014)
11.
Eijkenaar, F., Emmert, M., Scheppach, M., Schöffski, O.: Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Health Policy Amst. Neth. 110, 115–130 (2013)CrossRef
12.
Grady, K.E., Lemkau, J.P., Lee, N.R., Caddell, C.: Enhancing mammography referral in primary care. Prev. Med. 26, 791–800 (1997)CrossRefPubMed
13.
Town, R., Kane, R., Johnson, P., Butler, M.: Economic incentives and physicians’ delivery of preventive care: a systematic review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28, 234–240 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
14.
Sabatino, S.A., Lawrence, B., Elder, R., Mercer, S.L., Wilson, K.M., DeVinney, B., Melillo, S., Carvalho, M., Taplin, S., Bastani, R., Rimer, B.K., Vernon, S.W., Melvin, C.L., Taylor, V., Fernandez, M., Glanz, K.: Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43, 97–118 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kiran, T., Wilton, A.S., Moineddin, R., Paszat, L., Glazier, R.H.: Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in ontario primary care. Ann. Fam. Med. 12, 317–323 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Li, J., Hurley, J., DeCicca, P., Buckley, G.: Physician response to pay-for-performance: evidence from a natural experiment. Health Econ. 23, 962–978 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
17.
Frey, B.: Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Brookfield (1997)
18.
Bénabou, R., Tirole, J.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70, 489–520 (2003)CrossRef
19.
Sicsic, J., Le Vaillant, M., Franc, C.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in primary care: An explanatory study among French general practitioners. Health Policy Amst. Neth. 108, 140–148 (2012)
20.
Kerlikowske, K., Grady, D., Rubin, S.M., Sandrock, C., Ernster, V.L.: Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 273, 149–154 (1995)CrossRef
21.
Walter, L.C., Lewis, C.L., Barton, M.B.: Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in the elderly: a review of the evidence. Am. J. Med. 118, 1078–1086 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
22.
Carcaise-Edinboro, P., Bradley, C.J.: Influence of patient-provider communication on colorectal cancer screening. Med. Care 46, 738–745 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
23.
Fon Sing, M., Leuraud, K., Duport, N.: Characteristics of French people using organised colorectal cancer screening. Analysis of the 2010 French Health, Healthcare and Insurance Survey. Prev. Med. 57, 65–68 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
24.
Jensen, L.F., Mukai, T.O., Andersen, B., Vedsted, P.: The association between general practitioners’ attitudes towards breast cancer screening and women’s screening participation. BMC Cancer 12, 254 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Carrieri, V., Bilger, M.: Preventive care: underused even when free. Is there something else at work? Appl. Econ. 45, 239–253 (2013)CrossRef
26.
Franc, C., Lesur, R.: Systèmes de rémunération des médecins et incitations à la prévention. Rev. Économique. 55, 901–922 (2004)
27.
Duport, N., Ancelle-Park, R.: Do socio-demographic factors influence mammography use of French women? Analysis of a French cross-sectional survey. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. Off. J. Eur. Cancer Prev. Org. ECP 15, 219–224 (2006)CrossRef
28.
Sicsic, J., Franc, C.: Obstacles to the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings: what remains to be achieved by French national programmes? BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 465 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Duport, N.: Characteristics of women using organized or opportunistic breast cancer screening in France. Analysis of the 2006 French Health, Health Care and Insurance Survey. Rev. Dépidémiologie Santé Publique. 60, 421–430 (2012)CrossRef
30.
De Roquefeuil, L., Studer, A., Neumann, A., Merlière, Y.: L’échantillon généraliste des bénéficiaires: représentativité, portée et limites. Prat. Organ. Soins. 40, 213–223 (2009)CrossRef
31.
Kenkel, D.S.: The demand for preventive medical care. Appl. Econ. 26, 313–325 (1994)CrossRef
32.
Karaca-Mandic, P., Norton, E.C., Dowd, B.: Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Serv. Res. 47, 255–274 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Bussière, C., Sicsic, J., Pelletier-Fleury, N.: The effects of obesity and mobility disability in access to breast and cervical cancer screening in france: results from the national health and disability survey. PLoS One 9, e104901 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Holmstrom, B., Milgrom, P.: Multitask principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. J. Law Econ. Org. 7, 24 (1991)CrossRef
36.
Mullen, K.J., Frank, R.G., Rosenthal, M.B.: Can you get what you pay for? Pay-for-performance and the quality of healthcare providers. RAND J. Econ. 41, 64–91 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
37.
Scott, A.: Eliciting GPs’ preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J. Health Econ. 20, 329–347 (2001)CrossRefPubMed
38.
Sabatino, S.A., Habarta, N., Baron, R.C., Coates, R.J., Rimer, B.K., Kerner, J., Coughlin, S.S., Kalra, G.P., Chattopadhyay, S.: Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, S67–S74 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
39.
McIlfatrick, S., Keeney, S., McKenna, H., McCarley, N., McElwee, G.: Investigating the role of the general practitioner in cancer prevention: a mixed methods study. BMC Fam. Pract. 14, 58 (2013)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Mousquès, J., Renaud, T., Scemama, O.: Is the “practice style” hypothesis relevant for general practitioners? An analysis of antibiotics prescription for acute rhinopharyngitis. Soc. Sci. Med. 1982(70), 1176–1184 (2010)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Impact assessment of a pay-for-performance program on breast cancer screening in France using micro data
Authors
Jonathan Sicsic
Carine Franc
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0813-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

The European Journal of Health Economics 5/2017 Go to the issue

Original Paper

The dynamic relationship between health expenditure and economic growth: is the health-led growth hypothesis valid for Turkey?

Original Paper

Societal costs of fetal alcohol syndrome in Sweden

Original Paper

The effects of organized screening programs on the demand for mammography in Switzerland

Editorial

Access, use, and challenges of claims data analyses in Germany

Original Paper

Healthcare inequality issues among immigrant elders after neoliberal welfare reform: empirical findings from the United States

Original Paper

Cost analysis of whole genome sequencing in German clinical practice