'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.
- CMS Sets 2014 Pay Rates for Hospital Outpatient and Physician Services
- New G-Codes to Pay Doctors for Broad Array of Non-Face-to-Face Care
- States Rejecting Medicaid Expansion Forgo Billions in Federal Funds
- FDA hopes hospitals will switch to newly regulated pharmacies
- Douglas Hawthorne—A Chance to Do Something Big
- Not-for-Profit Hospitals Find Opportunity Amid Uncertainty
- Why You Should Involve Patients in Nursing Handoffs
- 'Country Doctor of the Year' Embraces Challenges of Rural Medicine
- The 5 Biggest Healthcare Finance Trouble Spots
- Substance Abuse Resurfaces Among Anesthesiologists in Training