Saturday, October 2, 2010

Pay for performance

Pay for performance is a good idea. Right? I mean you do a job and they pay you. You do a job perfectly and they pay you more. How does that sound? It makes sense.

But what about paying doctors for their performance? Well the problem is that its paying doctors for their performance with patients. So its not just the doctors that should be paid but perhaps the patients as well.

Seriously, what if your health premiums were lower if you went for annual check ups and preventive tests such as mammograms and colonoscopies as scheduled? Also, if you had a condition, if you actually went for treatment as prescribed by your doctor?

I think that people with health conditions which require monitoring - anything from diabetes and heart conditions to post surgical follow up - it is up to them to get the treatment prescribed. If the doctor wants to follow up six weeks after surgery, go to the appointment so you don't end up in the emergency room because something that didn't heal quite right caused other problems. This should also include lifestyle changes to an extent. If a doctor says, you are going to develop diabetes or have a heart attack unless you eat healthier, get exercise, and lose some weight, you need to make an effort there as well.

Basically, it takes two to tango. The doctor needs to do their job and the patient needs to theirs as well. Maybe because human beings react positively to payment, money needs to be added to the mix. But then isn't money the root of all evil?

No comments: