Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan2Center for Policy, Outcomes, and Prevention, Center for Health Policy/Primary Care Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California3Division of General Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Mar 1;3(3):327-334. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4549.
Value-driven payment system reform is a potential tool for aligning economic incentives with the improvement of quality and efficiency of health care and containment of cost. Such a payment system has not been researched satisfactorily in full-cycle cancer care.
To examine the association of outcomes and medical expenditures with a bundled-payment pay-for-performance program for breast cancer in Taiwan compared with a fee-for-service (FFS) program.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database, National Health Insurance Claims Data, the National Death Registry, and the bundled-payment enrollment file. Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer and a documented first cancer treatment from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2008, were selected from the Taiwan Cancer Database and followed up for 5 years, with the last follow-up data available on December 31, 2013. Patients in the bundled-payment program were matched at a ratio of 1:3 with control individuals in an FFS program using a propensity score method. The final sample of 17 940 patients included 4485 (25%) in the bundled-payment group and 13 455 (75%) in the FFS group.
Rates of adherence to quality indicators, survival rates, and medical payments (excluding bonuses paid in the bundled-payment group). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate 5-year overall and event-free survival rates by cancer stage, and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to examine the effect of the bundled-payment program on overall and event-free survival. Sensitivity analysis for bonus payments in the bundled-payment group was also performed.
The study population included 17 940 women (mean [SD] age, 52.2 [10.3] years). In the bundled-payment group, 1473 of 4215 patients (34.9%) with applicable quality indicators had full (100%) adherence to quality indicators compared with 3438 of 12 506 patients (27.5%) with applicable quality indicators in the FFS group (P < .001). The 5-year event-free survival rates for patients with stages 0 to III breast cancer were 84.48% for the bundled-payment group and 80.88% for the FFS group (P < .01). Although the 5-year medical payments of the bundled-payment group remained stable, the cumulative medical payments for the FFS group steadily increased from $16 000 to $19 230 and exceeded pay-for-performance bundled payments starting in 2008.
In Taiwan, compared with the regular FFS program, bundled payment may lead to better adherence to quality indicators, better outcomes, and more effective cost-control over time.
重要性:价值驱动的支付制度改革是一种潜在的工具,可以调整经济激励机制,以提高医疗保健质量和效率,并控制成本。在全周期癌症治疗中,这种支付制度尚未得到充分研究。
目的:与按服务项目付费(FFS)方案相比,考察台湾乳腺癌捆绑式支付按绩效付费方案与结局和医疗支出的相关性。
设计、地点和参与者:数据来自台湾癌症数据库、全民健康保险理赔数据、国家死亡登记处和捆绑式支付登记档案。2004 年 1 月 1 日至 2008 年 12 月 31 日期间,从台湾癌症数据库中选择新诊断为乳腺癌且有首次癌症治疗记录的女性,随访 5 年,截至 2013 年 12 月 31 日,最后一次随访数据可用。采用倾向评分匹配方法,将捆绑式支付方案中的患者按 1:3 的比例与 FFS 方案中的对照组患者进行匹配。最终的 17940 例患者中,4485 例(25%)在捆绑式支付组,13455 例(75%)在 FFS 组。
主要结局和测量指标:质量指标达标率、生存率和医疗支出(不包括捆绑式支付组支付的奖金)。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法计算按癌症分期的 5 年总生存率和无事件生存率,采用 Cox 比例风险回归模型检验捆绑式支付方案对总生存率和无事件生存率的影响。还对捆绑式支付组的奖金支付进行了敏感性分析。
结果:研究人群包括 17940 名女性(平均[标准差]年龄为 52.2[10.3]岁)。在捆绑式支付组中,与适用质量指标的 12506 名患者中的 3438 名(27.5%)相比,1473 名(34.9%)符合所有质量指标的患者完全(100%)符合质量指标(P<0.001)。0 期至 III 期乳腺癌患者的 5 年无事件生存率,捆绑式支付组为 84.48%,FFS 组为 80.88%(P<0.01)。尽管捆绑式支付组的 5 年医疗支出保持稳定,但 FFS 组的累计医疗支出从 2008 年开始稳步增加到 16000 美元至 19230 美元,并超过了按绩效付费的捆绑式支付。
结论和相关性:与常规 FFS 方案相比,在台湾,捆绑式支付可能会随着时间的推移,导致更好地遵守质量指标、更好的结局和更有效的成本控制。