BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for Performance
The concept of “pay for performance” (P4P) applied to the practice of medicine has become a major foundation in current public and private payer reimbursement strategies for both institutional and individual physician providers. “Pay for performance” programs represent a substantial shift from tradi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2008-01-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Urology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/954721 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832562145262305280 |
|---|---|
| author | Mark Stovsky Irina Jaeger |
| author_facet | Mark Stovsky Irina Jaeger |
| author_sort | Mark Stovsky |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The concept of “pay for performance” (P4P) applied to the practice of medicine has become a major foundation in current public and private payer reimbursement strategies for both institutional and individual physician providers. “Pay for performance” programs represent a substantial shift from traditional service-based reimbursement to a system of performance-based provider payment using financial incentives to drive improvements in the quality of care. P4P strategies currently embody rudimentary structure and process (as opposed to outcomes) metrics which set relatively low-performance thresholds. P4P strategies that align reimbursement allocation with “free market” type shifts in cognitive and procedural care using evidence-based data and positive reinforcement are more likely to produce large-scale improvements in quality and cost efficiency with respect to clinical urologic care. This paper reviews current paradigms and, using BPH procedural therapy outcomes, cost, and reimbursement data, makes the case for a fundamental change in perspective to value-based pay for performance as a reimbursement system with the potential to align the interests of patients, physicians, and payers and to improve global clinical outcomes while preserving free choice of clinically efficacious treatments. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-04022e5b4f9c4334a0eb8a4bc647e461 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-6369 1687-6377 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2008-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Advances in Urology |
| spelling | doaj-art-04022e5b4f9c4334a0eb8a4bc647e4612025-02-03T01:23:19ZengWileyAdvances in Urology1687-63691687-63772008-01-01200810.1155/2008/954721954721BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for PerformanceMark Stovsky0Irina Jaeger1Department of Urology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, USADepartment of Urology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, USAThe concept of “pay for performance” (P4P) applied to the practice of medicine has become a major foundation in current public and private payer reimbursement strategies for both institutional and individual physician providers. “Pay for performance” programs represent a substantial shift from traditional service-based reimbursement to a system of performance-based provider payment using financial incentives to drive improvements in the quality of care. P4P strategies currently embody rudimentary structure and process (as opposed to outcomes) metrics which set relatively low-performance thresholds. P4P strategies that align reimbursement allocation with “free market” type shifts in cognitive and procedural care using evidence-based data and positive reinforcement are more likely to produce large-scale improvements in quality and cost efficiency with respect to clinical urologic care. This paper reviews current paradigms and, using BPH procedural therapy outcomes, cost, and reimbursement data, makes the case for a fundamental change in perspective to value-based pay for performance as a reimbursement system with the potential to align the interests of patients, physicians, and payers and to improve global clinical outcomes while preserving free choice of clinically efficacious treatments.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/954721 |
| spellingShingle | Mark Stovsky Irina Jaeger BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for Performance Advances in Urology |
| title | BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for Performance |
| title_full | BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for Performance |
| title_fullStr | BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for Performance |
| title_full_unstemmed | BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for Performance |
| title_short | BPH Procedural Treatment: The Case for Value-Based Pay for Performance |
| title_sort | bph procedural treatment the case for value based pay for performance |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/954721 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT markstovsky bphproceduraltreatmentthecaseforvaluebasedpayforperformance AT irinajaeger bphproceduraltreatmentthecaseforvaluebasedpayforperformance |