Pay-for-Performance Study Results 'Sobering'
After six years, the 252 hospitals that participated in Premier Inc.'s large pay-for performance program, on which Medicare's current value-based purchasing rules are based, did not have lower 30-day mortality rates compared with 3,363 non-participating hospitals, according to a Harvard-based report.
The study calls into question whether pay-for-performance models that mostly use process measures translate to better outcomes—in this case the reduction of 30-day mortality rates, said Ashish K. Jha, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health Department of Health Policy and Management, and co-authors.
"These findings are sobering for policymakers who hope to use incentives such as those in Premier HQID to improve patient outcomes, e.g. 30-day mortality," the authors wrote.
Premier Inc., a purchasing and quality alliance with 2,400 hospital members, ran the six-year program, called the Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID), under a contract from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It was based on the hospitals' performance on 33 process measures, such as whether the hospital gave a heart attack patient a fibrinolytic within 30 minutes of arrival, or gave detailed discharge instructions to a heart failure patient.
Over the six years, CMS paid $60 million in incentive payments to 211 of the 242 participating hospitals.
Jha's report was published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
- Readmissions: No Quick Fix to Costly Hospital Challenge
- How Top-Ranked MA Plans Earn Their Stars
- House Calls Key to Pioneer ACO Success
- How Telehealth Pays Off for Providers, Patients
- Ebola: Health Officials Try to Quell Front Line Fears
- Defensive Medicine Still Prevalent Despite Tort Reform
- 4 Ways to Lower the Cost to Collect from Self-Pay Patients
- 'Overtreatment' Debate Circles Back to Lung Cancer Screening
- How Hospitals Can Become 'Upstreamists'
- 4 Tips for Managing Employed Physicians