Hospital pay-for-performance programs in Maryland produced strong results, including reduced hospital-acquired conditions.

Over the past decade Medicare has put in place several pay-for-performance programs for hospitals, including one that stopped paying hospitals for treating hospital-acquired conditions and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program that went into effect in October 2012. In this article we describe how the State of Maryland crafted two pay-for-performance programs applicable to all hospitals and payers-a Quality-Based Reimbursement Program similar to Medicare's value-based purchasing program and a separate program that compared hospitals' risk-adjusted relative performance on a broad array of hospital-acquired conditions. In the first program, all clinical process-of-care measures improved from 2007 to 2010, and variations among hospitals decreased substantially. For example, the statewide average rate of provision of influenza vaccines to patients with pneumonia increased by 20.5 percentage points, from 71.5 percent in 2007 to 92.0 percent in 2010. As a result of the second program, hospital-acquired conditions in the state declined by 15.26 percent over two years, with estimated cost savings of $110.9 million over that period. Extrapolating these results, the Medicare fee-for-service program nationally would have saved $1.3 billion over two years by implementing a similar hospital-acquired conditions program. The state programs used strong and consistent financial incentives to motivate hospitals' efforts to improve quality. This experience demonstrates that successful state experimentation can inform and influence federal policy and efforts to coordinate payment strategies in other states.

My eyes, your eyes--the relationship between CMS five-star rating of nursing homes and family rating of experience of care in Maryland.

In 2008, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) launched the Five-Star Quality Rating System to help consumers compare nursing homes. The quality rating system consists of three domains: nursing home inspection results, staffing, and quality measures (QMs) and an overall rating calculated from the three domains. The Five-Star System has both advocates and detractors. One source of criticism about the rating system is its lack of input from consumer surveys. Although different dimensions of quality have been recognized as important by the experts and studied in the literature, how these dimensions are linked with each other is largely unknown. This article describes an analysis of the relationship between overall experience of care ratings from a family survey and ratings obtained on the CMS Five-Star Quality Rating for Maryland nursing homes. The results indicated a strong positive correlation between family experience of care score and two five-star domains, namely health inspections and nurse staffing, and no relationship with the quality domain. The lack of relationship between the quality domain and the family score may be due to inadequate risk adjustment or that each rating system measures different aspects of quality.

Trends in the distribution of health care financing across developed countries: the role of political economy of states.

Since the 1980s, major health care reforms in many countries have focused on redefining the boundaries of government through increasing emphasis on private sources of finance and delivery of health care. Apart from managerial and financial choices, the reliance on private sources reflects the political character of a country. This article explores whether the public-private mix of health care financing differs according to political traditions in a sample of 18 industrialized countries, analyzing a 30-year period. The results indicate that despite common trends in all four political traditions during the study period, the overall levels of expenditure and the rates of growth in public and private expenditures were different. Christian democratic countries had public expenditure levels as high as those in social democracies, but high levels of private expenditure differentiated them from the social democracies. Christian democratic countries also relied on both private insurance and out-of-pocket payments, while private insurance expenditures were very limited in social democratic countries. The level of public spending increased at much higher rates among ex-authoritarian countries over the 30 years, bringing these countries to the level of liberal countries by 2000.

Water privatization and public health in Latin America.

OBJECTIVES: This study had two objectives: (1) to determine what the public health and development literature has found regarding the public health outcomes of water privatization in Latin America and (2) to evaluate whether the benefits of water privatization, if any, outweigh the equity and justice concerns that privatization raises. METHODS: Using a standard set of terms to search several databases, the authors identified and reviewed articles and other materials from public health and development sources that were published between 1995 and 2005 and that evaluated the public health effects of water privatizations in Latin America from 1989 to 2000, based on (1) access to water by the poor and/or (2) improvements in public health. Next, the authors examined the experiences of three cities in Bolivia (Cochabamba, El Alto, and La Paz) in order to illuminate further the challenges of water privatization. Finally, the authors considered the equity and justice issues raised by the privatization of water. RESULTS: The literature review raised persistent concerns regarding access to water by the poor under privatization. The review also suggested that the public sector could deliver public health outcomes comparable to those of the private sector, as measured by access rates and decreasing child mortality rates. In terms of social equity and justice, privatization marked a troubling shift away from the conception of water as a "social good" and toward the conception of water--and water management services--as commodities. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated there is no compelling case for privatizing existing public water utilities based on public health grounds. From the perspective of equity and justice, water privatization may encourage a minimalist conception of social responsibility for public health that may hinder the development of public health capacities in the long run.

Water privatization and public health in Latin America

OBJETIVOS: Este estudio tuvo dos objetivos: 1) determinar lo que dicen las fuentes bibliográficas sobre sanidad y desarrollo acerca de las consecuencias que puede tener para la salud pública la privatización del abastecimiento de agua en América Latina y 2) determinar si los beneficios de dicha privatización, de haberlos, son mayores que los problemas que plantea en materia de equidad y justicia. MÉTODOS: Usando ciertas palabras para buscar en varias bases de datos, los autores encontraron y revisaron artículos y otros tipos de materiales obtenidos de fuentes relacionadas con la salud pública y el desarrollo. Se buscaron fuentes publicadas entre 1995 y 2005 donde se evaluaban los efectos para la salud que tuvieron las privatizaciones de los abastecimientos de agua en países de América Latina de 1989 a 2000. Se prestó particular atención a 1) el acceso de los pobres, 2) las mejoras obtenidas en el campo sanitario, o ambas cosas. Posteriormente los autores examinaron las experiencias de tres ciudades de Bolivia (Cochabamba, El Alto y La Paz) a fin de entender mejor los problemas planteados por la privatización. Exploraron, por último, cómo esta repercute en la equidad y la justicia. RESULTADOS: La revisión de las publicaciones reveló inquietud en torno al acceso de los pobres al agua después de la privatización. Puso de manifiesto, además, que el sector público es capaz de lograr resultados equivalentes a los obtenidos por el sector privado, medidos en función de las tasas de acceso y de la reducción de las tasas de mortalidad de niños menores de cinco años. En lo que respecta a la equidad y la justicia, la privatización marca el comienzo de una tendencia alarmante a concebir el agua y su gestión como bienes de consumo y no como "bienes sociales". CONCLUSIONES: Nuestros resultados indican que no hay argumentos convincentes de tipo sanitario que respalden la privatización del abastecimiento de agua. Desde el punto de vista de la equidad y la justicia, dicha privatización podría fomentar una visión minimalista de la responsabilidad social en materia sanitaria que a su vez podría menoscabar las funciones del sector de la salud en el largo plazo.