title: Performance measurement, public reporting, and pay-for-performance.
abstract: The use of incentives to improve quality of care is spreading rapidly across the health care system. Public reporting (PR) and pay-for-performance (PFP) are two examples of incentive-based programs. Although conclusive level I evidence for the positive impacts of these PR and PFP is limited, individual states and the federal government have begun to adopt and pilot these programs for a variety of specific clinical conditions. This article reviews the principles of health care quality performance measurement; current reporting and pay-for-performance programs; and the most recent literature documenting positive, negative and future impacts of these types of programs on urologic practice.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
authors.forename: Kim F
authors.initials: KF
authors.lastname: Rhoads
authors.forename: Badrinath M
authors.initials: BM
authors.lastname: Konety
authors.forename: R Adams
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Dudley
mesh_terms: D013502:General Surgery; D006282:Health Personnel; D006278:Medicare; D009042:Motivation; D010361:Patients / Q000523:psychology; D010816:Physician Incentive Plans / Q000191:economics*; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D014481:United States; D014572:Urology