ArticleThe American journal of managed care2018
Patient attribution: why the method matters.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysis of Variation in Organizational Definitions of Primary Care Panels: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Unattributed Medicare beneficiaries have greater social disadvantage than those linked to primary care physicians.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Algorithmic Identification of the Daily Primary Frontline Clinician during Inpatient Medicine Encounters Using EHR Audit Log Data.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- Rebuilding the foundation: recommendations from the Summit to Revitalize Primary Care (Rev PC).BMC proceedings · 2026Article
- Provider Attribution in Medicare: Challenges and Solutions.Health services research · 2026Article
- Design, implementation and evaluation of value-based payment models: a Delphi study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Using Electronic Health Records to Identify the Daily Primary Provider During Hospitalization.Critical care explorations · 2024Article
- State Department of Motor Vehicles Reporting Mandates of Dementia Diagnoses and Dementia Underdiagnosis.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Detection Rates of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care for the United States Medicare Population.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2024Observational
- Considerations When Aggregating Data to Measure Performance Across Levels of the Health Care System.Academic pediatrics · 2022Article
- Physician Network Connections Associated With Faster De-Adoption of Dronedarone for Permanent Atrial Fibrillation.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2021Article
- Physician variation in the de-adoption of ineffective statin and fibrate therapy.Health services research · 2021Article
- Non-Official Language Concordance in Urban Canadian Medical Practice: Implications for Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2021Article
- Attributing Patients to Pediatric Residents Using Electronic Health Record Features Augmented with Audit Logs.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the impact of 5 commonly used patient attribution methods on measured healthcare cost, quality, and utilization metrics within an integrated healthcare delivery system. STUDY
designCross-sectional analysis of administrative data of all patients attributed (by any of 5 methods) and/or paneled to a primary care provider (PCP) at Mayo Clinic Rochester (MCR) in 2011.
methodsWe retrospectively applied 5 attribution methods to MCR administrative data from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. MCR is an integrated healthcare delivery system serving primary care and referral populations. The referral practice is geographically colocated but otherwise distinct from 6 primary care practice sites that include pediatric, internal medicine, and family medicine groups. Patients attributed by each method were compared on their concordance with PCP empanelment, quality measures, healthcare utilization, and total costs of care.
resultsThe 5 methods attributed between 61,813 (42%) and 106,152 (72%) of paneled patients to a PCP at MCR, although not necessarily to the paneled PCP. There was marked variation in care utilization and total costs of care, but not quality measures, among patients attributed by the different methods and between those paneled versus not paneled. Patients with more primary care visits were more likely to be attributed by all methods.
conclusionsReliable identification of the physician-patient relationship is necessary for accurate evaluation of healthcare processes, efficiencies, and outcomes. Optimization and standardization of attribution methods are therefore essential as health systems, payers, and policy makers seek to evaluate and improve the value of delivered care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30586493PMC6549236What 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.