Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28764776›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Costs of health care across primary care models in Ontario.

Maude Laberge, Walter P Wodchis, Jan Barnsley, Audrey Laporte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Informal Caregiving: Health System Cost Implications.Western journal of nursing research · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Priorities in health system reform.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maude LabergeDepartment of Operations and Decision Systems, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Université Laval, 2325 rue de la Terrasse, #2519, Quebec City, G1V0A6, Quebec, Canada. Maude.laberge@fsa.ulaval.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1274-136X
Walter P WodchisInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Jan BarnsleyInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Audrey LaporteCanadian Centre for Health Economics, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between newly introduced primary care models in Ontario, Canada, and patients' primary care and total health care costs. A specific focus is on the payment mechanisms for primary care physicians, i.e. fee-for-service (FFS), enhanced-FFS, and blended capitation, and whether providers practiced as part of a multidisciplinary team.

methodsUtilization data for a one year period was measured using administrative databases for a 10% sample selected at random from the Ontario adult population. Primary care and total health care costs were calculated at the individual level and included costs from physician services, hospital visits and admissions, long term care, drugs, home care, lab tests, and visits to non-medical health care providers. Generalized linear model regressions were conducted to assess the differences in costs between primary care models.

resultsPatients not enrolled with a primary care physicians were younger, more likely to be males and of lower socio-economic status. Patients in blended capitation models were healthier and wealthier than FFS and enhanced-FFS patients. Primary care and total health care costs were significantly different across Ontario primary care models. Using the traditional FFS as the reference, we found that patients in the enhanced-FFS models had the lowest total health care costs, and also the lowest primary care costs. Patients in the blended capitation models had higher primary care costs but lower total health care costs. Patients that were in multidisciplinary teams (FHT), where physicians are also paid on a blended capitation basis, had higher total health care costs than non-FHT patients but still lower than the FFS reference group. Primary care and total health care costs increased with patients' age, morbidity, and lower income quintile across all primary care payment types.

conclusionsThe new primary care models were associated with lower total health care costs for patients compared to the traditional FFS model, despite higher primary care costs in some models.

Indexed as

Fee-for-Service PlansAdultAge FactorsCapitation FeeFemaleHealth Care CostsHospitalizationHumansIncomeMaleOntarioPrimary Health CareSalaries and Fringe BenefitsHealth care costsPayment systems: FFS/capitation/DRGs/Risk Adjusted Payments etc.Primary care

Identifiers

PMID28764776
PMCPMC5540455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.