'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.
- Governors Push to Expand Role of PAs, Telemedicine
- 3 More Pioneer ACOs Say They Will Quit
- Why Open Payments Irks Physicians
- Telemetry Overuse Cost Health System $4.8 Million in One Year
- Ebola in the U.S.: Reason to Fear, to Hope, to Prepare
- Top Provider Billing Mistakes Are Changing
- Overcoming a Payer Mix 'Nightmare'
- Employee Engagement: Make It Meaningful
- Difficult Patients: It's Not Them, It's You, Doctor
- IV Fluids Shortage Continues