QSHC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Millenson, M L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Millenson, M L
Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:323-324
© 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute for Healthcare Improvement


EDITORIAL

Pay for performance

Pay for performance: the best worst choice

M L Millenson

Correspondence to:
M L Millenson
The Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; m-millenson@northwestern.edu


A new concept in healthcare reimbursement that links payment and adherence to safety and quality standards

Keywords: pay for performance ("P4P"); organisation of health care; quality improvement

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Pay for performance ("P4P") is the latest catch phrase to cross over from the world of commerce to the work of clinicians. The basic concept is simple: rather than paying for care by the piecework method (fee for service) or using administered price arrangements (for example, daily rates, fee schedules and capitation), reimbursement should be linked at least in part to adherence to safety and quality measures.

According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, typical measures center on utilization and cost management (for example, average number of emergency department visits per patient per year); clinical quality/effectiveness (for example, the percentage of patients with asthma on controller medications); patient satisfaction (for example, the percentage of patients who would recommend the physician to a family member or friend); administrative (for example, the practice’s level of information technology); and patient safety (for example, the percentage of patients questioned about . . . [Full text of this article]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NEJMHome page
P. K. Lindenauer, D. Remus, S. Roman, M. B. Rothberg, E. M. Benjamin, A. Ma, and D. W. Bratzler
Public Reporting and Pay for Performance in Hospital Quality Improvement
N. Engl. J. Med., February 1, 2007; 356(5): 486 - 496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
American Journal of Medical QualityHome page
C. N. Sciamanna, K. Alvarez, J. Miller, T. Gary, and M. Bowen
Attitudes toward nurse practitioner-led chronic disease management to improve outpatient quality of care.
American Journal of Medical Quality, November 1, 2006; 21(6): 375 - 381.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
W. Hersh
Health Care Information Technology: Progress and Barriers
JAMA, November 10, 2004; 292(18): 2273 - 2274.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2004 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.