QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]
Author:
Keyword(s):
Year:  Vol:  Page: 

   

 

Health Affairs, 25, no. 5 (2006): w412-w419
(Published online 5 September 2006)
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.w412
© 2006 by Project HOPE
 
New Online
 * Senate Health Reform Bill
 * Rewarding Providers
 * Public Option Policy Brief
 * Health Reform & Abortion
 * Delivery System Reform
This Article
* Full Text (HTML)
* Reprint (PDF)
* Submit a response to this article
* Comments: View responses
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me when Comments are posted
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* E-mail this article to a friend
* Similar articles in this journal
* Similar articles in PubMed
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Personal Archive
* Download to Citation Manager
*Reprints & Permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via HighWire
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by Galvin, R.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* PubMed Citation
* Articles by Galvin, R.

Web Exclusives

INTERVIEW

Pay-For-Performance: Too Much Of A Good Thing? A Conversation With Martin Roland

Robert Galvin

As the United States moves down the road of pay-for-performance (P4P), concerns about unintended consequences are foremost in the minds of policymakers. Initial results from the world’s most ambitious P4P program, the United Kingdom’s Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), indicate that while quality improvements exceeded expectations, so too did the amount of funds paid out, straining the National Health Service (NHS) budget. Martin Roland, one of the leading U.K. health services researchers and an adviser to the QOF, gives his views on what went right and what went wrong, and he offers his advice to the United States about using financial incentives to improve quality.


Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann Fam MedHome page
K. C. Stange and R. L. Ferrer
The Paradox of Primary Care
Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2009; 7(4): 293 - 299.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
T. Marmor, J. Oberlander, and J. White
The Obama Administration's Options for Health Care Cost Control: Hope Versus Reality
Ann Intern Med, April 7, 2009; 150(7): 485 - 489.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann Fam MedHome page
K. C. Stange
The Problem of Fragmentation and the Need for Integrative Solutions
Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2009; 7(2): 100 - 103.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Board Fam MedHome page
P. W. Lee, A. J. Dietrich, T. E. Oxman, J. W. Williams Jr, and S. L. Barry
Sustainable Impact of a Primary Care Depression Intervention
J Am Board Fam Med, September 1, 2007; 20(5): 427 - 433.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
S. Campbell, D. Reeves, E. Kontopantelis, E. Middleton, B. Sibbald, and M. Roland
Quality of Primary Care in England with the Introduction of Pay for Performance
N. Engl. J. Med., July 12, 2007; 357(2): 181 - 190.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Health Aff (Millwood)Home page
J. B. Christianson
Evaluating Pay-For-Performance In Medicaid Through Real-World Observation
Health Aff., July 1, 2007; 26(4): w528 - w531.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Comments:

Read all Comments

Pay-for-Performance: Too Much of a Good Thing - or Too Worried about the Wrong Things?
Peter Basch
Health Affairs, 10 Sep 2006 [Full text]


Home | Current Issue | Archives | Topic Collections | Search | Blog | Subscribe | Contact Us | Help

© 2001-2006 Project HOPE–The People-to-People Organization
Terms and Policies