Abstract:BACKGROUND: In the United States, the shift towards value-based health care seeks to improve patient outcomes while reducing health care spending. Although the federal government has led the implementation of performance-based models for physicians and health care systems, commercial entities have largely been responsible for the development of similar models within pharmacy. For the purposes of this study, performance-based pharmacy payment models (PBPPMs) were defined as prescription drug payment models that determine reimbursement or fees for community pharmacies based in part on measured performance. These PBPPMs incentivize pharmacies to improve patient care by linking reimbursement to performance measures. However, the design and implementation of PBPPMs lack transparency and have not been described in the literature. OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe the structure of PBPPMs in the United States and (2) identify contextual and motivational influences that need to be considered for successful uptake and integration of these models. METHODS: A search of peer-reviewed and grey literature was undertaken. In addition, semi-structured stakeholder interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 17 individuals who were community pharmacists, payers, quality measure developers and vendors, academics, and pharmacy advocacy organization leaders. Data were analyzed to understand the current structure of PBPPMs and opportunities for improvement, as well as implementation considerations that included facilitators, barriers, and key insights. RESULTS: This study identified 4 major components of US PBPPMs: attribution, performance and quality measures, incentive structures, and patient care services. A number of barriers (eg, lack of alignment) and recommendations to improve the current structure of PBPPMs (eg, the need for adequate incentives to facilitate change) were highlighted. Notable implementation considerations centered around (1) establishing common ground among stakeholders to avoid misalignment and encourage engagement; (2) the importance of a quality-driven, innovative, and flexible organizational culture with access to data infrastructure, adjusted workflows, and relevant trainings; (3) supporting the cultural transition to value-based health care; and (4) application of financial incentives at the pharmacy or pharmacist level. CONCLUSIONS: To better develop and implement PBPPMs, it is first critical to understand the key components that define these models and the needed changes to their structure. In addition, identifying the contextual and motivational factors that influence their successful integration can improve future uptake. This study illustrates the landscape of PBPPMs in the United States, as well as makes recommendations for improvement in their design. To improve future development and implementation of these models, the following recommendations are highlighted: (1) increase transparency and alignment of measures with the incentive structure; (2) embrace innovative business models; (3) carefully plan and use roadmaps that outline successful uptake and implementation; and (4) foster culture of quality at all levels of health care. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Pharm-Alliance, an alliance between the pharmacy schools of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Monash University, and University College London. Urick reports consulting fees from Pharmacy Quality Solutions and Cardinal Health, unrelated to this work. The other authors have nothing to disclose. This study was a podium presentation under the title "What Makes Performance-Based Pharmacy Payment Models Work?" at AMCP Nexus Virtual, October 2020.

SETTING PAY FOR PERFORMANCE TARGETS: DO POOR PERFORMERS GIVE UP?

Performance Pay and Productivity in Health Care: Evidence from Community Health Centers

Effect of Financial Bonus Size, Loss Aversion, and Increased Social Pressure on Physician Pay-for-Performance: A Randomized Clinical Trial and Cohort Study

A new look at physicians' responses to financial incentives: Quality of care, practice characteristics, and motivations

Lessons learned from a pay-for-performance scheme for appropriate prescribing using electronic health records from general practices in the Netherlands

Pay-for-Performance Initiatives: Modest Benefits for Improving Healthcare Quality

An Incentive Program with Almost no Incentive: Overlooked Benefits of Pay for Performance

Do Hospitals Alter Patient Care Effort Allocations under Pay-for-Performance?

The effect of performance pay incentives on market frictions: evidence from medicare

Do Physician Organizations Located in Lower Socioeconomic Status Areas Score Lower on Pay-for-Performance Measures?

Does Pay-for-Performance Improve the Quality of Health Care?

Public Performance Metrics: Driving Physician Motivation and Performance

Incentives for physician teams: Effectiveness of performance feedback and payment distribution methods

Access to coronary artery bypass graft surgery under pay for performance: evidence from the premier hospital quality incentive demonstration

Stress in performance-related pay: the effect of payment contracts and social-evaluative threat

The effect of internal salary incentives based on insurance payment on physicians' behavior: experimental evidence

Benefits and costs of pay for performance as perceived by residents: a qualitative study

Performance-based pharmacy payment models: key components and critical implementation considerations for successful uptake and integration

Outcome-Based Reimbursement: The Solution to High Drug Spending?

Results, Knowledge, and Attitudes Regarding an Incentive Compensation Plan in a Hospital-Based, Academic, Employed Physician Multispecialty Group

Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital Pay-for-Performance Incentives