ArticleHealth care management science2000
Needs-based primary medical care capitation: development and evaluation of alternative approaches.
Article in Health care management science, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Diagnoses to Estimate Health Care Cost Risk in Canada.Medical care · 2019Article
- Inequity in access to guideline-recommended colorectal cancer treatment in Nova Scotia, Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2012Article
- Need-based resource allocation: different need indicators, different results?BMC health services research · 2009Article
- Risk adjustment and primary health care in Chile.Croatian medical journal · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and evaluate alternative methods of adjusting primary medical care capitation payments for variations in relative need for health care among enrolled practice populations.
methodsWe developed alternative needs-based capitation formulae and applied them to a sample of capitation-funded primary care practices to assess each formula's performance against a reference standard of capitation payments based on age, sex and self-assessed health status of the enrolled populations. The alternative formulae were based on: (1) age and sex; (2) age, sex and individually-measured socioeconomic characteristics; (3) age, sex and socioeconomic characteristics imputed from census data for enrollees' neighbourhood of residence; (4) age, sex and standardized mortality ratio for enrollees' neighbourhood of residence.
resultsAge/sex-adjusted capitation payments for the six practices studied ranged from 10% higher to 18% lower than the reference standard payments. Capitation formulae based on socioeconomic and mortality data did not perform consistently better than the current age/sex-based formula.
conclusionsPrimary medical care capitation payments adjusted only for age and sex do not reflect the relative health care needs of enrolled practice populations. Our alternative formulae based on socioeconomic and mortality data also failed to reflect relative needs. Methods that use other approaches to adjusting for differences in relative need among enrolled populations should be investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10780277What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.