You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 300 No. 5, August 6, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Bacterial Infections
 •Infectious Diseases, Other
 •Quality of Care
 •Patient Safety/ Medical Error
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Physiology
 •Surgical Infections
 •Screening
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Infectious Diseases
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their cohort study of universal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Dr Harbarth and colleagues1 stated that the intervention was not cost-beneficial from a hospital standpoint. Proposed new rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services starting October 1, 2008, would no longer reimburse hospitals or clinicians for certain medical errors, including several categories of hospital-acquired infection.2 I believe that the newfound zeal of US hospitals to screen high-risk patients on admission for MRSA reflects an attempt to mitigate payment reduction or diagnosis-related group reduction for acquired infections by proving that the patient was already infected or at least colonized at the time of admission. These patients can then be isolated and perhaps warrant a higher billing rate based on complexity. Achieving lower infection rates is a laudable goal, but maintaining reimbursement may be the force driving much of this initiative in for-profit hospitals, which . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Rosemary Harris, MD
rosemary.harris@drexelmed.edu
Department of Family, Preventive and Community Medicine
Drexel University School of Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus at Hospital Admission and Nosocomial Infection in Surgical Patients
Stephan Harbarth, Carolina Fankhauser, Jacques Schrenzel, Jan Christenson, Pascal Gervaz, Catherine Bandiera-Clerc, Gesuele Renzi, Nathalie Vernaz, Hugo Sax, and Didier Pittet
JAMA. 2008;299(10):1149-1157.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals
Cassandra D. Salgado, Margreet C. Vos, and Barry M. Farr
JAMA. 2008;300(5):503-504.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals
William R. Jarvis and Carlene Muto
JAMA. 2008;300(5):504.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals—Reply
Stephan Harbarth and Didier Pittet
JAMA. 2008;300(5):504-505.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Universal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Hospitals—Reply
Daniel J. Diekema and Michael Climo
JAMA. 2008;300(5):505-506.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.