General practice incentives: a review of the international literature.

Abstract (English)

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the general practice sector faces significant challenges, leading to a re-evaluation of its predominantly fee-for-service (FFS) funding models. AIM: To conduct a systematic review of reviews that evaluated the efficacy of funding models in general practice on quality outcomes in multidisciplinary primary and preventive care for people with complex chronic conditions, as well as the contextual factors that have influenced their implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Search terms covered funding mechanisms, primary care, and general practice. The review followed PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. METHOD: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PAIS, and Web of Science databases were searched in November 2023 for publications from 2010 onwards. RESULTS: Twenty reviews were included. Blended payment models incorporating pay-for-performance (P4P) with either capitation payments or FFS were associated with small improvements in quality outcomes, particularly in multidisciplinary settings. Changes in intermediate health outcomes and process measures for people with complex chronic conditions were most evident in diabetes care but inconclusive for other health outcomes and conditions. Improvements were mainly observed in incentivised activities and in less rigorously designed studies, with ceiling effects and variation reported across healthcare systems. There was no evidence that introducing capitation payments as part of blended payments improved quality of care. CONCLUSION: Although blended payment models show promise, evidence for the effectiveness of models including P4P is highly variable. If adopted, careful evaluation of each incentive's impact on both quality and equity will be essential.