2007/01/27 by Arnold M. Epstein · 3 citations
Health Professions · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Medicine · #Primary Care and Health Outcomes #Healthcare Policy and Management #Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life #Medicaid #Tipping point (physics) #Incentive #Payment #Pay for performance #Point (geometry) #Medicine #Health care #Private sector #Quality (philosophy) #Actuarial science #Public economics #Finance #Economic growth #Business #Economics
paper · doi:10.1056/nejme078002
openalex publication_date 2007/01/27 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
It is hard to dispute the rationale behind realigning payment incentives in health care to encourage higher quality and more efficient care. Indeed, across the country and beyond, the number of “pay for performance” programs, as such realignment is called, has reached a tipping point. In the United States, more than half the health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in the private sector have now initiated such programs, covering more than 80% of the country's HMO enrollees.1 Congress has mandated that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) develop plans to introduce a pay-for-performance program into Medicare.2 The British have gone . . .