<< Stroke risk for sickle cell children with early complications | Utah Senate approves bill to establish Medicaid preferred drugs >>
Read in | English | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 简体中文 | 繁體中文 | Nederlands | Ελληνικά | עִבְרִית | Bahasa | Русский | Svenska | Polski

Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement

Published on January 30, 2007 at 3:58 AM · No Comments

A Medicare pay-for-performance pilot project that rewards hospitals based on quality measures contributes to "modest" improvements in quality of care, according to a study published online Friday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Wall Street Journal reports (Tomsho, Wall Street Journal, 1/29).

The project, which launched in October 2003, includes about 260 hospitals in 38 states. Under the program, hospitals can earn bonuses if they rank among the top 20% in providing specified treatments in at least one of five areas of patient care: joint replacement, coronary artery bypass graft, heart attack, heart failure and pneumonia. CMS officials on Friday announced that the three-year pay-for-performance pilot program has improved patient care. CMS officials on Friday also announced that performance bonuses of $8.7 million will be awarded to 115 hospitals that were the top performers based on 30 quality measures in the second year of the project. Premier, a not-for-profit hospital alliance, is managing the program (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 1/25). For the NEJM study, researchers compared results over a two-year period from 207 hospitals taking part in the CMS project with 406 hospitals that were not offered quality-care reimbursements. Both groups of hospitals were participating in efforts to publicize quality-of-care data. The study found that hospitals in the pay-for-performance program had greater improvement overall in all combined measures of quality. Researchers found that hospitals involved in the pay-for-performance program had a 2.6% improvement in treatment for heart attack patients and a 3.4% improvement in care for pneumonia patients compared with hospitals not in the program (Wall Street Journal, 1/29). The bonuses were relatively small, accounting for 1% to 2% of the cost of providing care for patients with one of the evaluated conditions.

Comments
The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.



  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading