'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.
- CNO Leads $1M Charge for New Scrubs, Uniforms
- Sharp HealthCare Leaves Pioneer ACO Program
- Targeting Self-Insured Populations
- MA an Insurance Proving Ground for Providers
- Acute Kidney Injury Gets New Focus
- mHealth Tackles Readmissions
- States Without Medicaid Expansion Search for Alternatives
- 'Kafkaesque' Value System Unfairly Penalizes Doctor Pay
- Half of All Primary Care, Internal Medicine Jobs Unfilled in 2013
- Interventional Radiology No Longer a Sub-Specialty