The Trouble With Pay-for-Performance
"Providers want to be ahead of the curve, and participate in these new payment models to get some learning experience so they'll be ready, but it's not clear that these models are in their best interest to participate in," he says.
Wanted: A More Cooperative Relationship with Payers
"Anything that's entirely voluntary won't get much momentum, and ultimately, if it's not in providers' financial interest, they'll stop participating." P4P programs are a poor motivator not only because they are limited in revenue scope, but also because they have been seen by insurers as the best they could do to influence providers to improve, he says.
"That's the reason why they're doing this," he says. "Something must be done. This is something, therefore this must be done," he jokes. "Other valid reforms are more challenging."
Ryan advocates a more cooperative relationship with payers, which includes intensive technical assistance, coaching, and learning collaboratives.
"The easiest thing for payers to do is to change how they pay, so we have this generation of P4P programs," he says. "It's hard to argue with the concept but there are so many ways it can fail, so there's some opportunity cost for policymakers and payers."
Ryan says the cost of doing less than optimal programs to improve quality is that they take away momentum and enthusiasm for programs that might be more beneficial.
"I wouldn't say we should abandon P4P, but we should think about these tradeoffs."
Philip Betbeze is senior leadership editor with HealthLeaders Media.
- Ratcheting Up Patient Experience Has a Downside
- Narrow Networks Enjoying a Resurgence
- 'Mega Boards' Could be Rural Healthcare Disruptor
- 12 Hires to Keep Your Hospital Out of Trouble
- Meaningful Use Payment Adjustments Begin
- HL20: Lee Aase—Who's Behind @MayoClinic
- HL20: Anne Wojcicki—Unlocking Consumer Access to Genetics
- Taming Time and Moving Healthcare Data
- Christmas Tree Syndrome Season Underway
- In 2015, Target Online Security or Be a Target