Intermediate
Performance Measures

Performance Goals

Health System Payment

Payment mechanisms determine how healthcare providers are compensated for delivering services. The method of payment creates powerful incentives that shape provider behavior — influencing what services are offered, how many are provided, and at what level of quality. Payment design is one of the most direct levers policymakers have to align provider behavior with health system goals.

Payment: Provider Payment Methods

Payment: Demand-side Cost Sharing

Empirical Evidence

The Incidence of Adverse Medical Outcomes Under Prospective Payment
Cutler (1995) · Econometrica · United States
Econometric analysis with maximum likelihood estimators exploiting the PPS natural experiment.

Eliminating marginal reimbursement (the core PPS incentive) was associated with a 25% decline in mortality, suggesting that discouraging unnecessary procedures improved outcomes. However, a one standard deviation decrease in average payment led to a 0.5% increase in mortality, indicating financial pressure could harm Quality.

Physician Financial Incentives and Cesarean Section Delivery
Gruber & Owings (1996) · The RAND Journal of Economics · United States
Econometric analysis of nationally representative micro-data exploiting within-state fertility declines as an exogenous income shock.

Strong correlation between within-state fertility declines and within-state increases in cesarean utilization. Since average physician fees for C-sections were roughly one-third higher than vaginal deliveries, the pattern indicated physician-induced demand — providers facing income pressure shifted toward more remunerative procedures.

How Do Hospitals Respond to Price Changes?
Dafny (2005) · American Economic Review · United States
Natural experiment exploiting diagnosis-specific price shocks to identify hospital behavioral responses.

Hospitals responded primarily through 'upcoding' — reclassifying patients to diagnosis codes associated with the largest reimbursement increases — garnering an estimated $330–$425 million in extra annual reimbursement. Response was strongest among for-profit hospitals. Little evidence of changes in admissions volume or clinical intensity.

Impact of Decreasing Copayments on Medication Adherence Within a Disease Management Environment
Chernew et al. (2008) · Health Affairs · United States
Pre-post analysis with comparison group (2003–2005), tracking medication adherence rates across intervention and control populations.

Copayment reductions of $5–$17 per prescription increased medication adherence by 2–4 percentage points, with the largest gains for statins and diabetes medications. The adherence improvement was sustained over the two-year study period.

Effects of Pay for Performance on the Quality of Primary Care in England
Campbell et al. (2009) · The New England Journal of Medicine · England
Interrupted time-series analysis with medical record extraction (1998, 2003, 2005, 2007).

Quality improvement accelerated for incentivized conditions (asthma, diabetes) in the first two years post-implementation. By 2007, the rate of improvement had plateaued for all three conditions studied. Quality of care for aspects not linked to incentives declined for patients with asthma and heart disease.

The Long-Term Effect of Premier Pay for Performance on Patient Outcomes
Jha et al. (2012) · The New England Journal of Medicine · United States
Observational comparison of 30-day mortality among 6+ million patients at 252 P4P hospitals vs. 3,363 control hospitals (2003–2009).

After six years, 30-day mortality was virtually identical between Premier P4P and non-P4P hospitals (11.82% vs. 11.74%). No evidence that the program reduced mortality for AMI, heart failure, pneumonia, or CABG surgery.

Increases In Consumer Cost Sharing Redirect Patient Volumes And Reduce Hospital Prices For Orthopedic Surgery
Robinson & Brown (2013) · Health Affairs · United States
Pre-post analysis with difference-in-differences comparing CalPERS enrollees to a control group (2008-2012).

The share of CalPERS patients choosing high-price hospitals fell from 48% to 28%. Average hospital prices for these procedures declined by $1,741 (5.6%) as hospitals lowered prices to stay below the reference threshold. Total savings exceeded $2.8 million in the first year with no measurable reduction in quality.

Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes
Dummit et al. (2016) · JAMA · United States
Difference-in-differences comparing BPCI-participating hospitals to matched non-participating hospitals (2011–2015).

Participating hospitals reduced average episode payments by $1,166 (3.7%) relative to controls, primarily through reduced post-acute care spending (shorter skilled nursing facility stays, more home health). No significant change in complication rates, emergency department visits, or readmissions.

Hospital Volume Thresholds and Mortality: Has the Empirical Evidence Changed over Time?
Hogan & Morrison (2017) · Health Affairs (Maryland All-Payer Model evaluation series) · United States
Pre-post analysis of hospital financial and utilization data under Maryland's Global Budget Revenue model (2014–2016).

Under global budgets, Maryland hospitals reduced potentially avoidable utilization — readmissions fell, emergency department visits declined, and per-capita hospital expenditure growth was constrained below national trends. Hospitals shifted focus toward population health and care coordination to manage within fixed budgets.