가감지급사업에 대한 학계 및 소비자단체와 보건의료관련단체의 인식도 조사
Awareness of Medical Academic Societies, Consumer Organizations and Others Including Special Interest Groups and Institutes in Healthcare Sector Concerning the Pay-for-Performance in Korea
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
Objectives: To investigate and compare the awareness of medical academic societies, consumer organizations and others including special interest groups and institutes in healthcare sector on the payfor- performance (P4P) program of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA) in Korea. Methods: A cross-sectional, self-administered, the internet based survey was conducted from September to November in 2010. The questionnaire consisted of 6 dimensions which contained awareness and agreement about the program, preferred design features and the possible effects and unintended consequences of the P4P program. Results: 8 medical academic societies, 2 consumer organizations, 1 special interest group and 1 institute in healthcare sector participated in the survey. 6 medical academic societies and 1 consumer organization opposed the P4P program. The major reasons of objections to the P4P program were the possibility of strengthening government control by implementing P4P and the flawed standards of assessment that would fail to accurately evaluate the quality of care. Furthermore the medical academic societies which opposed the P4P answered that the program would not have a significant economic impact, lead to no change of the practice behaviors to fulfill the evaluation standard of the P4P, and fail to improve the quality of care. Not only medical academic societies but also the other organizations except one consumer organization had considerable concerns about unintended consequences of the P4P program. Conclusion: This is the first survey about the awareness of medical academic societies, consumer organizations and others including special interest groups and institutes in healthcare sector on the P4P in Korea. As P4P implementing agency such as HIRA continues to expand the P4P program, it is necessary to obtain their opinions and discuss ways to prepare for the expected problems.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate and compare the awareness of medical academic societies, consumer organizations and others including special interest groups and institutes in healthcare sector on the payfor- performance (P4P) program of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA) in Korea. Methods: A cross-sectional, self-administered, the internet based survey was conducted from September to November in 2010. The questionnaire consisted of 6 dimensions which contained awareness and agreement about the program, preferred design features and the possible effects and unintended consequences of the P4P program. Results: 8 medical academic societies, 2 consumer organizations, 1 special interest group and 1 institute in healthcare sector participated in the survey. 6 medical academic societies and 1 consumer organization opposed the P4P program. The major reasons of objections to the P4P program were the possibility of strengthening government control by implementing P4P and the flawed standards of assessment that would fail to accurately evaluate the quality of care. Furthermore the medical academic societies which opposed the P4P answered that the program would not have a significant economic impact, lead to no change of the practice behaviors to fulfill the evaluation standard of the P4P, and fail to improve the quality of care. Not only medical academic societies but also the other organizations except one consumer organization had considerable concerns about unintended consequences of the P4P program. Conclusion: This is the first survey about the awareness of medical academic societies, consumer organizations and others including special interest groups and institutes in healthcare sector on the P4P in Korea. As P4P implementing agency such as HIRA continues to expand the P4P program, it is necessary to obtain their opinions and discuss ways to prepare for the expected problems.
참고문헌 (17)
- Glickman SW, "Innovative health reform models: payfor-performance initiatives", Am J Manag Care, 15(10 Suppl), pp.S300~S305 (2009)
- Brown JA, "The Healthcare Quality Handbook: A Professional Resource and Study Guide. 24th Annual ed", JB Quality Solutions, Inc, ~ (2010)
- "Practice Incentives Program (PIP) payments and calculations"[URL]
- Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, "Achievement and Future of Korean Value Incentive Programme", J Kor Soc Qual Assur Health Care, 17, pp.5~20 (2011)
- The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, "OECD Reviews of Health Care Quality: Korea Raising Standards", ~ (2010)
- "‘13년 하반기 『외래 약제적정정평가 가감지급 사업 계획』 안내", 건강보험심사평가원[URL]
- Casalino LP, "General internists’views on pay-for-performance and public reporting of quality scores:a national survey", Health Aff (Millwood), 26, pp.492~499 (2007)
- McDonald R, "Pay for performance in primary care in England and California: comparison of unintended consequences", Ann Fam Med, 7, pp.121~127 (2009)
- Young GJ, "Pioneering pay-for-quality: lessons from the rewarding results demonstrations", Health Care Financ Rev, 29, pp.59~70 (2007)
- Kaczorowski J, "Pay-for-performance incentives for preventive care: views of family physicians before and after participation in a reminder and recall project (P-PROMPT)", Can Fam Physician, 57, pp.690~696 (2011)
- Lee JY, "Healthcare organizations’attitudes toward pay-for-performance in Korea", Health Policy, 108, pp.277~285 (2012)
- Hillman AL, "Physician financial incentives and feedback: failure to increase cancer screening in Medicaid managed care", Am J Public Health, 88, pp.1699~1701 (1998)
- 이진용, "가감지급사업에 대한 요양병원의 인식도 조사", 병원경영학회지, 18(1), pp.42~58 (2013), 한국병원경영학회
- Damberg CL, "Taking stock of payfor-performance: a candid assessment from the front lines", Health Aff (Millwood), 28, pp.517~525 (2009)
- Reiter KL, "Hospital responses to pay-for-performance incentives", Health Serv Manage Res, 19, pp.123~134 (2006)
- Roberts A, "Integrating strategy with performance measures", Management Development Review, 7, pp.13~15 (1994)
- Smith P, "On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector", Int J Public Adm, 18, pp.277~310 (1995)