The role of pay-for-performance in reducing healthcare disparities: A narrative literature review

As American healthcare shifts to value-based payment, Pay-for-Performance (P4P) has become an important and controversial topic. One of the main controversies pertains to its potential to narrow or widen existing healthcare disparities depending on how the program is designed and implemented. It is thus imperative to understand which design features are most likely to reduce disparities. We conducted a systematic literature review from 2004 to 2021 of P4P's impact on disparities. Given the interdisciplinary nature of P4P research, multiple search strategies were combined, and many study designs were eligible for analysis. The literature was then qualitatively analyzed, with themes and major findings developed using Grounded Theory. Six major design features emerged as most promising in leveraging P4P to reduce disparities: 1) Risk/Case-Mix Adjustment; 2) Stratified Performance Measures/Stratification; 3) Disparity Reduction Metrics; 4) Exception Reporting; 5) Pay-for-Improvement; and 6) Population-Specific Metrics. Each design feature has its own mechanism, strengths, and weaknesses. We identify and define these features' direct and indirect effects on healthcare disparities. The interaction of each design feature with one another, with P4P as a whole, and within the larger reimbursement system can have considerable effects on disparities. Promising strategies exist to leverage P4P to narrow disparities for clinically and socially complex patients. The six design features discussed in this review help P4P programs address structural disadvantages faced by such patients and their providers. In regard to health equity, these design features can transform P4P from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.