ReviewJournal of palliative medicine2018
Linking Quality and Spending to Measure Value for People with Serious Illness.
Review in Journal of palliative medicine, 2018. 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.
- Igniting Harmonized Digital Clinical Quality Measurement through Terminology, CQL, and FHIR.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- Cardiologist Participation in Accountable Care Organizations and Changes in Spending and Quality for Medicare Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2019Article
- Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs in First-Line Treatments for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Observational
- Accountability for Community-Based Programs for the Seriously Ill.Journal of palliative medicine · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare payment is rapidly evolving to reward value by measuring and paying for quality and spending performance. Rewarding value for the care of seriously ill patients presents unique challenges.
objectiveTo evaluate the state of current efforts to measure and reward value for the care of seriously ill patients.
designWe performed a PubMed search of articles related to (1) measures of spending for people with serious illness and (2) linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness. We limited our search to U.S.-based studies published in English between January 1, 1960, and March 31, 2017. We supplemented this search by identifying public programs and other known initiatives that linked quality and spending for the seriously ill and extracted key program elements.
resultsOur search related to linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness yielded 277 articles. We identified three current public programs that currently link measures of quality and spending-or are likely to within the next few years-the Oncology Care Model; the Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease Model; and Home Health Value-Based Purchasing. Models that link quality and spending consist of four core components: (1) measuring quality, (2) measuring spending, (3) the payment adjustment model, and (4) the linking/incentive model. We found that current efforts to reward value for seriously ill patients are targeted for specific patient populations, do not broadly encourage the use of palliative care, and have not closely aligned quality and spending measures related to palliative care.
conclusionsWe develop recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders about how measures of spending and quality can be balanced in value-based payment programs.
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.