Association of physician financial incentives with primary care enrolment of adults with serious mental illnesses in Ontario: a retrospective observational population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Financial incentives may improve primary care access for adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (serious mental illness [SMI]). We studied the association between receipt of the SMI financial premium paid to primary care physicians and rostering of adults with SMI in different patient enrolment models (PEMs), including enhanced fee-for-service and capitation-based models with and without interdisciplinary team-based care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving Ontario adults (≥18 yr) with SMI in PEM practices, in fiscal years 2016/17 and 2017/18. Using negative binomial models, we examined relations between rostering and the primary care model and the contribution of the incentive. Similar models were developed for adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus and the general population. RESULTS: Among 9730 physicians in PEM practices, 4866 (50.0%) received a premium and 448 319 (88.4%) people with SMI in PEMs were rostered. Compared with enhanced fee for service, the likelihood of rostering people with SMI was 3.0% higher for patients in capitation with team-based care (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.04), with similar results for capitation without team-based care (adjusted RR 1.00 95% CI 0.99-1.01). Rostering for people with diabetes was similar in team-based care (adjusted RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03) but higher in capitation without team-based care (adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.03) and slightly higher for the Ontario population (team-based care 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-1.05, capitation without team-based care 1.03, 95% CI 1.03-1.04). INTERPRETATION: Rostering of people with SMI was lower than for the general population. Additional policy measures are needed to address persisting inequities and to promote rostering of this underserved population with complex needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".