AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
The concept of quality improvement in medical practice is laudable, but the "pay-for-performance" method--in which physicians are financially rewarded for reaching certain goals set by panels of "experts"--is particularly offensive to our professional identity.
Are we, like cabbies or waiters, to be tipped for the very service that we are bound by our doctor-patient covenant to achieve? Are we, like car salesmen, to be put on commission?
The collaboration in setting such goals as evidence of quality by our collective societies in medicine--the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and others--is an act of desperation born of the steadily decreasing value given by third-party payers to doctors who craft their care by applying time-consuming assessment and judgment to individual patients.
Will we not, if we accept this, again generate a rush of laboratory studies, medication prescriptions, and screening protocols for all patients within a given diagnostic cohort ("the diabetic," "the hypertensive," "the person over 50"), rather than decide what is appropriate for the single patient who sits before us? Experience says we will, if only to eke out enough money to continue caring for people in the face of diminishing recompense that barely covers overhead in many practices. This is iniquitous, and is yet another capitulation to the fallacy that the art and science of medicine is a business like any other.
There are, I think, two major dangers inherent in pay-for-performance schemes. The first is evident to those old enough in the profession to have witnessed the multiple cataclysmic reversals of "expert" judgments in medicine and science. Hormone therapy for all menopausal women, prostate-specific antigen screening for all men of a certain age and family background, calcium supplements for osteoporosis, CA 125 screening, the latest diet, and--coming soon, I'm fairly sure--revisions of the now astonishingly broad category of people who should be on statins all flash upon the stage of medicine as initially wonderful, then useless or, worse, detrimental.
When we fall in with these epileptiform ...
Source: HighBeam Research, The perils of pay for performance.(GUEST EDITORIAL)