'No-Pay' Policy for HAIs Does Not Reduce Infections
"For example," they wrote, "despite widespread adoption for pay-for-performance programs by health plans over the past decade, the evidence that they improve patient outcomes, either in primary care settings or hospital settings, is mixed.
Furthermore, the implementation of pay-for-performance programs has not been shown to be efficient or cost-effective."
Additionally "lingering concerns" remain that such penalties, more likely when providers take care of sicker patients, "may lead providers to avoid the most seriously ill patients, which may mitigate any intended beneficial effect of these programs."
Cheryl Clark is senior quality editor and California correspondent for HealthLeaders Media. She is a member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.
- No Employee Satisfaction, No Patient-Centered Culture
- RN Named Chief Patient Experience Officer
- As Retail Clinics Surge, Quality Metrics MIA
- Medicare Cost, Quality Data Tools Weak, Says GAO
- Providers' Push to Consolidate Roils Payers
- Population Health Pays Off for NY Collaborative
- AMA Pushes Lame Duck Congress for SGR Repeal
- How Payers Are Curbing Behavioral-Health Cost Drivers
- How Simple Data Analytics is Driving Physician Incentives
- Medicare to Finally Pay Doctors for Care They Were Giving Away