Association of Primary Care Physician Compensation Incentives and Quality of Care in the United States, 2012-2016
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 9, 2025
Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
David S Burstein1, David T Liss2, Jeffrey A Linder2
1Feinberg School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. David.Burstein@northwestern.edu.
Background:
Physician compensation incentives may have positive or negative effects on clinical quality.
Objective:
To assess the association between various physician compensation incentives on technical indicators of primary care quality.
Design:
Cross-sectional, nationally representative retrospective analysis.
Participants:
Visits by adults to primary care physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012-2016. We analyzed 49,580 sampled visits, representing 1.45 billion primary care visits.
Main Measures:
We assessed the association between 5 compensation incentives - quality measure performance, patient experience scores, individual productivity, practice financial performance, or practice efficiency - and 10 high-value and 7 low-value care measures as well as high-value and low-value care composites.
Key Results:
Quality measure performance was an incentive in 22% of visits; patient experience scores, 17%; individual productivity, 57%; practice financial performance, 63%; and practice efficiency, 12%. In adjusted models, none of the compensation incentives were consistently associated with individual high- and low-value measures. None of the compensation incentives were associated with high- or low-value care composites. For example, quality measure performance compensation was not significantly associated with high-value care (visits with quality incentive, 47% of eligible measures met; without quality incentive, 43%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.15) or low-value care (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19). Physician compensation incentives that might be expected to increase low-value care did not: patient experience (aOR for low-value care composite, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05), individual productivity (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), and practice financial performance (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.36).
Conclusion:
In this retrospective, cross-sectional, nationally representative analysis of care in the United States, physician compensation incentives were not generally associated with more or less high- or low-value care.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:30Primary Healthcare Services
In 1978, international leaders convened in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, for what would be a pivotal event in global health. The Alma-Ata Declaration was the first to call...
01:30Health Information Technology and Healthcare Information System
Health Information Technology, commonly called HIT, integrates advanced information systems and technology in healthcare settings. Its primary functions include:
01:18Introduction To Health Care Delivery System
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) advocates for a patient-centered, effective, safe, timely, equitable, and effective healthcare system. The National Priorities...
01:29Issues And Trends In Healthcare Delivery System
Cost Containment
Payment for healthcare services has historically promoted adoption of costly and often unnecessary or inefficient...
01:13Patient-centered Care
01:26Methods Of Healthcare Delivery System
Managed Care System:
The managed care system is designed to control the cost while maintaining the quality of care. The patient's care from admission to discharge is planned by the primary care provider or the case manager, also known as the gatekeeper. In a managed care system, the number of care providers is...