Premier Pay for Performance and Patient Outcomes

To the Editor: The statement by Jha et al. (April 26 issue) 1 that pay for performance has a null effect on hospital mortality forces us to ask what initiatives were in place from private payers among both the Medicare Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) hospitals and the non-Pre...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe New England journal of medicine Vol. 367; no. 4; pp. 381 - 383
Main Authors Rodriguez, Sandra, Rafelson, William, Rajput, Vijay, Kavanagh, Kevin T, Bankowitz, Richard, Kroch, Eugene, Jha, Ashish K, Joynt, Karen E, Epstein, Arnold M
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Massachusetts Medical Society 26.07.2012
Subjects
Hospital Mortality
Hospitals
Hospitals - standards
Humans
Pay for performance
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Reimbursement, Incentive
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:To the Editor: The statement by Jha et al. (April 26 issue) 1 that pay for performance has a null effect on hospital mortality forces us to ask what initiatives were in place from private payers among both the Medicare Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) hospitals and the non-Premier hospitals. Because it is estimated that by 2006 more than 80% of the customers of health-maintenance organizations had insurers that were using pay for performance, the reason for the null effect may be that both groups had quality-improvement programs in place before that time. 2 An incentive from the Medicare Premier program, . . .
Bibliography:SourceType-Other Sources-1
content type line 63
ObjectType-Correspondence-1
ObjectType-Commentary-2
ISSN:0028-4793
1533-4406
DOI:10.1056/NEJMc1206170