Two papers evaluated the impact of the HMSA P4P program, which started in 2001 and targeted all 17 hospitals in Hawaii. The program had four components:
- Compliance with the AHA’s “Get with the Guidelines—Coronary Artery Disease” program, which encourages hospitals to improve compliance with the latest scientific guidelines for management of coronary artery disease. Hospitals could earn points by signing up for an AHA workshop, being recognized as a “Get with the Guidelines” hospital, using a patient management tool for data collection, and reaching 85 percent performance on at least three out of five process measures related to Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) care.
- The hospital’s case-mix adjusted rate of clinical complications and length of stay.
- Patient satisfaction and physician satisfaction with emergency department and hospital inpatient care.
- The hospital’s self-reported success in implementing internal quality improvement programs.
The complication and length-of-stay measures focused on patients admitted to the obstetric service or undergoing one of the 18 most common surgical procedures, which accounted for approximately 50 percent of the surgical case volume. The HMSA hospital P4P program has been evaluated, and the results of the evaluation are contained in two articles by Berthiaume and colleagues (2004 and 2006).
Berthiaume et al., 2004: This study looks at the rates of participation in the “Get with the Guidelines—Coronary Artery Disease” component of the HMSA P4P program. The authors report that of the 13 hospitals in Hawaii with more than 30 admissions for acute coronary artery disease, 10 earned some points associated with participation in “Get with the Guidelines.” The average incentive amount to the 10 hospitals ranged from $5,514 to $114,574 in one year. The authors state that the fact that 85 percent (11/13) of the eligible hospitals participated in “Get with the Guidelines” is noteworthy because this level of program adoption “is much higher than would be predicted by models of diffusion of innovation in healthcare.” The authors report that the incentive dollars helped provide support within hospitals for salaries and travel costs and led to substantial changes to the systems of care.
This study suffers from several limitations that restrict our ability to assess the impact of the P4P program. It reports only how many hospitals participated in the program at a single point in time, 2003—not whether participation, number of points earned, or scores on the myocardial infarction process measures increased over the intervention period. Since there was no control group, it is unclear whether participation in the “Get with the Guidelines” care improvement effort was truly driven by the incentive program versus other factors. Hospitals around the country were being encouraged to enroll in the program, and many of the measures that the program used were also being used by the Joint Commission and CMS as part of their quality measurement and improvement efforts. This study does not provide evidence on the impact of the incentive program in changing clinical process or outcome measures and how the results might generalize more broadly.
Berthiaume et al., 2006: This second study by Berthiaume and colleagues reports changes in the following HMSA P4P program areas: length of stay, complication rates, patient satisfaction, and the hospital’s internal quality initiatives. It does not report changes in the clinical process of care measures for AMI. The study design used pre-post measurement with 2001 as the baseline year and 2004 as the final year of available data. The HMSA program awarded $9 million in financial incentives across all parts of the program in 2004.
The authors report that complication rates for both obstetric and surgical patients declined approximately 2 percentage points between 2001 and 2004. Average length of stay also decreased for both types of patients; surgical patients experienced a decrease in length of stay of approximately 1.2 days, whereas length of stay for obstetric patients decreased by approximately 0.4 days. Patient satisfaction with inpatient care remained stable (78 percent in 2001 versus 79 percent in 2004); satisfaction with emergency room care increased from 71 percent in 2002 to 75 percent in 2004. Lastly, the scoring mechanism for internal quality initiatives was changed halfway through the program; but between 2003 and 2004, the scores increased from 4.25 to 6.5 points out of a total of 10 possible points. The authors do not state whether the observed differences between time periods were statistically significant. However, confidence intervals shown in figures contained in the article appear to indicate that only the change in surgical length of stay was statistically significant.
The authors state that it is unclear whether these upward shifts in performance were caused by the HMSA P4P program intervention or other factors occurring more broadly, such as greater national emphasis on improvements in AMI care or efforts to reduce utilization. As is typical for P4P programs being implemented nationally, the HMSA program did not have a control group to determine the effect of the HMSA intervention separate from other factors that may have caused the observed changes.