Pay-for-Performance: Not a Magic BulletPay for Performance: Not a Magic Bullet

Martin Roland

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-12-201212180-00014

Pay-for-Performance: Not a Magic Bullet

Martin Roland, DM

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a supplement.

On 20 July 1854, an advertisement in the New York Daily Tribune announced Deseler's “new cure for fever and ague.” Aside from wanting to know the constituents of the cure (possibly arsenic), contemporary physicians would want to know more about this new treatment—the types of fever it aided, the optimum dose, side effects, and so on. Contemporary payers would want to know whether the new treatment improved patient outcomes, tempering initial enthusiasm with questions about effectiveness, adverse reactions, and cost. In contrast, in their search for a cure-all for poor quality, many payers in the past decade have turned uncritically to pay-for-performance (P4P). They will be disappointed by the systematic review of P4P in this issue (1).

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More

Editorials |18 December 2012

Pay-for-Performance: Not a Magic Bullet

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Sign In

Want to Subscribe?

See Also

Related Articles

Related Topics

PubMed Articles

Content

Information For

Services

Awards

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

Editorials |18 December 2012

Pay-for-Performance: Not a Magic Bullet

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Sign In

Want to Subscribe?

See Also

Related Articles

Related Topics

PubMed Articles

Content

Information For

Services

Awards

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

Sign In