The quality of patient care determines the effectiveness of medical services in modern healthcare institutions. Authorities in different countries have established useful motivational models for awarding best practices in the industry (Gupta and Holly 1305). This discussion evaluates the pay-for-performance (P4P) metrics for evaluating the contribution of Coastal Medical Center (CMC) to positive patient outcomes (Harrison and Association of University Programs). Most importantly, CMC should expect a P4P bonus for improved availability and accessibility of essential medical services through reliable and affordable healthcare costs. The rewarding program awards competent medical practitioners and institutions which ensure individuals’ access to quality care. Various metrics are evaluated statistically and qualitatively to determine which institutions deserve a P4P bonus (Gupta and Holly 1308). CMC should anticipate the reward for enhancing the affordability of medical services through arranged financial programs (Soucat et al. 76). Local authorities and business entities collaborate to cover significant expenses hence reducing healthcare costs. This is an important element that indicates positive outcomes in quality (Girault et al. 409). The P4P bonus considers awarding hospitals, clinics, and dispensaries that focus on the prompt recovery of public patients at the expense of financial revenue. Practically, the CMC could use the Johnson Medical Center (JMC) and Lutheran Medical Center (LMC) for benchmarking purposes. These competitors have also adopted practices that depict high-quality scores in the P4P model. On the one hand, JMC enhances innovation and organizational sustainability through acquired profits over the years. The institution funds medical projects that improve patient care from available finances (Girault et al. 4010). On the other hand, the LMC institution would be a valuable source of benchmarking affordability as it is a not-for-profit entity. Patients access vital medical services at a subsidized cost to maintain basic daily operations (Sucat et al. 76). Most fundamentally, the competitors display useful P4P attributes that CMC could integrate into its healthcare model. Moreover, CMC should expect a P4P bonus for providing a wide range of medical services. The entity is a vital referral institution for providing emergency care in extreme cases. These include primary, secondary, and tertiary care with a large bed capacity above its rivals. In essence, the P4P initiative considers these categories of medical services critical for enhancing quality in patient outcomes. Public members regard the institution highly despite the lack of advanced care, which involves sophisticated technology equipment. The range of services provided and employed professionals make the hospital reliable in the prompt medical response to emergency cases. Consequently, the CMC should expect a P4P bonus for improved quality care in healthcare costs and a wide range of healthcare services. Works Cited Girault, Anne, et al. “Implementing hospital pay-for-performance: Lessons learned from the French pilot program.” Health Policy, vol. 121, no. 4, 2017, pp. 407-417. Gupta, Neeru, and Holly M. Ayles. “Effects of Pay-for-Performance for Primary Care Physicians on Diabetes Outcomes in Single-Payer Health Systems: A Systematic Review.” The European