The impact of primary care reform on health system performance in Canada: A systematic review

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Carter, Renee ^a   Riverin, Bruno ^a   Levesque, Jean Frédéric ^b,c   Gariepy, Geneviève ^a   Quesnel Vallée, Amélie ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Bureau of Health Information   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Canada; Payment models; Primary care reform; Team based practice

Indexed keywords

CANADA; DIABETES MELLITUS; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT CARE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REIMBURSEMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION;

CANADA; DIABETES MELLITUS; EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; HEALTH CARE REFORM; HEALTH SERVICES; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; PATIENT CARE TEAM; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS;

EID: 84982824795     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1571-7     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Aggarwal, M. and B. Hutchison, Toward a primary care strategy for Canada. 2012, Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement
2. Health Canada. Objectives of the PHCTF. 2004 August 20, 2014]; Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/prim/phctf-fassp/object-eng.php.
3. Hutchison B, et al. Primary health care in Canada: systems in motion. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):256-88.
4. Merrell K, Berenson RA. Structuring Payment For Medical Homes. Health Aff. 2010;29(5):852-8.
5. Suter E, et al. Comparative review of the policy landscape of team-based primary health care service delivery in western Canada. Alberta: Alberta Health Services. 2014.
6. Strumpf E, et al. Innovative and diverse strategies toward primary health care reform: lessons learned from the Canadian experience. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25 Suppl 1:S27-33.
7. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9. w64.
8. Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-15.
9. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. Data Collection Checklist. In: Mayhew A, editor. Ottawa: University of Ottawa; 2002.
10. Balshem H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401-6.
11. Kiran T, et al. Effect of payment incentives on cancer screening in Ontario primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(4):317-23.
12. Li J, et al. PHYSICIAN response to pay-for-performance: Evidence from a natural experiment. Health Econ U K. 2014;23(8):962-78.
13. Kantarevic J, Kralj B. Link between pay for performance incentives and physician payment mechanisms: Evidence from the diabetes management incentive in Ontario. Health Econ U K. 2013;22(12):1417-39.
14. Kiran T, et al. The relationship between financial incentives and quality of diabetes care in Ontario, Canada. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(5):1038-46.
15. Jaakkimainen RL, et al. Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:44.
16. Kantarevic, J. and B. Kralj. Physician payment contracts in the presence of moral hazard and adverse selection: the theory and its application in Ontario. Health economics, 2015: p. n/a-n/a.
17. Kantarevic J, Kralj B. Risk selection and cost shifting in a prospective physician payment system: Evidence from Ontario. Health Policy. 2014;115(2-3):249-57.
18. Kralj B, Kantarevic J. Quality and quantity in primary care mixed-payment models: Evidence from family health organizations in Ontario. Can J Econ. 2013;46(1):208-38.
19. Kantarevic J, Kralj B, Weinkauf D. Enhanced fee-for-service model and physician productivity: Evidence from Family Health Groups in Ontario. J Health Econ. 2011;30(1):99-111.
20. Manns BJ, et al. Enrolment in primary care networks: impact on outcomes and processes of care for patients with diabetes. CMAJ. 2012;184(2):E144-52.
21. Heroux J, et al. Marginal structural models for skewed outcomes: Identifying causal relationships in health care utilization. Stat Med. 2014;33(7):1205-21.
22. Campbell DJ, et al. Association of enrolment in primary care networks with diabetes care and outcomes among First Nations and low-income Albertans. Open Med. 2012;6(4):e155-65.
23. Levesque JF, et al. Variations in patients' assessment of chronic illness care across organizational models of primary health care: a multilevel cohort analysis. Healthc Policy. 2012;8(2):e108-23.
24. Feldman DE, et al. Primary healthcare organization and quality-of-life outcomes for persons with chronic disease. Healthc Policy. 2012;7(3):59-72.
25. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
26. Davis K, Guterman S. Rewarding excellence and efficiency in medicare payments. Milbank Q. 2007;85(3):449-68.
27. Jackson GL, et al. Improving patient care. The patient centered medical home. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):169-78.
28. Vérificateur général du Québec. Goupes de médecine de famille et cliniques-réseau. Rapport du Vérificateur général du Québec à l'Assemblée nationale pour l'année 2015-2016. Québec. 2015.
29. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003.
30. Mian O, Koren I, Rukholm E. Nurse practitioners in Ontario primary healthcare: Referral patterns and collaboration with other healthcare professionals. J Interprof Care. 2012;26(3):232-9.
31. Beaulieu M.-D, et al. L'implantation des Groupes de médecine de famille: le défi de la réorganisation de la pratique et de la collaboration interprofessionnelle. Montréal: Université de Montréal. 2006.