Pay-for-Performance: Is Medicare a Good Candidate?
Michael F. Cannon
December 14, 2006
Private and public third-party payers - particularly Medicare - are experimenting with financial incentives that reward health care providers for delivering recommended medical care. While "pay for performance" (P4P) has the potential to improve quality in some instances, it can also result in no effect, higher expenditures, inequities between providers, reduced access to care, or even low-quality and inappropriate care for outliers. Despite proponents' desire to have scientific evidence guide clinical practice, scientific evidence on the efficacy of P4P is mixed, while evidence of cost-effective is nonexistent. Medicare faces additional challenges beyond those confronting private thirdparty purchasers. Congress can realize the potential of P4P, while reducing the likelihood of harm, by confining P4P to Medicare Advantage plans. Congress and private purchasers could also experiment with patient-focused financial incentives, which are transparent and allow patients and their doctors to deviate from treatment guidelines when it is in the patient's interest.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 38
Keywords: Medicare, pay for performance, quality based purchasing, health care quality, Medicare Advantage, comorbidity, clinical practice guidelines, evidence-based medicine, health care financing, medical care
JEL Classification: I00, I10, I11, I12, I18, I19working papers series
Date posted: February 26, 2006 ; Last revised: November 4, 2007
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.359 seconds