'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.
- Healthcare Leaders Seek Strategic Sweet Spot
- 3 Reasons Wellness Programs Fail
- CMS Issues Health Insurance Exchange Proposed Rules
- Patients Shoulder Nearly 25% of Medical Bills
- ACOs Widespread, Yet Challenged
- MGMA: Physician Compensation Increasingly Based on Quality Measures
- HFMA: Patient Financial Interaction Guidelines Sharpened
- Data Collaborative Taps Predictive Analytics to Coordinate Care
- HFMA: Revenue Cycle, Reimbursements Share the Spotlight
- Physician Pay Will Soon Depend on Outcomes