Health BizHealth Care Access / DisparitiesInsuranceMedicaidMedicare InsuranceCaregivingHospitalsHealth BusinessDisparitiesHealth CostsPublic HealthMedicaid InsuranceSenior HealthMedicare
HealthDay operates under the strictest editorial standards. Our syndicated news content is completely independent of any financial interests, is based solely on industry-respected sources and the latest scientific research, and is carefully fact-checked by a team of industry experts to ensure accuracy.
- All articles are edited and checked for factual accuracy by our Editorial Team prior to being published.
- Unless otherwise noted, all articles focusing on new research are based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals or issued from independent and respected medical associations, academic groups and governmental organizations.
- Each article includes a link or reference to the original source.
- Any known potential conflicts of interest associated with a study or source are made clear to the reader.
Please see our Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy for more detail.Editorial and Fact-Checking Policy
HealthDay Editorial Commitment
HeathDay is committed to maintaining the highest possible levels of impartial editorial standards in the content that we present on our website. All of our articles are chosen independent of any financial interests. Editors and writers make all efforts to clarify any financial ties behind the studies on which we report.
WEDNESDAY, March 28, 2012 (HealthDay News) -- There is no evidence that pay-for-performance programs in U.S. hospitals improve patient survival, a new study says.
Pay-for-performance programs, which pay hospitals to improve their quality of care, have gained wide acceptance in the United States, and Medicare has spent tens of millions of dollars on rewards in this area. The 2010 Affordable Care Act calls for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand pay-for-performance to nearly all hospitals in 2012.
But this Harvard School of Public Health study raises questions about whether this approach actually improves patient care.
The researchers compared 252 hospitals participating in Medicare's pay-for-performance program with hospitals that weren't part of the program. Examining 30-day mortality rates for more than 6 million patients with heart attack, congestive heart failure, pneumonia or coronary artery bypass graft surgery, researchers found no differences in overall survival between the two groups of hospitals.
The researchers also found no differences in results for conditions specifically targeted by the incentive program, such as heart attack and coronary bypass graft surgery.
"These results suggest that the way we have currently conceived of pay-for-performance is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on patient outcomes," lead author Ashish Jha, associate professor of health policy and management at the School of Public Health, said in a university news release.
"We need to better align financial incentives with delivery of high-quality care," Jha said. "This study suggests that in order to improve patient care, we are going to have to work a lot harder to identify and implement an incentive program that works."
The study appears online March 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality offers advice about choosing quality health care.
This story may be outdated. We suggest some alternatives.
The content contained in this article is over two years old. As such our recommendation is that you reference the articles below for the latest updates on this topic. This article has been left on our site as a matter of historic record. Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions.
Updated on June 05, 2022
Read this Next
Other Trending Articles