Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management (한국보건행정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reviews of Pay-for-Performance and Suggestion for Korean Value Incentive Program

외국의 성과연동지불제도 현황과 가감지급사업의 발전방향

  • Yoon, Hyo Jung (Department of Public Health, Yonsei University Graduate School) ;
  • Park, Eun-Cheol (Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University)
  • 윤효정 (연세대학교 대학원 보건학과) ;
  • 박은철 (연세대학교 보건정책 및 관리연구소)
  • Received : 2017.03.22
  • Accepted : 2017.04.18
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The effort to measure and improve the quality of healthcare is a common health policy issue worldwide. Korean Value Incentive Programme is one of that effort, but some concerns exist. Compared to pay for performance program in other countries, it measures healthcare quality with relatively narrow performance domain using a small number of clinical indicators. It was designed without involving hospitals and other key stakeholder, and program participation was mandated. Highest and lowest performers get bonus and penalty using relative ranking. As a suggestion for development, the direction for quality management at the national level should be given first. Therefore the philosophy or strategy for quality improvement should be reflected to the program. And various domains and indicators of healthcare quality should be developed with active communication with healthcare providers. The evaluation method is necessary to be changed to provide achievable goal to the healthcare providers and attract quality improvement.

Keywords

References

  1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Health at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing; 2015.
  2. Park EC. Problems and future directions for quality evaluation of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. J Korean Med Assoc 2015;58(3):176-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2015.58.3.176.
  3. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Value for money in health spending. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing; 2010.
  4. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, World Health Organization. Paying for performance in health care: implications for health system performance and accountability. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.
  5. Ministry of Health and Welfare. 2015 Health and welfare white paper. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2016.
  6. Lee JY, Lee SI, Kim NS, Kim SH, Son WS, Jo MW. Healthcare organizations' attitudes toward pay-for-performance in Korea. Health Policy 2012;108(2-3):277-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.09.002.
  7. Kim KS. Future directions for the healthcare quality assessment in NHI. Health Welf Policy Forum 2013;(202):48-60.
  8. Kang HJ, Yoon SJ, Ha SI, Ko SK, Seo HY. Policy issues for measuring the quality of health care across Korea: designing a national healthcare quality report. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2013.
  9. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Better ways to pay for health care. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing; 2016.
  10. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Results of acute myocardial infarction evaluation as of 2013. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2013.
  11. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Results of cesarean delivery as of 2013. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2013.
  12. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Results of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis evaluation as of 2014. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2015.
  13. Eijkenaar F, Emmert M, Scheppach M, Schoffski O. Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Health Policy 2013;110(2-3):115-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol. 2013.01.008.
  14. Dudley RA, Frolich A, Robinowitz DL, Talavera JA, Broadhead P, Luft HS. Strategies to support quality-based purchasing: a review of the evidence. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004.
  15. Town R, Kane R, Johnson P, Butler M. Economic incentives and physicians' delivery of preventive care: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2005;28(2):234-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.013.
  16. Van Herck P, De Smedt D, Annemans L, Remmen R, Rosenthal MB, Sermeus W. Systematic review: effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-247.
  17. Steel N, Willems S. Research learning from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework: a review of existing research. Qual Prim Care 2010; 18(2):117-125.
  18. Schatz M. Does pay-for-performance influence the quality of care? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;8(3):213-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1097/ACI.0b013e3282fe9d1a. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0b013e3282fe9d1a
  19. Armour BS, Pitts MM. Physician financial incentives in managed care. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2003;11(3):139-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200311030-00001.
  20. Christianson JB, Leatherman ST, Sutherland K; Health Foundation. Financial incentives, healthcare providers and quality improvements: a review of the evidence. London: Health Foundation; 2007.
  21. Kim Y, Jo MW, Oh MK, Lee CE, Ok MS. Development of 2-step model for medical evaluation support fund. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2015.
  22. Kim KH, Kim HN, Lee JC. Current issues and future perspectives of quality assessment system in National Health Insurance Law: focusing on healthcare benefit quality assessment. Dankkok Law Rev 2012; 36(2):691-714.
  23. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. HIRA, healthcare quality assessment plan for 2016. Wonju: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2016.