Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29181511›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of internal medicine2018

The Value-Based Payment Modifier: Program Outcomes and Implications for Disparities.

Eric T Roberts, Alan M Zaslavsky, J Michael McWilliams

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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

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

  1. Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of Pay-for-Performance in Practice: A Qualitative Metasynthesis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric T RobertsUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (E.T.R.).
Alan M ZaslavskyHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (A.M.Z.).
J Michael McWilliamsHarvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (J.M.M.).

Funding

Tradeoffs in the Design of Public Long-Term Care BenefitsP01AG032952 · NIA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI John Michael McWilliams · 2009 to 2026
$39.0M
VARIABILITY, STABILITY & SMOOTHNESS OF WALKINGP30AG024827 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JENNIFER S BRACH · 2004 to 2026
$28.6M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG032952NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: When risk adjustment is inadequate and incentives are weak, pay-for-performance programs, such as the Value-Based Payment Modifier (Value Modifier [VM]) implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, may contribute to health care disparities without improving performance on average. Objective: To estimate the association between VM exposure and performance on quality and spending measures and to assess the effects of adjusting for additional patient characteristics on performance differences between practices serving higher-risk and those serving lower-risk patients. Design: Exploiting the phase-in of the VM on the basis of practice size, regression discontinuity analysis and 2014 Medicare claims were used to estimate differences in practice performance associated with exposure of practices with 100 or more clinicians to full VM incentives (bonuses and penalties) and exposure of practices with 10 or more clinicians to partial incentives (bonuses only). Analyses were repeated with 2015 claims to estimate performance differences associated with a second year of exposure above the threshold of 100 or more clinicians. Performance differences were assessed between practices serving higher- and those serving lower-risk patients after standard Medicare adjustments versus adjustment for additional patient characteristics. Setting: Fee-for-service Medicare. Patients: Random 20% sample of beneficiaries. Measurements: Hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, all-cause 30-day readmissions, Medicare spending, and mortality. Results: No statistically significant discontinuities were found at the threshold of 10 or more or 100 or more clinicians in the relationship between practice size and performance on quality or spending measures in either year. Adjustment for additional patient characteristics narrowed performance differences by 9.2% to 67.9% between practices in the highest and those in the lowest quartile of Medicaid patients and Hierarchical Condition Category scores. Limitation: Observational design and administrative data. Conclusion: The VM was not associated with differences in performance on program measures. Performance differences between practices serving higher- and those serving lower-risk patients were affected considerably by additional adjustments, suggesting a potential for Medicare's pay-for-performance programs to exacerbate health care disparities. Primary Funding Source: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation and National Institute on Aging.

Indexed as

AgedCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.Fee-for-Service PlansFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth ExpendituresHospitalizationHumansMaleMedicarePatient ReadmissionQuality of Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveRisk AdjustmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29181511
PMCPMC5820192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.