Skip to main content

Quality Indicators, Outcomes, and Performance Pay

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Value Driven Healthcare and Geriatric Medicine
  • 473 Accesses

Abstract

The history of the centers for Medicare Medicaid Services (CMS) involvement in quality improvement is long-standing. Linking performance metrics to payment is a powerful lever to stimulate healthcare improvement and maintenance of quality. This may also improve consistency and standardization of healthcare practices across regions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine. Improving the quality of care in nursing homes. 1986. http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/1986/Improving-the-Quality-of-Care-in-Nursing-Homes.aspx. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.

  2. Mitchell E. Population-based payment models: overcoming barriers, accelerating adoption. May 16, 2016. https://hcp-lan.org/2016/05/pbp-models-overcoming-barriers-accelerating-adoption/. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.

  3. Institute of Medicine. Vital signs: core metrics for health and health care progress. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Office of the Federal Register. Medicare Program; Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model (APM) incentive under the physician fee schedule, and criteria for physician-focused payment models, 42 CFR Parts 414 and 495. Published in the Federal Register 11/4/16: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/04/2016-25240/medicare-program-merit-based-incentive-payment-system-mips-and-alternative-payment-model-apm. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.

  5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Quality payment programs. Executive summary. https://qpp.cms.gov/docs/QPP_Executive_Summary_of_Final_Rule.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.

  6. Unroe KT, Hollmann PA, Goldstein AC, Maline ML. Medicare access and CHIP reauthorization intact: what do geriatrics healthcare professionals need to know about the quality payment program? JAGS. 2017;65:674–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. American College of Physicians. Comment: Medicare Program; Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model (APM) Incentive under the Physician fee schedule, and criteria for physician-focused payment models [CMS-5517-FC]. https://www.acponline.org/acp_policy/letters/avp_comment_letter_to_cms_on_macra_final_rule_2016.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.

  8. McWilliams JM. MACRA: big fix or big problem? Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:122–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gagliano N. Satisfaction vs burnout. Value-based strategies that motivate. Group Pract J. 2017:15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Medicare’s Quality Improvement Organization program: Maximizing potential. Pathways to healthcare. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11604.html. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.

  11. Jencks SF, Huff ED, Cuerdon T. Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998–1999 to 2000–2001. JAMA. 2003;289:305–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Snyder C, Anderson G. Do quality improvement organizations improve the quality of hospital care for Medicare beneficiaries? JAMA. 2005;293:2900–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mims AD, Pederson JC, Gold JA. Healthcare changes and the affordable care act: a physician call to action quality improvement organizations. In: Powers JS, editor. Healthcare changes and the affordable care act. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chassin MR, Loeb JM, Schmaltz SP, Wachter RM. Accountability measures–using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:683–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Baker DW, Chassin MR. Holding providers accountable for healthcare outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:418–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Burstin H, Qaseem A. Moving to measures that matter and motivate change. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:442–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schuster MA, Oronata SE, Meltzer DO. Measuring the cost of quality measurement: a missing link in quality strategy. JAMA. 2017;318:1219–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Powers, J.S. (2018). Quality Indicators, Outcomes, and Performance Pay. In: Value Driven Healthcare and Geriatric Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77057-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77057-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77056-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77057-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics