Performance Measurement, Public Reporting, and Pay-for-Performance

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations


The use of incentives to improve quality of care is spreading rapidly across the health care system. Public reporting (PR) and pay-for-performance (PFP) are two examples of incentive-based programs. Although conclusive level I evidence for the positive impacts of these PR and PFP is limited, individual states and the federal government have begun to adopt and pilot these programs for a variety of specific clinical conditions. This article reviews the principles of health care quality performance measurement; current reporting and pay-for-performance programs; and the most recent literature documenting positive, negative and future impacts of these types of programs on urologic practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)37-48
Number of pages12
JournalUrologic Clinics of North America
Issue number1
StatePublished - Feb 2009

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Dr. Dudley's work on this article was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator Award in Health Policy.

Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.


  • Health care quality improvement
  • Pay-for-performance
  • Performance measurement
  • Public reporting
  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Performance Measurement, Public Reporting, and Pay-for-Performance'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this