 |
|
Consequences of the Quality Improvement Revolution
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 138 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: In his Commentary, Dr Wachter1 elaborated on unanticipated consequences of the quality improvement revolution. One topic that was not discussed was the relationship between quality improvement measures, pay-for-performance, and future research. Hospitals, many of which have small operating margins, appear to be trying to optimize quality measures that have been endorsed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services2 and other third party payers in order to maximize these payments. I am not aware of an exemption or a guarantee of maximum payment for hospitals that are participating in research to strengthen and clarify the scientific observations that are the underpinnings of the current quality improvement revolution. Without such an exemption or guarantee of payment, hospitals may be motivated to discourage or stop research that could result in a lower reimbursement.
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Paul C. McGovern, MD
pjcsmcgovern@verizon.net
Berwyn, Pa
1. Wachter RM. Expected and unanticipated consequences of the quality and information technology revolutions. JAMA. 2006;295:2780-2783.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare pay-for-performance demonstration shows significant quality of care improvement at participating hospitals. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=1441. Accessed May 2, 2006.
Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.
JAMA. 2006;296:2439.
RELATED LETTER
Consequences of the Quality Improvement Revolution—Reply
Robert M. Wachter
JAMA. 2006;296(20):2439.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
