Skip to main content
. 2015 Sep 21;187(17):E494–E502. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150579

Table 3:

Association between enrolment in payment model and chronic disease management and prevention, as of Mar. 31, 2011

Type of screening and payment model Crude rate, % Type of analysis;* RR (95% CI)
Unadjusted Adjusted for patient characteristics Adjusted for patient and physician characteristics
Recommended testing for diabetes
Team-based capitation 39.7 1.24 (1.20 to 1.28) 1.24 (1.20 to 1.28) 1.22 (1.18 to 1.25)
Non–team-based capitation 36.2 1.12 (1.09 to 1.15) 1.12 (1.09 to 1.15) 1.10 (1.07 to 1.14)
Enhanced fee for service 31.6 Reference Reference Reference
Cervical cancer screening
Team-based capitation 69.2 1.07 (1.06 to 1.09) 0.99 (0.99 to 1.00) 1.00 (0.99 to 1.01)
Non–team-based capitation 67.5 1.05 (1.04 to 1.06) 1.00 (1.00 to 1.01) 1.01 (1.00 to 1.02)
Enhanced fee for service 66.3 Reference Reference Reference
Breast cancer screening
Team-based capitation 76.6 1.10 (1.09 to 1.11) 1.08 (1.07 to 1.09) 1.06 (1.06 to 1.07)
Non–team-based capitation 74.5 1.07 (1.06 to 1.08) 1.05 (1.04 to 1.06) 1.04 (1.03 to 1.05)
Enhanced fee for service 71.5 Reference Reference Reference
Colorectal cancer screening
Team-based capitation 63.0 1.08 (1.06 to 1.09) 1.05 (1.03 to 1.06) 1.03 (1.02 to 1.04)
Non–team-based capitation 63.5 1.08 (1.07 to 1.10) 1.05 (1.04 to 1.07) 1.04 (1.03 to 1.05)
Enhanced fee for service 60.9 Reference Reference Reference

Note: CI = confidence interval, RR = relative risk.

*

Adjustment was performed with Poisson regression models, using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering at the physician level.

Adjustment for the following patient characteristics: age, rurality, income quintile, morbidity (resource utilization band) and immigration status.

Adjustment for the following physician characteristics: age, sex, number of rostered patients and whether a Canadian medical graduate.