The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Paying For Quality: Providers’ Incentives For Quality Improvement
Abstract
Paying health care providers to meet quality goals is an idea with widespread appeal, given the common perception that quality of care in the United States remains unacceptably low despite a decade of benchmarking and public reporting. There has been little critical analysis of the design of the current generation of quality incentive programs. In this paper we examine public reports of paying for quality over the past five years and assess each of the identified programs in terms of key design features, including the market share of payers, the structure of the reward system, the amount of revenue at stake, and the targeted domains of health care quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States
McGlynn, E. A., Asch, S. M., Adams, J., Keesey, J., Hicks, J., DeCristofaro, A., & Kerr, E. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa022615 · Cited by 5,079
The Provision of Incentives in Firms
Prendergast, C. (1999) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.37.1.7 · Cited by 3,338
Physician response to fee changes with multiple payers
McGuire, T. G., & Pauly, M. V. (1991) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/0167-6296(91)90022-f · Cited by 432
The Business Case For Quality: Case Studies And An Analysis
Leatherman, S., Berwick, D., Iles, D., Lewin, L. S., Davidoff, F., Nolan, T., & Bisognano, M. (2003) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.22.2.17 · Cited by 365
Hillman, A. L., Ripley, K., Goldfarb, N., Weiner, J., Nuamah, I., & Lusk, E. (1999) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.104.4.931 · Cited by 159
Newhouse, J. P. (2002) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.4.13 · Cited by 75
Health Plan Report Cards: Exploring Differences in Plan Ratings
Scanlon, D. P., Chernew, M. E., Sheffler, S., & Fendrick, A. M. (1998) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement · doi:10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30355-8 · Cited by 30
U.S. Healthcare's quality-based compensation model.
Hanchak, N. A., Schlackman, N., & Harmon-Weiss (1996) · PubMed · Cited by 27
Cited by
Public Reporting and Pay for Performance in Hospital Quality Improvement
Lindenauer, P. K., Remus, D., Roman, S., Rothberg, M. B., Benjamin, E. M., Ma, A., & Bratzler, D. W. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa064964 · Cited by 854
Early Experience With Pay-for-Performance: From Concept to Practice
Rosenthal, M. B., Frank, R. G., Li, Z., & Epstein, A. M. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.14.1788 · Cited by 623
Self-citationMedical Groups’ Adoption Of Electronic Health Records And Information Systems
Gans, D., Kralewski, J., Hammons, T., & Dowd, B. (2005) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1323 · Cited by 403
What Is the Empirical Basis for Paying for Quality in Health Care?
Rosenthal, M. B., & Frank, R. G. (2006) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558705285291 · Cited by 351
Self-citationPay for Performance at the Tipping Point
Epstein, A. M. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejme078002 · Cited by 276
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenthal, M. B., Fernandopulle, R., Song, H. R., & Landon, B.
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-141
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2012660619
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 109.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Paying For Quality: Providers’ Incentives For Quality Improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.127
- The paper
- Rosenthal, M. B., Fernandopulle, R., Song, H. R., & Landon, B. (2004). Paying For Quality: Providers’ Incentives For Quality Improvement. Health Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.127
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
