Literature DB >> 34678085

The Association of Hospital Magnet® Status and Pay-for-Performance Penalties.

Andrew M Dierkes1, Kathryn Riman2, Marguerite Daus3, Hayley D Germack1, Karen B Lasater4.   

Abstract

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Pay-for-Performance (P4P) programs aim to improve hospital care through financial incentives for care quality and patient outcomes. Magnet® recognition-a potential pathway for improving nurse work environments-is associated with better patient outcomes and P4P program scores, but whether these indicators of higher quality are substantial enough to avoid penalties and thereby impact hospital reimbursements is unknown. This cross-sectional study used a national sample of 2,860 hospitals to examine the relationship between hospital Magnet® status and P4P penalties under P4P programs: Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) Reduction Program, Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program. Magnet® hospitals were matched 1:1 with non-Magnet hospitals accounting for 13 organizational characteristics including hospital size and location. Post-match logistic regression models were used to compute a hospital's odds of penalties. In a national sample of hospitals, 77% of hospitals experienced P4P penalties. Magnet® hospitals were less likely to be penalized in the VBP program compared to their matched non-Magnet counterparts (40% vs. 48%). Magnet® status was associated with 30% lower odds of VBP penalties relative to non-Magnet hospitals. Lower P4P program penalties is one benefit associated with achieving Magnet® status or otherwise maintaining high-quality nurse work environments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cross-sectional studies; hospitals; incentive; medicare; quality of health care; reimbursement; value-based purchasing

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34678085      PMCID: PMC9394674          DOI: 10.1177/15271544211053854

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Policy Polit Nurs Pract        ISSN: 1527-1544


  22 in total

1.  Development of the practice environment scale of the Nursing Work Index.

Authors:  Eileen T Lake
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.228

2.  Hospital nursing and 30-day readmissions among Medicare patients with heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia.

Authors:  Matthew McHugh; Chenjuan Ma
Journal:  J Nurs Adm       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.737

3.  The financial return on Magnet recognition.

Authors:  Sue Ellen Pinkerton
Journal:  J Contin Educ Nurs       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.224

4.  Magnet status and registered nurse views of the work environment and nursing as a career.

Authors:  Beth T Ulrich; Peter I Buerhaus; Karen Donelan; Linda Norman; Robert Dittus
Journal:  J Nurs Adm       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.737

5.  Achieving Kaiser Permanente quality.

Authors:  Matthew D McHugh; Linda H Aiken; Myra E Eckenhoff; Lawton R Burns
Journal:  Health Care Manage Rev       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep

6.  Transformative impact of Magnet designation: England case study.

Authors:  Linda H Aiken; James Buchan; Jane Ball; Anne Marie Rafferty
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.036

7.  Hospitals Known for Nursing Excellence Associated with Better Hospital Experience for Patients.

Authors:  Amy Witkoski Stimpfel; Douglas M Sloane; Matthew D McHugh; Linda H Aiken
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Magnet® Hospital Recognition Linked to Lower Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates.

Authors:  Hilary Barnes; Jessica Rearden; Matthew D McHugh
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 2.228

9.  Nurse staffing and the work environment linked to readmissions among older adults following elective total hip and knee replacement.

Authors:  Karen B Lasater; Matthew D Mchugh
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 2.038

10.  Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance.

Authors:  Tri-Long Nguyen; Gary S Collins; Jessica Spence; Jean-Pierre Daurès; P J Devereaux; Paul Landais; Yannick Le Manach
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.