You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 168 No. 18, October 13, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Investigation
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Tobacco
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Randomized Controlled Trial
 •Alert me on articles by topic

A Randomized Trial of a Pay-for-Performance Program Targeting Clinician Referral to a State Tobacco Quitline

Lawrence C. An, MD; James H. Bluhm, MPH; Steven S. Foldes, PhD; Nina L. Alesci, PhD; Colleen M. Klatt, PhD; Bruce A. Center, PhD; William S. Nersesian, MD, MPH; Mark E. Larson, MBA; Jasjit S. Ahluwalia, MD, MPH; Marc W. Manley, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):1993-1999.

Background  Tobacco quitlines offer clinicians a means to connect their patients with evidence-based treatments. Innovative methods are needed to increase clinician referral.

Methods  This is a clinic randomized trial that compared usual care (n = 25 clinics) vs a pay-for-performance program (intervention) offering $5000 for 50 quitline referrals (n = 24 clinics). Pay-for-performance clinics also received monthly updates on their referral numbers. Patients were eligible for referral if they visited a participating clinic, were 18 years or older, currently smoked cigarettes, and intended to quit within the next 30 days. The primary outcome was the clinic's rate of quitline referral (ie, number of referrals vs number of smokers seen in clinic).

Results  Pay-for-performance clinics referred 11.4% of smokers (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0%-14.9%; total referrals, 1483) compared with 4.2% (95% CI, 1.5%-6.9%; total referrals, 441) for usual care clinics (P = .001). Rates of referral were similar in intervention vs usual care clinics (n = 9) with a history of being very engaged with quality improvement activities (14.1% vs 15.1%, respectively; P = .85). Rates were substantially higher in intervention vs usual care clinics with a history of being engaged (n = 22 clinics; 10.1% vs 3.0%; P = .001) or less engaged (n = 18 clinics; 10.1% vs 1.1%; P = .02) with quality improvement. The rate of patient contact after referral was 60.2% (95% CI, 49.7%-70.7%). Among those contacted, 49.4% (95% CI, 42.8%-55.9%) enrolled, representing 27.0% (95% CI, 21.3%-32.8%) of all referrals. The marginal cost per additional quitline enrollee was $300.

Conclusion  A pay-for-performance program increases referral to tobacco quitline services, particularly among clinics with a history of less engagement in quality improvement activities.


Author Affiliations: Departments of Internal Medicine (Drs An, Klatt, and Ahluwalia) and Family Medicine (Dr Center), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Center for Prevention, Eagan (Mr Bluhm and Drs Foldes, Alesci, and Manley); and Fairview Physicians Associates, Edina, Minnesota (Dr Nersesian and Mr Larson).


RELATED ARTICLE

In This Issue of Archives of Internal Medicine
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):1944.
FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.