'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.
- Reform Puts Vise Grips on Physicians
- Look Beyond Nurse-Patient Ratios
- Medicare Opt-Out a Viable Physician Strategy
- NPP Demand Rising Under Value-Based Care Models
- How Physicians Can Help Ease Mental Health Provider Shortages
- Boston Marathon Bombing Yields Lessons for Hospitals
- Providers Lag as Consumers Set Agenda
- Esther Dyson Launches Population Health Challenge
- Physicians as Economic Powerhouses and Tech Laggards
- Hospital Groups Back NQF Report on Patient Sociodemographics