ArticleOA family medicine2013
Aligning provider incentives to improve primary healthcare delivery in the United States.
Article in OA family medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community participation and contracting between state and non-state actors in primary care: A scoping review of evidence.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of an Intervention to Reduce Low-Value Preoperative Care for Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery at a Safety-Net Health System.JAMA internal medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe United States (US) is reforming primary care delivery systems, including the implementation of 'patient-centered medical homes.' Alignment of provider incentives with desired outcomes will likely be important to the success of these delivery system reforms.
methodsThis critical review uses a theoretical framework from game-theory models to discuss some of the dominant primary care provider payment models and how they create 'prisoner's dilemmas' that have stalled past reform efforts. It then uses this framework to illustrate, hypothetically, how advantages from different models could be blended together to encourage cooperation and improve the quality of primary care services delivered, thus providing an escape from current prisoner's dilemmas faced by providers.
findingsImprovements in primary care delivery will largely hinge on blended payment mechanisms that can effectively combine the advantageous elements of fee-for-service, capitation, and incentive payments into a balanced equation that enables providers to escape the perverse financial incentives of current payment mechanisms and overcome collective action problems.
conclusionsIf balanced appropriately, a blend of guaranteed payment and selective incentives designed to encourage primary care providers to deliver high quality care, efficient and equitable care and to eliminate incentives towards over-servicing could reach outcomes leading to shared benefits for everyone involved.
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.