ReviewJAMA cardiology2018
Payment Reform to Enhance Collaboration of Primary Care and Cardiology: A Review.
Review in JAMA cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitators and barriers to post-discharge pain assessment and triage: a qualitative study of nurses' and patients' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Intensified ambulatory cardiology care: effects on mortality and hospitalisation-a comparative observational study.Scientific reports · 2020Observational
- Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices.The Milbank quarterly · 2020Article
- Inconsistent Reporting of Potential Conflicts of Interest Disclosure.JAMA cardiology · 2019Article
- Time to Readmission and Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Liver and Pancreatic Surgery.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Defining Pooled' Place-Based' Budgets for Health and Social Care: A Scoping Review.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The US health care system faces an unsustainable trajectory of high costs and inconsistent outcomes. The fee-for-service payment model has contributed to inefficiency, and new payment methods are a promising approach to improving value. Health reforms are needed to increase patient access, reduce costs, and improve health care quality, and the landmark Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act presents a roadmap for reform. The product of a collaboration between primary care and cardiology clinicians, this review describes a conceptual approach to delivery and payment reforms that aim to better support primary care-cardiology comanagement of chronic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Observations: Few existing alternative payment models specifically address long-term management of CVD. Primary care medical homes and accountable care organizations come closest, but both emphasize primary care, and cardiologists have often not been well engaged. A collaborative care framework should articulate distinct roles and responsibilities for primary care and cardiology in CVD comanagement. Finally, a series of payment models aim to better support clinicians in providing accountable, seamless, and patient-centered cardiac care. Conclusions & Relevance: Clinical leadership is essential during this time of change in the health care system. Patients often struggle to navigate a fragmented and expensive system, whereas clinicians often practice with incomplete information about tests, treatments, and recommendations by their colleagues. The payment models described in this review offer an opportunity to create more satisfying approaches to patient care while improving value. These models have potential to support more effective coordination and to facilitate broader health care system transformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29167886What 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.