14 research outputs found

    Pay-for-performance as a cost-effective implementation strategy: results from a cluster randomized trial

    No full text
    Abstract Background Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been recommended as a promising strategy to improve implementation of high-quality care. This study examined the incremental cost-effectiveness of a P4P strategy found to be highly effective in improving the implementation and effectiveness of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an evidence-based treatment (EBT) for adolescent substance use disorders (SUDs). Methods Building on a 30millionnationalinitiativetoimplementA−CRAinSUDtreatmentsettings,urnrandomizationwasusedtoassign29organizationsandtheir105therapistsand1173patientstooneoftwoconditions(implementation−as−usual(IAU)controlconditionorIAU+P4Pexperimentalcondition).Itwasnotpossibletoblindorganizations,therapists,orallresearchstafftoconditionassignment.Alltreatmentorganizationsandtheirtherapistsreceivedamultifacetedimplementationstrategy.InadditiontothoseIAUstrategies,therapistsintheIAU+P4PconditionreceivedUS30 million national initiative to implement A-CRA in SUD treatment settings, urn randomization was used to assign 29 organizations and their 105 therapists and 1173 patients to one of two conditions (implementation-as-usual (IAU) control condition or IAU+P4P experimental condition). It was not possible to blind organizations, therapists, or all research staff to condition assignment. All treatment organizations and their therapists received a multifaceted implementation strategy. In addition to those IAU strategies, therapists in the IAU+P4P condition received US 50 for each month that they demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (A-CRA competence) and US 200foreachpatientwhoreceivedaspecifiednumberoftreatmentproceduresandsessionsfoundtobeassociatedwithsignificantlyimprovedpatientoutcomes(targetA−CRA).Incrementalcost−effectivenessratios(ICERs),whichrepresentthedifferencebetweenthetwoconditionsinaveragecostpertreatmentorganizationdividedbythecorrespondingaveragedifferenceineffectivenessperorganization,andquality−adjustedlifeyears(QALYs)weretheprimaryoutcomes.ResultsAttrialcompletion,15organizationswererandomizedtotheIAUconditionand14organizationswererandomizedtotheIAU+P4Pcondition.Datafromall29organizationswereanalyzed.Cluster−levelanalysessuggestedtheP4PstrategyledtosignificantlyhigheraveragetotalcostscomparedtotheIAUcontrolcondition,yetthisaverageincreaseof5200 for each patient who received a specified number of treatment procedures and sessions found to be associated with significantly improved patient outcomes (target A-CRA). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which represent the difference between the two conditions in average cost per treatment organization divided by the corresponding average difference in effectiveness per organization, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the primary outcomes. Results At trial completion, 15 organizations were randomized to the IAU condition and 14 organizations were randomized to the IAU+P4P condition. Data from all 29 organizations were analyzed. Cluster-level analyses suggested the P4P strategy led to significantly higher average total costs compared to the IAU control condition, yet this average increase of 5% resulted in a 116% increase in the average number of months therapists demonstrated competence in treatment delivery (ICER = 333), a 325% increase in the average number of patients who received the targeted dosage of treatment (ICER = 453),anda325453), and a 325% increase in the number of days of abstinence per patient in treatment (ICER = 8.134). Further supporting P4P as a cost-effective implementation strategy, the cost per QALY was only 8681(958681 (95% confidence interval 1191–$16,171). Conclusion This study provides experimental evidence supporting P4P as a cost-effective implementation strategy. Trial registration NCT01016704

    Multivariable Relationships between Patient Characteristics, Type of Lifestyle Modification Program, and Changes in Cardiac Risk Factors over Two Years<sup>a</sup>.

    No full text
    a<p>Statistical significance (Sig.): *p<0.05, †p<0.01, ‡p<0.001.</p>b<p>Reference group is the (MBMI) program.</p>c<p>Quarter denotes quarter year (3-month period).</p>d<p>Reference group is stable angina.</p><p>MBMI is the Benson-Henry Mind/Body Medical Institute. Ornish is The Dean Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease. BMI denotes body mass index; HDL denotes high density lipoprotein; LDL denotes low density lipoprotein; METS denotes metabolic equivalents; PCI is percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG is coronary artery bypass graft surgery; AMI is acute myocardial infarction.</p><p>Multivariable Relationships between Patient Characteristics, Type of Lifestyle Modification Program, and Changes in Cardiac Risk Factors over Two Years<sup><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0114772#nt107" target="_blank">a</a></sup>.</p

    Average Changes in Cardiac Risk Factor Levels from Baseline Values by Program and Time Point.

    No full text
    <p>Statistical significance: N denotes not significant, *p<0.05, †p<0.01, ‡p<0.001.</p><p>MBMI is the Benson-Henry Mind/Body Medical Institute. Ornish is The Dean Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease. BMI is body mass index; SBP is systolic blood pressure; DBP is diastolic blood pressure; mmHg is millimeters mercury; HDL is high density lipoprotein; LDL is low density lipoprotein; METs are metabolic equivalents; mos. denotes months of follow-up; ANY denotes all participants at the follow-up time; FULL denotes participants with final (24 month) data; n denotes the number of participants in that column. Data are not shown for 24 mos. ANY, but the patients and results are very similar to those for 24 mos. FULL.</p><p>Average Changes in Cardiac Risk Factor Levels from Baseline Values by Program and Time Point.</p

    Risk Factor Changes in the Two Lifestyle Modification Programs Based on Multivariable Regressions with Quadratic Terms for Time.

    No full text
    <p>Notes: MBMI denotes the Cardiac Wellness Program of the Benson-Henry Mind Body Institute; Ornish is The Dean Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease. BMI denotes body mass index; LDL denotes low density lipoprotein; HDL denotes high density lipoprotein; SBP denotes systolic blood pressure; DBP denotes diastolic blood pressure.</p

    Baseline Levels of Cardiac Risk Factors.

    No full text
    <p>SD is standard deviation; BMI is body mass index; SBP is systolic blood pressure; DBP is diastolic blood pressure; mmHg is millimeters of mercury; mg/dl is milligrams per deciliter; HDL is high density lipoprotein; LDL is low density lipoprotein; cardiac functional capacity is rated on a 15-point scale; higher scores indicate better cardiac function. MBMI is the Benson-Henry Mind/Body Medical Institute. Ornish is The Dean Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease.</p><p>Baseline Levels of Cardiac Risk Factors.</p

    Proportions of Participants in Each Lifestyle Modification Program at Targeted Risk Factor Levels at Each Time Point.

    No full text
    <p>Notes: Targets defined as body mass index (BMI) < = 25; systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mm Hg; low density lipoprotein (LDL) <100 mg/dl; high density lipoprotein (HDL)>40 mg/dl (male) or>50 mg/dl (female). Mon denotes months. Statistical significance: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, N denotes not significant. McNemar’s chi-square test was used for hypothesis testing. MBMI denotes the Cardiac Wellness Program of the Benson-Henry Mind Body Institute, Ornish is The Dean Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease.</p
    corecore