Pay-for-performance may not improve quality
One solution gaining momentum to improve physician quality is the pay-for-performance approach. A recent study, however, found that this model rewards physicians with higher baseline performance but does not necessarily improve quality (JAMA 2005;294:1788-1793).
One solution gaining momentum to improve physician quality is the pay-for-performance approach. A recent study, however, found that this model rewards physicians with higher baseline performance but does not necessarily improve quality (JAMA 2005;294:1788-1793).
Meredith B. Rosenthal, Ph.D., of the Harvard School of Public Health and colleagues evaluated a pay-for-performance plan involving nearly 300 large physician organizations in California, inquiring about their rates of cervical cancer screening, mammography, and hemoglobin A1c testing.
During the first year of the program, the plan awarded $3.4 million (27% of the amount set aside) in bonus payments. For all three measures, physician groups that performed at or above the threshold for receipt of a bonus improved the least but received the greatest share of the bonus payments.
The Reading Room Podcast: Current Perspectives on the Updated Appropriate Use Criteria for Brain PET
March 18th 2025In a new podcast, Satoshi Minoshima, M.D., Ph.D., and James Williams, Ph.D., share their insights on the recently updated appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET and tau PET in patients with mild cognitive impairment.
What is the Best Use of AI in CT Lung Cancer Screening?
April 18th 2025In comparison to radiologist assessment, the use of AI to pre-screen patients with low-dose CT lung cancer screening provided a 12 percent reduction in mean interpretation time with a slight increase in specificity and a slight decrease in the recall rate, according to new research.
