Article

Do hospitals alter patient care effort allocations under pay-for-performance?

Institute for Social Research and Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 10/2010; 46(1 Pt 1):61-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01192.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether hospitals increase efforts on easy tasks relative to difficult tasks to improve scores under pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare data from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005 and 2003 American Hospital Association Annual Survey data.
We classified measures of process compliance targeted by the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration as easy or difficult to improve based on whether they introduce additional per-patient costs. We compared process compliance on easy and difficult tasks at hospitals eligible for P4P bonus payments relative to hospitals engaged in public reporting using random effects regression models.
P4P hospitals did not preferentially increase efforts for easy tasks in patients with heart failure or pneumonia, but they did exhibit modestly greater effort on easy tasks for heart attack admissions. There is no systematic evidence that effort was allocated toward easier processes of care and away from more difficult tasks.
Despite perverse P4P incentives to change allocation of efforts across tasks to maximize performance scores at lowest cost, we find little evidence that hospitals respond to P4P incentives as hypothesized. Alternative incentive structures may motivate greater response by targeted hospitals.

0 Followers
 · 
153 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test whether receiving a financial bonus for quality in the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) stimulated subsequent quality improvement. Hospital-level data on process-of-care quality from Hospital Compare for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia for 260 hospitals participating in the HQID from 2004 to 2006; receipt of quality bonuses in the first 3 years of HQID from the Premier Inc. website; and hospital characteristics from the 2005 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Under the HQID, hospitals received a 1 percent bonus on Medicare payments for scoring between the 80th and 90th percentiles on a composite quality measure, and a 2 percent bonus for scoring at the 90th percentile or above. We used a regression discontinuity design to evaluate whether hospitals with quality scores just above these payment thresholds improved more in the subsequent year than hospitals with quality scores just below the thresholds. In alternative specifications, we examined samples of hospitals scoring within 3, 5, and 10 percentage point "bandwidths" of the thresholds. We used a Generalized Linear Model to estimate whether the relationship between quality and lagged quality was discontinuous at the lagged thresholds required for quality bonuses. There were no statistically significant associations between receipt of a bonus and subsequent quality performance, with the exception of the 2 percent bonus for AMI in 2006 using the 5 percentage point bandwidth (0.8 percentage point increase, p < .01), and the 1 percent bonus for pneumonia in 2005 using all bandwidths (3.7 percentage point increase using the 3 percentage point bandwidth, p < .05). We found little evidence that hospitals' receipt of quality bonuses was associated with subsequent improvement in performance. This raises questions about whether winning in pay-for-performance programs, such as Hospital Value-Based Purchasing, will lead to subsequent quality improvement.
    Health Services Research 08/2013; 49(2). DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12097 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Health Services Research 04/2015; 50(2):321-329. DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12280 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimTo report a concept analysis of nursing-sensitive indicators within the applied context of the acute care setting.Background The concept of ‘nursing sensitive indicators’ is valuable to elaborate nursing care performance. The conceptual foundation, theoretical role, meaning, use and interpretation of the concept tend to differ. The elusiveness of the concept and the ambiguity of its attributes may have hindered research efforts to advance its application in practice.DesignConcept analysis.Data sourcesUsing ‘clinical indicators’ or ‘quality of nursing care’ as subject headings and incorporating keyword combinations of ‘acute care’ and ‘nurs*’, CINAHL and MEDLINE with full text in EBSCOhost databases were searched for English language journal articles published between 2000–2012. Only primary research articles were selected.MethodsA hybrid approach was undertaken, incorporating traditional strategies as per Walker and Avant and a conceptual matrix based on Holzemer's Outcomes Model for Health Care Research.ResultsThe analysis revealed two main attributes of nursing-sensitive indicators. Structural attributes related to health service operation included: hours of nursing care per patient day, nurse staffing. Outcome attributes related to patient care included: the prevalence of pressure ulcer, falls and falls with injury, nosocomial selective infection and patient/family satisfaction with nursing care.Conclusion This concept analysis may be used as a basis to advance understandings of the theoretical structures that underpin both research and practical application of quality dimensions of nursing care performance.
    Journal of Advanced Nursing 08/2014; 70(11). DOI:10.1111/jan.12503 · 1.69 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
46 Downloads
Available from
May 23, 2014