The fee-for-service system of provider payment is increasinglyviewed as an obstacle to achieving effective, coordinated, andefficient care.1 It rewards the overuse of services, duplicationof services, use of costly specialized services, and involvementof multiple physicians in the treatment of individual patients.It does not reward the prevention of hospitalization or rehospitalization,effective control of chronic conditions, or care coordination.
Pay for performance is one strategy for moving from paymentbased solely on the quantity of services rendered to paymentbased on the quality or efficiency of care.2 Such payment systemsare now widely used in private health . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Source Information
From the Commonwealth Fund, New York.
This article has been cited by other articles:
Forrest, C. B.
(2009). A Typology of Specialists' Clinical Roles. Arch Intern Med
169: 1062-1068
[Abstract][Full Text]
Rosenthal, T. C.
(2008). The Medical Home: Growing Evidence to Support a New Approach to Primary Care. J Am Board Fam Med
21: 427-440
[Abstract][Full Text]
Mongan, J. J., Ferris, T. G., Lee, T. H.
(2008). Options for Slowing the Growth of Health Care Costs. NEJM
358: 1509-1514
[Full Text]
Bodenheimer, T.
(2008). Coordinating Care -- A Perilous Journey through the Health Care System. NEJM
358: 1064-1071
[Full Text]
Desai, A. A., Garber, A. M., Chertow, G. M.
(2007). Rise of Pay for Performance: Implications for Care of People with Chronic Kidney Disease. CJASN
2: 1087-1095
[Abstract][Full Text]