Leof et al (2014) present the agreement to contain the following conditions:
• Use a common definition of primary care homes and levels of coordination, based on the State’s PCPCH program
• Include payment models to practices in their network that are based on PCPCH participation and increasing levels of patient-centered coordinated care
• Use a common set of core metrics to measure progress toward achieving outcomes
• Find additional opportunities for meaningful collaboration that will support the long-term sustainability of primary care homes
The alternative payment methods pursued are a development of this prior work to support Oregon’s PCPCH. One of the many alternative payment methods implemented was the pay-for-performance model. …show more content…
A financial incentive that stimulates improvements in efficiency. The focus of pay-for-performance often focused on the creation of long-term savings. These savings could be achieved through the improvement of primary healthcare. (Leof, 2014). Primary health care often serves as the gatekeepers for the whole plan of care of a patient . It is obvious to think that by targeting the primary health care would be a way to target the entire care of the patient while having this ideal in mind. A primary care physician usually oversees the care of the patient, the overuse of specialists and a lack of communication are the origin of some of the issues. The utilization of preventative health services and coordination of the providers across the entire care and physician practice are part of the focus of pay-for-performance. A continuous form of care is the best way to achieve coordination to obtain the best results. A coordinated patient plan of care allows for greater control over the need and service the patient is being granted. Cost control capacity of a system like this is intended to allow it to be successful through the minimizing of duplicate services, enhanced data collection and integration of it. Integration is really the key point in any health care payment reform to be …show more content…
In various studies, it was found across these studies that the most improvement to the quality of care was found and occurred within the first year (Leof, 2014). It is then of great importance that we take a look at this because the proper implementation of this payment delivery system is dependent on this. The first year is where and when the changes should be made and although implementation of a system occurs overtime it is important that in the first year most of the changes are made, which will reflect on the outcomes of that year. Studies also showed that an effective method of obtaining quality outcomes can come from public reporting of the performance of the providers. This showed to be more effective than the financial incentives (Rodriguez, 2009). We often times think that money is the best incentive, but at times such as in this case in proves to be wrong. Other forms can prove to be more effective such as public reporting that can in itself serve as an incentive. The reporting of the quality outcomes of the provider performance can be used as a negative reinforcement in which a bad reporting could have a greater impact that than of a financial incentive. With a financial incentive the provider does not lose something they already had because the bonus is not received until after. The implementation of a public report a provider in contrast to a financial incentive could have
• Use a common definition of primary care homes and levels of coordination, based on the State’s PCPCH program
• Include payment models to practices in their network that are based on PCPCH participation and increasing levels of patient-centered coordinated care
• Use a common set of core metrics to measure progress toward achieving outcomes
• Find additional opportunities for meaningful collaboration that will support the long-term sustainability of primary care homes
The alternative payment methods pursued are a development of this prior work to support Oregon’s PCPCH. One of the many alternative payment methods implemented was the pay-for-performance model. …show more content…
A financial incentive that stimulates improvements in efficiency. The focus of pay-for-performance often focused on the creation of long-term savings. These savings could be achieved through the improvement of primary healthcare. (Leof, 2014). Primary health care often serves as the gatekeepers for the whole plan of care of a patient . It is obvious to think that by targeting the primary health care would be a way to target the entire care of the patient while having this ideal in mind. A primary care physician usually oversees the care of the patient, the overuse of specialists and a lack of communication are the origin of some of the issues. The utilization of preventative health services and coordination of the providers across the entire care and physician practice are part of the focus of pay-for-performance. A continuous form of care is the best way to achieve coordination to obtain the best results. A coordinated patient plan of care allows for greater control over the need and service the patient is being granted. Cost control capacity of a system like this is intended to allow it to be successful through the minimizing of duplicate services, enhanced data collection and integration of it. Integration is really the key point in any health care payment reform to be …show more content…
In various studies, it was found across these studies that the most improvement to the quality of care was found and occurred within the first year (Leof, 2014). It is then of great importance that we take a look at this because the proper implementation of this payment delivery system is dependent on this. The first year is where and when the changes should be made and although implementation of a system occurs overtime it is important that in the first year most of the changes are made, which will reflect on the outcomes of that year. Studies also showed that an effective method of obtaining quality outcomes can come from public reporting of the performance of the providers. This showed to be more effective than the financial incentives (Rodriguez, 2009). We often times think that money is the best incentive, but at times such as in this case in proves to be wrong. Other forms can prove to be more effective such as public reporting that can in itself serve as an incentive. The reporting of the quality outcomes of the provider performance can be used as a negative reinforcement in which a bad reporting could have a greater impact that than of a financial incentive. With a financial incentive the provider does not lose something they already had because the bonus is not received until after. The implementation of a public report a provider in contrast to a financial incentive could have