'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.
- No Employee Satisfaction, No Patient-Centered Culture
- RN Named Chief Patient Experience Officer
- How Simple Data Analytics is Driving Physician Incentives
- Medicare to Finally Pay Doctors for Care They Were Giving Away
- AMA Pushes Lame Duck Congress for SGR Repeal
- 3 Ways CFOs Can Help Achieve Physician Alignment
- Quality in Ambulatory Surgical Settings Gets a Closer Look
- CIOs, CMOs Share EHR, Telehealth Adoption Experiences
- Health Plans Braced for Open Enrollment
- How Payers Are Curbing Behavioral-Health Cost Drivers