Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31290989›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Association Between Specialist Office Visits and Health Expenditures in Accountable Care Organizations.

Vishal Anand Shetty, Laura B Balzer, Kimberley H Geissler, David L Chin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vishal Anand ShettyDepartment of Health Policy and Promotion, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst.
Laura B BalzerDepartment of Health Policy and Promotion, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst.
Kimberley H GeisslerDepartment of Health Policy and Promotion, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst.
David L ChinDepartment of Health Policy and Promotion, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) aim to control health expenditures while improving quality of care. Primary care has been emphasized as a means to reduce spending, but little is known about the implications of using specialists for achieving this ACO objective. Objective: To examine the association between ACO-beneficiary office visits conducted by specialists and the cost and utilization outcomes of those visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study obtained data on 620 distinct ACOs from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations Public-Use Files from April 1, 2012, to September 30, 2017. Generalized estimating equation models were used for analysis of ACOs, adjusting for ACO-beneficiary health status, Medicare enrollment groups, ACO size, and proportion of participating specialists. Exposures: Specialist encounter proportion, the percentage of office visits provided by a specialist, was categorized into 7 discrete groups: less than 35%, 35% to less than 40%, 40% to less than 45% (reference group), 45% to less than 50%, 50% to less than 55%, 55% to less than 60%, and 60% or greater. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was total expenditures (given in US dollars) per assigned beneficiary person-year. The secondary outcomes were total numbers of emergency department visits, hospital discharges, skilled nursing facility discharges, and magnetic resonance imaging orders. Results: In total, the data set included 1836 ACO-year (number of participation years per ACO) observations for 620 distinct ACOs. Those ACOs with a specialist encounter proportion of 40% to less than 45% had $1129 (95% CI, $445-$1814) lower per-beneficiary person-year spending than did ACOs in the lowest specialist encounter proportion group and had $752 (95% CI, $115-$1389) lower per-beneficiary person-year spending compared with ACOs in the highest specialist encounter proportion group. Monotonic decreases in emergency department visits, hospital discharges, and skilled nursing facility discharges were observed with increasing specialist encounter proportion. Conversely, monotonic increases in magnetic resonance imaging volume discharges were observed with increasing specialist encounter proportion. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that an ACO's ability to reduce spending may require sufficient involvement in care processes from specialists, who seem to complement the intrinsic primary care approach in ACOs.

Indexed as

Accountable Care OrganizationsPrimary Health CareCost SavingsCross-Sectional StudiesHealth ExpendituresHumansMedicareOffice VisitsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CareQuality of Health CareSpecializationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31290989
PMCPMC6624801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.