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

Kim F. Rhoads; Badrinath M. Konety; R. Adams Dudley

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003

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

Urology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	37-48
Number of pages	12
Journal	Urologic Clinics of North America
Volume	36
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003
State	Published - 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:
Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

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

Publisher link

10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{471e8c6736b847a7839dd45adda39af9,

title = "Performance Measurement, Public Reporting, and Pay-for-Performance",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Health care quality improvement, Pay-for-performance, Performance measurement, Public reporting, Urology",

author = "Rhoads, \{Kim F.\} and Konety, \{Badrinath M.\} and Dudley, \{R. Adams\}",

note = "Funding Information: Dr. Dudley's work on this article was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator Award in Health Policy. Copyright: Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "2009",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "36",

pages = "37--48",

journal = "Urologic Clinics of North America",

issn = "0094-0143",

publisher = "W.B. Saunders",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance Measurement, Public Reporting, and Pay-for-Performance

AU - Rhoads, Kim F.

AU - Konety, Badrinath M.

AU - Dudley, R. Adams

N1 - Funding Information: Dr. Dudley's work on this article was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator Award in Health Policy. Copyright: Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2009/2

Y1 - 2009/2

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Health care quality improvement

KW - Pay-for-performance

KW - Performance measurement

KW - Public reporting

KW - Urology

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/56349139284

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/56349139284#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003

M3 - Review article

C2 - 19038634

AN - SCOPUS:56349139284

SN - 0094-0143

VL - 36

SP - 37

EP - 48

JO - Urologic Clinics of North America

JF - Urologic Clinics of North America

IS - 1

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this