Raising the bar on care?
By Luis Fábregas
Published: Monday, March 18, 2013, 10:29 a.m.
Imagine a health care world that values how well doctors and nurses communicate with patients. Or a world in which your hospital room is thoroughly clean and the hallways are quiet. Better yet, imagine a world in which hospitals are held financially accountable for what happens to patients.
Such a scenario is about to become a reality. Medicare, the health insurance program for people 65 or older, this month will start paying hospitals more — or less — based on two main factors.
Seventy percent of their score will be based on how they follow basic standards of care. For example, Medicare will look at things such as the percentage of surgical patients who received the correct antibiotic.
Thirty percent of the score will be based on how patients rate their hospital experience. So what you have to say in those questionnaires you fill out — or often ignore — at the end of a hospital stay will count. It will matter if you thought a nurse gave you a medication without an understandable explanation. If enough people express similar concerns, your hospital might pay for it.
It all sounds great, until you examine the dollar amount of Medicare's penalties and bonuses. The maximum amount any hospital could gain or lose is 1 percent of its regular Medicare payments.
Allegheny General Hospital, for example, faced a cut of just over one-tenth of 1 percent of its regular Medicare payments, or less than $100,000, in the first round of bonuses and penalties announced two weeks ago. UPMC Presbyterian, on the other hand, received a 0.19 percent bonus — roughly $1 million.
Granted, even a small loss can be significant for a financially strapped institution such as AGH, but are these penalties enough to make a difference?
Diane Frndak, the West Penn Allegheny Health System executive in charge of quality, said the penalty imposed on AGH could be considered “trivial” but it is motivating AGH and the system's four other hospitals to improve care.
“I don't want a bigger penalty to motivate us,” she said.
Clearly, the Medicare program is proof that someone finally understands the importance of quality, not volume. This is the latest movement to hit hospitals where it hurts. In the fall, Medicare began cutting payments to hospitals based on readmission rates. If too many patients wound up hospitalized within a month of being discharged, the hospital received a reduced payment.
Private insurers have established similar programs. Highmark's QualityBlue rewards hospitals if they show they've controlled readmissions or prevented hospital-acquired infections, which can be deadly. The money represents up to 3 percent of a hospital's total reimbursement.
Linda Weiland, a Highmark vice president, told me its program resulted in about 3,000 fewer infections and saved about $56 million in costs to treat them.
“Patients aren't being harmed,” she said. “Costs aren't escalating unnecessarily and people aren't dying because of these infections.”
We might not learn the true impact of the Medicare program for a few years. Despite the questionable size of penalties and incentives, it could be a step in the right direction. No one should pay hospitals and doctors if they fail to follow acceptable standards of care.
Luis Fábregas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7998 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.