'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.
- Two-Midnight Rule Must be Fixed or Replaced, Say Providers
- The Secret to Physician Engagement? It's Not Better Pay
- 4 Reasons PCMH Principles Aren't Going Away
- Don't Underestimate Emotional Intelligence
- Hospital Groups Strike Back at Hospital Rating Systems
- AHIP: Enormity of HIX Challenges Sinks In
- Yale New Haven Health Partners with Tenet Healthcare in CT
- Evidence-Based Practice and Nursing Research: Avoiding Confusion
- Care Coordination Tough to Define, Measure
- SCOTUS Review of NC Board Case 'A Very Big Deal' to Providers