ReviewReviews in urology2017
The LUGPA Alternative Payment Model for Initial Therapy of Newly Diagnosed Patients With Organ-confined Prostate Cancer: Rationale and Development.
Review in Reviews in urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.Cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Preserving Independent Urology: LUGPA's First Decade.Reviews in urology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past several decades, rapid expansion in healthcare expenditures has exposed the utilization incentives inherent in fee-for-service payment models. The passage of Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 heralded a transition toward value-based care, creating incentives for practitioners to accept bidirectional risk linked to outcome and utilization metrics. At present, the limited availability of these vehicles excludes all but a handful of providers from participation in alternative payment models (APMs). The LUGPA APM supports the goals of the triple aim in improving the patient experience, enhancing population health and reducing expenditures. By requiring utilization of certified electronic health record technologies, tying payment to quality metrics, and requiring practices to bear more than nominal risk, the LUGPA APM qualifies as an advanced APM, thereby easing the reporting burden and creating opportunities for participating practices.
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.