Study Suggests that Pay for Performance Incentives for Hospitals Is Not Leading to Better Patient Outcomes
Posted Apr 02 2012 4:49pm
Back in January of 2011 we had another study saying the same thing so we can add one more bit of information to the theories that pay for performance are worthwhile?
Does this further suggest that insurers all over are not getting their money’s worth? If hear from their side, which if focused on reimbursements you might hear a different story but I’ll take the clinical side any day as we know all about the algorithms built for profit and it’s getting harder to do both with better clinical outcomes and at the same time apply fixes for the payments. Sure hospitals are getting to be a lot smarter with “running the business” but what are we here for, better outcomes or better financial management and you sometimes wonder about the financial side as hospitals are still going broke all over. BD
(Reuters) - A program to pay hospitals bonuses for hitting key performance measures, or dock them if they miss, failed to improve the health outcomes of patients, according to a large, long-term study.
The study could lead to a re-examination of financial incentives in healthcare, as policymakers seek ways to reward results rather than paying doctors and other providers for each service they provide, such as a diagnostic test.
Such an incentive program for hospitals is a key provision of the U.S. healthcare overhaul law that is being challenged this week before the Supreme Court.
The study looked at pay-for-performance incentives similar to those in the law and found no evidence that the program helped more patients live longer. It was published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.