'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.
- Ebola: Health Officials Try to Quell Front Line Fears
- Readmissions: No Quick Fix to Costly Hospital Challenge
- Reducing Readmissions Starts with Better Collaboration
- Ebola: A New Normal in Dallas
- Defensive Medicine Still Prevalent Despite Tort Reform
- 'Overtreatment' Debate Circles Back to Lung Cancer Screening
- Partners HealthCare M&A Deal Under Scrutiny
- How Telehealth Pays Off for Providers, Patients
- How Educated Nurses Save Money
- Health Literacy Month Gets a Boost from Payers