Given some of the reporting of a recent survey of infections at Pennsylvania hospitals, officials at Butler Memorial Hospital could relate to the old saying that says "no good deed goes unpunished."

The infection report showed BMH with a high rate of recorded infections, but the study also revealed that Butler Memorial was among the leaders in taking an unusually aggressive and comprehensive approach to tracking hospital-borne infections.

BMH is being praised by officials at a Harrisburg-based health care oversight agency for taking the lead in tracking — and eventually reducing — infections. In fact, this effort has made Butler's hospital a national leader.

The recently released report showed BMH with reported infections well above most other hospitals in the state. The key word to understanding the infection study is "reported."

BMH, according to the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4), is a leader in adopting a methodology to more accurately record and track all infections related to a patient's hospital stay. The BMHapproach picks up many infections that other hospitals and the older methods miss.

The higher reported infection rates at Butler were about the same as those reported by Hamot Medical Center in Erie. BMH and Hamot were two of the three hospitals in the state using advanced, electronic reporting systems to identify and track infections. Only 220 hospitals across the U.S. are using such a comprehensive infection-tracking system.

In supporting the BMHapproach and commitment, PHC4 Executive Director Mark Volavka was correct in noting that hospitals cannot improve what they cannot measure.

With its aggressive approach, BMH is taking the first step in reducing hospital-related infections, which are blamed for longer hospital stays (and even deaths) as well as significantly higher health care costs.

Naturally, hospitals should want to reduce infection-related illnesses and deaths. But for too long, hospitals have accepted a certain rate of infections as unavoidable. It turns out that that's not correct — once identified and studied, many hospital-borne infections can be reduced or nearly eliminated.

The financial impact of dramatically reducing infections can play a major role in reducing health care costs, something that's been on the national agenda for a decade or more. Hospital-borne infections result in bills to health insurance companies and private payers that are almost six times higher than bills for patients with similar conditions, but without infections.

Volavka noted that average hospital stays for patients who acquire an infection are 20.6 days, compared with just 4.5 days for people who remain infection-free. The cost differences are huge — $185,260 for the infected patient compared with $31,389 for the infection-free patient.

If hospitals can reduce their costs, they can become more financially viable and also reduce costs for insurance companies and, presumably, save money for the businesses and individuals who pay health insurance premiums.

The infection report is an example of improved transparency at hospitals in the state and it also was potentially misleading for those who didn't make the effort to go beyond the chart of figures.

After seeing that several Pittsburgh media outlets did only surface reporting on the infection study and painted BMH in a negative light for its relatively high infection numbers, Volavka praised the BMH administration for taking a progressive approach toward tackling a health care problem that confronts hospitals all across the country.

Volavka labeled some of the Pittsburgh media's coverage of the story "drive-by"journalism and said it was an injustice for BMH to be falsely accused of being among the worst in the state when, in fact, it is taking a leadership position in quality improvement.

Volavka praised BMH for taking a proactive approach and making a significant investment in the new approach to tracking infections. In the next year or so, as many as 20 more hospitals across Pennsylvania are expected to follow the lead of BMH in using the comprehensive, computerized infection-tracking system. This will help by making future hospital comparisons more relevant.It also will allow hospitals to share success strategies in reducing infections that are costly — and sometimes even deadly.

BMHofficials are doing the right thing in working to reduce the avoidable costs associated with hospital-borne infections. That is something that should benefit patients and their families, but also the hospital's bottom line and payers of health insurance premiums.

The infection report revealed that there is sometimes a price to be paid for leadership — and transparency. But if PHC4's Volavka is correct and early progress already being made continues, time will show that BMH took an important leadership role in attacking the status quo when it comes to always costly and sometimes deadly infections.