FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2012541888> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2012541888 endingPage "8" @default.
• W2012541888 startingPage "8" @default.
• W2012541888 abstract "Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Professional NewsFull AccessPay for Performance Raises Anxiety Level at AMAMark MoranMark MoranSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:2 Dec 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.40.23.0008The AMA reiterated its opposition to pay-for-performance proposals that do not meet five broad principles and guidelines for quality during last month's Interim Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates.The five AMA principles for fair and ethical pay-for-performance programs approved at the June annual meeting of the AMA House of Delegates, state that these programs must:ensure quality of care,foster the patient-physician relationship,offer voluntary physician participation,use accurate data and fair reporting,and provide fair and equitable program incentives.As public and private payers alike move toward the concept of pay for performance (P4P), delegates at the Interim Meeting in Dallas reiterated those principles. The AMA's stance effectively says “no” to an impending P4P pilot project by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that begins in January 2006, as well as to the Medicare Value Based Purchasing Act of 2005 (S 1356), which would establish pay for performance as the basis for reimbursement throughout the Medicare program.P4P and a related voluntary data-reporting project floated by CMS just days prior to the AMA meeting were the focus of debate last month (see Original article: page 1), with delegates expressing cynicism about the government's moves toward “value-based purchasing” of health care services.Central to the AMA's opposition to P4P in the Medicare program is the organization's longstanding insistence that the government first reform the physician-payment formula, especially the component known as the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). The Value Based Purchasing Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), links P4P to a temporary 1 percent update in physician payment, but the AMA insists on a permanent fix to the payment formula.Debate at the AMA meeting centered on the dilemma of how much latitude to give AMA lobbyists in negotiations around programs and policies that—like P4P—may have taken on a momentum of their own. By“ drawing a line in the sand,” does the AMA forfeit an opportunity to influence programs that may not be perfectly in keeping with its principles?But so great was the accumulated frustration with the government's Medicare policies that the overriding sentiment of the house was one of “enough is enough.”“If we don't stand for our principles, we don't stand for anything,” said Chester Danehower, M.D., expressing the sense of the house. “The integrity of this organization is at stake.”The principles that delegates voted to reiterate were approved at the June House of Delegates meeting:Ensuring quality of care: Fair and ethical P4P programs are committed to improved patient care as their most important mission. Evidence-based quality of care measures, created by physicians across appropriate specialties, are the measures used in the programs. Variations in an individual patient-care regimen are permitted based on a physician's sound clinical judgment and should not adversely affect P4P program rewards.Fostering the patient/physician relationship: Fair and ethical P4P programs support the patient/physician relationship and overcome obstacles to physicians treating patients, regardless of patients' health conditions, ethnicity, economic circumstances, demographics, or treatment compliance patterns.Offering voluntary physician participation: Fair and ethical P4P programs offer voluntary physician participation and do not undermine the economic viability of nonparticipating physician practices. These programs support participation by physicians in all practice settings by minimizing potential financial and technological barriers.Using accurate data and fair reporting: Fair and ethical P4P programs use accurate data and scientifically valid analytical methods. Physicians are allowed to review, comment, and appeal results prior to the use of the results for programmatic reasons and any type of reporting.Providing fair and equitable program incentives: Fair and ethical P4P programs provide new funds for positive incentives to physicians for their participation, progressive quality improvement, or attainment of goals within the program. The eligibility criteria for the incentives are fully explained to participating physicians. These programs support the goal of quality improvement across all participating physicians.In addition, delegates at the June meeting also approved much lengthier and detailed “guidelines” to govern the mechanisms of how P4P programs might work. Broad categories covered by the guidelines include quality of care, physician-patient relationship, physician participation, physician data and reporting, and program rewards (Psychiatric News, July 15).And last month, in addition to reiterating the five principles, delegates resolved to continue advocating for repeal of the SGR component and urged the AMA to “develop public-education materials to teach patients and other stakeholders about the potential risks and liabilities of pay-for-performance programs” that are not consistent with AMA principles.“Until we establish a practice environment where payment matches costs, it is not conceivable that pay for performance is going to work,” said AMA Trustee John Armstrong, M.D., during a press conference following the house meeting. “There is no point talking about value-based purchasing without fixing the payment formula.” ▪ ISSUES NewArchived" @default.
• W2012541888 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2012541888 creator A5090243640 @default.
• W2012541888 date "2005-12-02" @default.
• W2012541888 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2012541888 title "Pay for Performance Raises Anxiety Level at AMA" @default.
• W2012541888 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.40.23.0008" @default.
• W2012541888 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2012541888 type Work @default.
• W2012541888 sameAs 2012541888 @default.
• W2012541888 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2012541888 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2012541888 hasAuthorship W2012541888A5090243640 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C2776204158 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C2776534028 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C2776957806 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C2778173179 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C2778813691 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C2779703844 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C29122968 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C138885662 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C144133560 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C160735492 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C162324750 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C162853370 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C175444787 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C17744445 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C199539241 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C2776204158 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C2776534028 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C2776957806 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C2778137410 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C2778173179 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C2778813691 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C2779703844 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C29122968 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C39549134 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C41895202 @default.
• W2012541888 hasConceptScore W2012541888C71924100 @default.
• W2012541888 hasIssue "23" @default.
• W2012541888 hasLocation W20125418881 @default.
• W2012541888 hasOpenAccess W2012541888 @default.
• W2012541888 hasPrimaryLocation W20125418881 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W2008784563 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W2039559675 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W2065760107 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W2327553814 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W2398156749 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W3124047305 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W4200367714 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W4292438413 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W4297968854 @default.
• W2012541888 hasRelatedWork W4298245107 @default.
• W2012541888 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W2012541888 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2012541888 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2012541888 magId "2012541888" @default.
• W2012541888 workType "article" @default.