Physicians uneasy about how plans will set rankings

Authors say the study shows physicians might rebel against pay-for-performance as they did against HMOs.

By Kevin B. O'Reilly, amednews staff. April 16, 2007.

Most physicians like the idea of getting a bonus for scoring well on accurate quality measures, but they do not want the public to see how they rank. Also, physicians fear that quality measures could lead doctors to avoid high-risk patients and neglect unmeasured types of care. And, doctors have little confidence that payers will work hard to ensure the ratings' accuracy.

Conventional wisdom? Perhaps, but a March/April Health Affairs survey of 556 internists confirms it.

Doctors opine on pay-for-performance
See related content
Topic: Pay for performance

The rank-and-file doctors surveyed worry that the quality measures most health plans are using could have unintended consequences, with 82% saying physicians might avoid high-risk patients.

"I have 10 to 15 patients whom I would have to fire," one respondent said. "The poor, unmotivated, obese and noncompliant would all have to find new physicians."

Lawrence P. Casalino, MD, PhD, the study's lead author, favors pay-for-performance programs in principle but said the survey shows a potential for physician backlash against them akin to the doctor revolt against HMOs.

"There is a lot at stake here, so it's worth doing it right even if it takes longer and is more expensive," Dr. Casalino said.

To avoid hurting minorities and the poor, pay-for-performance programs should reward not only physicians who have the best scores but also those who show improvement over time, Dr. Casalino said. Also, quality measures should be risk-adjusted and stratified by income and race.

AMA policy says pay-for-performance programs should use scientifically sound data. The Association-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement has developed 155 performance measures so far.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Doctors opine on pay-for-performance

Internal medicine physicians were asked if they agreed with these statements.

	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat disagree	Strongly disagree
If the measures are accurate, physicians should be given financial incentives for quality	32%	41%	15%	12%
If accurate, measures of the quality of individual physicians' performance should be made public	5%	27%	33%	35%
If accurate, measures of the quality of individual medical groups' performance should be made public	8%	37%	26%	29%
At present, measures of quality are generally accurate	4%	26%	43%	27%
At present, measures of quality are not adequately adjusted for patients' medical conditions	36%	52%	9%	3%
At present, measures of quality are not adequately adjusted for patients' socioeconomic status	38%	47%	12%	3%
Measuring quality will divert physicians' attention from important types of care for which quality is not measured	22%	39%	29%	11%
Measuring quality may lead physicians to avoid high-risk patients	40%	42%	14%	4%
Health plans will try hard to make quality measures as accurate as possible	5%	33%	41%	21%
The government will try hard to make quality measures as accurate as possible	5%	30%	40%	26%

Note: Some categories may not add to 100% because of rounding.

Source: March/April Health Affairs survey

RELATED CONTENT
» HHS unveils local quality reporting plan  March 19
» CMS touts hospital demo as proof of pay-for-performance promise  Feb. 19
» Pay-for-performance draws doctors' ire  Dec. 4, 2006
» Pay-for-performance benefits are unproven, panel says  Nov. 27, 2006

Vote refines AMA stance on health reform
The AMA House of Delegates rejected attempts to rescind support of a U.S. House health reform bill and any new government-sponsored health insurance plan during the 2009 Interim Meeting.
Story - AMA House - Slideshow