'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.
- 3 More Pioneer ACOs Say They Will Quit
- Telemetry Overuse Cost Health System $4.8 Million in One Year
- Governors Push to Expand Role of PAs, Telemedicine
- IV Fluids Shortage Continues
- Ebola in the U.S.: Reason to Fear, to Hope, to Prepare
- Why Open Payments Irks Physicians
- Difficult Patients: It's Not Them, It's You, Doctor
- Proton Beam Therapy Center Closure Illuminates Costs
- How the slowdown in Medicare spending is affecting hospitals
- More New Orleans-area doctors indicted by feds in $50 million Medicare fraud case