{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025096525096525095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003861003861003861, 'mean_word_length': 6.208333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tension between quality measurement, public quality reporting, and pay for performance.

ACCURATE MEASURES OF OUTCOMES ARE NECESSARY TO improve the quality of US health care and address geographic, socioeconomic, and racial/ethnic variations in care quality. However, 2 major initiatives that seek to improve quality—public reporting of outcomes and pay for performance (P4P)—have the potential to reduce the reliabilityof theadministrativedataonwhich theyareoften based and generate spurious estimates of performance.