'No-Pay' Policy for HAIs Does Not Reduce Infections
"Payment reductions were negligible, (.001%, or $.1 million—equivalent to $1.1 million nationwide) and are unlikely to encourage providers to improve quality," they wrote.
However, Harvard researchers may be confounded by results of a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Associationin May, 2012.
That report said that because of the no-payment policy, 81% of infection control experts said they were much more likely to focus on preventing hospital acquired infections, although only 15% said their organizations spent more money on it.
Those responding to the survey reported, however, that they were much more likely to remove urinary and central venous catheters when no longer needed to reduce the chance of infection and resource shifting was more common.
Jha and colleagues want policymakers to consider the impact these penalty and incentive initiatives are having on health outcomes before expanding the program to other aspects of care.
- 'Mega Boards' Could be Rural Healthcare Disruptor
- 1 in 5 Eligible Hospitals Penalized for HACs
- HL20: Rebecca Katz—Cooking Up Sustainable Nourishment
- Meaningful Use Payment Adjustments Begin
- HL20: Peter Semczuk, DDS, MPH—Taking on the Big Challenges
- PA hospital to pay $662,000 to settle Medicare fraud case
- Supreme Court to hear Obamacare subsidy challenge in March
- Dr. Oz gets fact-checked and the results aren't pretty
- How the high cost of medical care is affecting Americans
- HL20: Lee Aase—Who's Behind @MayoClinic