How Will Partnership for Patients Reduce Medical Harm?

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media , April 21, 2011

$500 million of the Partnership funds will be spent to prevent complications in patients discharged from the hospital, which would mean "more than 1.6 million patients would recover from illness without suffering a preventable complication requiring re-hospitalization within 30 days of discharge," according to the campaign's website.

There won't be financial incentives for actually participating, but those will come in other regulations stemming from the ACA, such as the Value-Based Purchasing program, which penalize hospitals with higher than expected rates of certain types of preventable harm.

"Our hope is that that state consortia and large systems and associations will be eligible for these funds, which will help support local learning and improvement activity," McCannon says.

If successful, the two strategies to prevent hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions could save up to $35 billion dollars including up to $10 billion in Medicare savings, over the next three years—considerably more than the $1 billion spent to make it work.

I welcome the effort. If nothing more, it will help raise awareness throughout the healthcare system that patient harm remains a growing crisis that can, and must be, reversed.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "How Will Partnership for Patients Reduce Medical Harm?"

Bryan A. Liang (4/21/2011 at 1:30 PM)
Notwithstanding the theoretical benefits of Partnership for Patients, politics has ultimately played a significant role. As noted, the current initiative will *not* require public reporting of individual hospital performance. Rather than having each facility report results on reaching quality and safety targets, only aggregate goals and figures are to be used. Hence, potential strides for improvement of transparency and accountability in patient safety have been thwarted. Transparency is critical to any improvement in the safety realm, as is patient engagement in the process as a member of the safety team. Any safety initiative must, at a minimum, provide for individual hospital accountability through widely available public information about quality and safety measures within that facility. Moreover, patient-centered care and informed consumer choice can only be achieved through public reporting of patient satisfaction scores to demonstrate a facility's responsiveness to patients as the true center of the delivery process. Unfortunately, it is exactly these key indicia that have been removed from the initiative. Last year, when the initiative was supposed to be announced, consumer groups and large employer customers stressed public reporting was essential for individual hospitals to drive accountability and to supplant public value-based purchasing efforts with private-sector ones. Indeed, the administration solicited large employers (although not patients) for input regarding the initiative and tying payments to reporting and reaching quality measures. Instead of integrating input and promoting accountability by designing hospital systems that fulfill transparency, quality, and safety information needs, CMS This compromises the ethic of transparency, and the initiative actually represents two steps back in attempting to improve the current dismal state of patient safety. The dismal state of affairs of US patient safety means we need *more* accountability and *more* transparency, not less. Moreover, publicly reported scores at the website show that hospitals are receiving an F grade- scores of 55% or lower- for patients willing to recommend the facility to others, indicating an even greater need for individual hospital information. Patient access to safety, quality, and satisfaction information about individual institutions is the only road to informed consumer choice and thus improved accountability and competition. Innovative hospitals with outstanding quality and safety should not wait for CMS to change its approach. In parallel to advocating for accountability, these facilities should be trumpeting their transparency in open reporting of their patient safety and quality improvement activities compared with competitors. They should aggressively advertise their own high scores, and make direct comparisons to competing facility reported outcomes using available information. This approach can at least partially mitigate the impact of a policy that obscures how well facilities are actually performing. Transparency, accountability, quality, and safety[INVALID]these are all tenets constantly repeated by policymakers as their supposed focus in reform. It is time to clearly and unequivocally focus on the patient: The patient must have all relevant information to make an informed choice as to the facility that provides the highest quality and safest care with the best attention to patient experience and partnership. Quality and safety reporting for all providers is the foundational aspect of that focus. Patient safety advocates must ensure that policymakers are reminded that patients are entitled to safety and quality information as they remain the ultimate payers and the ultimate party who must shoulder the burden of poor healthcare quality and safety outcomes common in the United States health delivery system today. Bryan A. Liang, MD, PhD, JD, is Shapiro Distinguished Professor of Health Law and Executive Director, Institute of Health Law Studies, California Western School of Law; and Professor of Anesthesiology and Director, San Diego Center for Patient Safety, UCSD School of Medicine.




FREE e-Newsletters Join the Council Subscribe to HL magazine


100 Winners Circle Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027


About | Advertise | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Reprints/Permissions | Contact
© HealthLeaders Media 2015 a division of BLR All rights reserved.