Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Mar 26.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Health Econ. 2018 Jan 23;4(1):105–130. doi: 10.1162/ajhe_a_00095

Table 4.

Results from Regressions Estimating the Effect of P4P on Clinical Quality Outcomes

Panel A: Coefficient Estimates

Physically Restrained Pressure Sores Pain Weight Loss Catheter Inserted Falls
P4P 0.00991***
(0.00124)
−0.00218*
(0.00130)
−0.00510***
(0.00192)
0.00150*
(0.000906)
−0.00162*
(0.000934)
0.00310***
(0.000759)
P4PClinical −0.0207***
(0.00486)
0.00563
(0.00479)
0.0144*
(0.00751)
0.0175***
(0.00324)
0.00232
(0.00295)
0.00866***
(0.00253)
P4PClinicalWeight 0.00523
(0.0139)
−0.0186
(0.0135)
−0.0646***
(0.0207)
−0.0601***
(0.00910)
0.000724
(0.00814)
−0.0278***
(0.00701)
Constant 0.0215**
(0.0102)
0.220***
(0.0176)
0.383***
(0.0184)
0.0165
(0.0133)
0.109***
(0.0160)
0.0487***
(0.00757)
Time FEs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Facility Covariates Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

N 518243 514433 518222 517984 515469 514795
R2 0.146 0.0364 0.0592 0.0274 0.0514 0.00421

Panel B: Range of Effects

Effect given smallest clinical weight (0.10) −0.02021***
(0.00362)
0.00377
(0.00359)
0.00793
(0.00563)
0.01150***
(0.00244)
0.00239
(0.00224)
0.00588***
(0.00192)

Effect given largest clinical weight (0.40) −0.01865***
(0.00223)
−0.00182
(0.00215)
−0.01145***
(0.00301)
−0.00653***
(0.00149)
0.00261*
(0.00137)
−0.00245**
(0.00118)

Notes: Standard errors are clustered at the facility level and shown in parentheses. In Panel B, the effects are relative to having a P4P program that does not reward clinical outcomes.

*

p<.1,

**

p<.05,

***

p<.01