ReviewMedical care2016
Do Health Care Delivery System Reforms Improve Value? The Jury Is Still Out.
Review in Medical care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Care Management Processes Important for High-Quality Diabetes Care.Diabetes care · 2023Article
- Diabetes care quality: do large medical groups perform better?The American journal of managed care · 2022Article
- Factors Associated With Overuse of Health Care Within US Health Systems: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries From 2016 to 2018.JAMA health forum · 2022Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of a Complex Care Program for High-Cost/High-Need Patients: a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Endorsing performance measures is a matter of trust.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Article
- Physician attitudes toward participating in a financial incentive program for LDL reduction are associated with patient outcomes.Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2017Article
- Capsule Commentary on Timbie et al., Association Between Patient-Centered Medical Home Capabilities and Outcomes for Medicare Beneficiaries Seeking Care from Federally Qualified Health Centers.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- Partnering with Insurers in Caring for the Most Vulnerable Youth with Diabetes: NICH as an Integrator.Current diabetes reports · 2017Review
- Achieving moral, high quality, affordable medical care in America through a true free market.The Linacre quarterly · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWidespread restructuring of health delivery systems is underway in the United States to reduce costs and improve the quality of health care.
objectiveTo describe studies evaluating the impact of system-level interventions (incentives and delivery structures) on the value of US health care, defined as the balance between quality and cost. RESEARCH
designWe identified articles in PubMed (2003 to July 2014) using keywords identified through an iterative process, with reference and author tracking. We searched tables of contents of relevant journals from August 2014 through 11 August 2015 to update our sample. SUBJECTS: We included prospective or retrospective studies of system-level changes, with a control, reporting both quality and either cost or utilization of resources. MEASURES: Data about study design, study quality, and outcomes was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second.
resultsThirty reports of 28 interventions were included. Interventions included patient-centered medical home implementations (n=12), pay-for-performance programs (n=10), and mixed interventions (n=6); no other intervention types were identified. Most reports (n=19) described both cost and utilization outcomes. Quality, cost, and utilization outcomes varied widely; many improvements were small and process outcomes predominated. Improved value (improved quality with stable or lower cost/utilization or stable quality with lower cost/utilization) was seen in 23 reports; 1 showed decreased value, and 6 showed unchanged, unclear, or mixed results.Study limitations included variability among specific endpoints reported, inconsistent methodologies, and lack of full adjustment in some observational trials. Lack of standardized MeSH terms was also a challenge in the search.
conclusionsOn balance, the literature suggests that health system reforms can improve value. However, this finding is tempered by the varying outcomes evaluated across studies with little documented improvement in outcome quality measures. Standardized measures of value would facilitate assessment of the impact of interventions across studies and better estimates of the broad impact of system change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.