Financial Interventions to Improve Screening in Primary Care

Introduction

Although health screenings offer timely detection of health conditions and enable early intervention, adoption is often poor. How might financial interventions create the necessary incentives and resources to improve screening in primary care settings? This systematic review aimed to answer this question.

Methods

Peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2023 were identified and categorized by the level of intervention (practice or individual) and type of intervention, specifically alternative payment models (APMs), fee-for-service (FFS), capitation, and capital investments. Outcomes included frequency of screening, performance/quality of care (e.g., patient satisfaction, health outcomes), and workflow changes (e.g., visit length, staffing).

Results

Of 51 included studies, a majority focused on practice-level interventions (n=32), used APMs (n=41) that involved payments for achieving key performance indicators (KPIs; n=31) and were of low or very low strength of evidence based on GRADE criteria (n=42). Studies often included screenings for cancer (n=32), diabetes care (n=18), and behavioral health (n=15). KPI payments to both practices and individual providers corresponded with increased screening rates, whereas capitation and provider-level FFS models yielded mixed results. A large majority of studies assessed changes in screening rates (n=48) with less focus on quality of care (n=11) or workflow changes (n=4).

Discussion

Financial mechanisms can enhance screening rates with evidence strongest for KPI payments to both practices and individual providers. Future research should explore the relationship between financial interventions and quality of care, in terms of both clinical processes and patient outcomes, as well as the role of these interventions in shaping care delivery.