Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Standards of Care II01:19

Standards of Care II

Nurses bear specific legal responsibilities under several federal statutes, including:
Standards of Care I01:22

Standards of Care I

Federal statutes profoundly impact nursing practice, providing critical guidelines to ensure patient care is equitable, accessible, and of the highest quality. The following laws address distinct aspects of healthcare provision and patient rights:

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Value-based Healthcare: Moving From PROMs as Population Benchmarks to Clinical Tools for Patient Goal Setting and Shared Decision-making.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same author

Value-based Healthcare: The Medicare Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) Brings Orthopaedic Surgeons a Step Closer to Owning the Total Cost of Care.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2026
Same author

Value-based Healthcare: Shared Patients, Shared Risk-A Call for Integrating Primary and Musculoskeletal Care.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research·2025
Same author

Strategies for Success in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Mandate.

Instructional course lectures·2025
Same author

Shared decision making using digital twins in knee osteoarthritis care: a randomized clinical trial of an AI-enabled decision aid versus education alone on decision quality, physical function, and user experience.

EClinicalMedicine·2025
Same author

Should Leading Causes Be Leading Solutions? Integrating Chronic Disease Surveillance into Data Modernization Efforts.

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 11, 2026

Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance
08:16

Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance

Published on: January 17, 2013

Pay-for-performance in orthopedics: implications for clinical practice.

Kevin J Bozic1, Amanda R Smith, David R Mauerhan

  • 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143-0728, USA.

The Journal of Arthroplasty
|October 11, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Pay-for-performance (P4P) initiatives aim to improve health care quality and efficiency by linking provider pay to performance. However, implementing P4P programs faces significant challenges, requiring collaborative solutions for success.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 11, 2026

Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance
08:16

Movement Retraining using Real-time Feedback of Performance

Published on: January 17, 2013

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Health Economics
  • Healthcare Management

Background:

  • The US healthcare system struggles with escalating costs and inconsistent quality.
  • Purchasers and payers increasingly demand transparency and accountability in healthcare spending.
  • Current reimbursement models often prioritize service volume over quality and efficiency.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine the implementation challenges of Pay-for-Performance (P4P) initiatives.
  • To identify barriers and potential unintended consequences of P4P programs.
  • To propose future directions for effective P4P implementation.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature on P4P programs.
  • Analysis of challenges in defining and measuring healthcare quality.
  • Examination of data collection, risk adjustment, and funding issues in P4P.

Main Results:

  • P4P implementation is hindered by difficulties in quality measurement and data management.
  • Risk adjustment, inadequate funding, and potential for provider gaming pose significant hurdles.
  • Negative impacts on low-tier providers and patient deselection are noted concerns.

Conclusions:

  • Successful P4P implementation requires addressing challenges in quality metrics, data infrastructure, and financial incentives.
  • Collaboration among providers, payers, and policymakers is crucial for safe and effective P4P programs.
  • Future P4P efforts must mitigate unintended consequences and ensure equitable provider performance evaluation.