'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.
- 3 Favorite Nursing Trends of 2013
- Premier: ACOs Poised for Growth
- SGR Bill's Payment Transparency Provision Elicits Concern
- Your Meetings are Wasting Big Money
- AAFP: 72% of Patients Prefer Physicians to NPs
- 7 Signs Providers Are Opening Up About Bad Healthcare Outcomes
- Hospital Compare Adds Infection, Stroke, Readmissions Data
- ICD-10: Minimizing the Financial Hit
- Intelligence Report: Cost-Containment Expertise
- HL20: Jeffrey Brenner, MD—Providing Better Care to Complex Patients