We asked Estes Park Institute Senior Fellow, Jim Kopf to comment on the paper:
, what does this mean in terms of how the OIG is weighing in on the board's responsibility and quality/safety? Jim Kopf
: First, if you change a few of the words, i.e. quality for compliance--this document is very similar to the paper put out in 2003 on what the board should ask about compliance.
: Hospitals have always had risk assessment procedures in place, however the advice given by the OIG goes further in that the government is placing oversight responsibility for quality and safety with the board.
: As Congress
moves to define standards of quality based on measures linked to pay for performance, the board will need to concentrate on making recording and documenting quality and quality controls (including a plan in place that monitors, evaluates and takes corrective action concerning quality and patient safety) as important as the traditional audits and evaluations a hospital compliance and ethics program currently does ( e.g. ensuring billing, coding, HIPAA privacy, internal audits HR actions, education and other audits) The big "G" will always try and tell the hospitals how they should be run when public money is involved.