Selection incentives in a performance-based contracting system.

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether a performance-based contracting (PBC) system provides incentives for nonprofit providers of substance abuse treatment to select less severe clients into treatment. DATA SOURCES The Maine Addiction Treatment System (MATS) standardized admission and discharge data provided by the Maine Office of Substance Abuse (OSA) for fiscal years 1991-1995, provides demographic, substance abuse, and social functional information on clients of programs receiving public funding. STUDY DESIGN We focused on OSA clients (i.e., those patients whose treatment cost was covered by the funding from OSA) and Medicaid clients in outpatient programs. Clients were identified as being "most severe" or not. We compared the likelihood for OSA clients to be "most severe" before PBC and after PBC using Medicaid clients as the control. Multivariate regression analysis was employed to predict the marginal effect of PBC on the probability of OSA clients being most severe after controlling for other factors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS The percentage of OSA outpatient clients classified as most severe users dropped by 7 percent (p < = 0.001) after the innovation of performance-based contracting compared to the increase of 2 percent for Medicaid clients. The regression results also showed that PBC had a significantly negative marginal effect on the probability of OSA clients being most severe. CONCLUSIONS Performance-based contracting gave providers of substance abuse treatment financial incentives to treat less severe OSA clients in order to improve their performance outcomes. Fewer OSA clients with the greatest severity were treated in outpatient programs with the implementation of PBC. These results suggest that regulators, or payers, should evaluate programs comprehensively taking this type of selection behavior into consideration.

[1]  W. Weissert,et al.  Case mix adjusted nursing-home reimbursement: a critical review of the evidence. , 1992, The Milbank quarterly.

[2]  M. Duggan,et al.  Hospital Ownership and Public Medical Spending , 2000 .

[3]  M. Riordan,et al.  Performance contracting for substance abuse treatment. , 1997, Health services research.

[4]  T. Mcguire,et al.  Hospital response to prospective payment: moral hazard, selection, and practice-style effects. , 1996, Journal of health economics.

[5]  T. Mark,et al.  Spending on mental health and substance abuse treatment, 1987-1997. , 2000, Health affairs.

[6]  Jerrold W. Hill,et al.  Biased Selection in the Tefra HMO/CMP Program , 1990 .

[7]  J. Newhouse Do unprofitable patients face access problems? , 1989, Health care financing review.

[8]  J. Newhouse Reimbursing Health Plans and Health Providers: Efficiency in Production versus Selection , 1996 .

[9]  D. Gerstein,et al.  Treating drug problems. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  J. Wheeler,et al.  Private and Public Ownership in Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment: Do We Have a Two-Tiered System? , 2004, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

[11]  M. Pauly What is adverse about adverse selection? , 1985, Advances in health economics and health services research.

[12]  Mark V. Pauly,et al.  The Not-For-Profit Hospital as a Physicians' Cooperative , 1973 .

[13]  M. Lu,et al.  Separating the True Effect from Gaming in Incentive‐Based Contracts in Health Care , 1999 .

[14]  C. Ma,et al.  Risk selection and matching in performance-based contracting. , 2003, Health economics.