Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31713030›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021

Incentivizing Excellent Care to At-Risk Groups with a Health Equity Summary Score.

Denis Agniel, Steven C Martino, Q Burkhart, Katrin Hambarsoomian, Nate Orr, Megan K Beckett, Cara James, Sarah Hudson Scholle, Shondelle Wilson-Frederick, Judy Ng and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
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

11 authors.

Denis AgnielRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Steven C MartinoRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Q BurkhartRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Katrin HambarsoomianRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Nate OrrRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Megan K BeckettRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Cara JamesCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sarah Hudson ScholleNational Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC, USA.
Shondelle Wilson-FrederickCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Judy NgNational Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC, USA.
Marc N ElliottRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. Elliott@rand.org.ORCID 0000-0002-7147-5535

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial risk factors (SRFs) such as minority race-and-ethnicity or low income are associated with quality-of-care, health, and healthcare outcomes. Organizations might prioritize improving care for easier-to-treat groups over those with SRFs, but measuring, reporting, and further incentivizing quality-of-care for SRF groups may improve their care.

objectiveTo develop, as a proof-of-concept, a Health Equity Summary Score (HESS): a succinct, easy-to-understand score that could be used to promote high-quality care to those with SRFs in Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans, which provide care for almost twenty million older and disabled Americans and collect extensive quality measure and SRF data.

designWe estimated, standardized, and combined performance scores for two sets of quality measures for enrollees in 2013-2016 MA health plans, considering both current levels of care, within-plan improvement, and nationally benchmarked improvement for those with SRFs (specifically, racial-and-ethnic minority status and dual-eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid).

participantsAll MA plans with publicly reported quality scores and 500 or more 2016 enrollees. MAIN MEASURES: Publicly reported clinical quality and patient experience measures. KEY

resultsAlmost 90% of plans measured for MA Star Ratings received a HESS; plans serving few patients with SRFs were excluded. The summary score was moderately positively correlated with publicly reported overall Star Ratings (r = 0.66-0.67). High-scoring plans typically had sizable enrollment of both racial-and-ethnic minorities (38-42%) and dually eligible beneficiaries (29-38%).

conclusionsWe demonstrated the feasibility of developing and estimating a HESS that is intended to promote and incentivize excellent care for racial-and-ethnic minorities and dually eligible MA enrollees. The HESS measures SRF-specific performance and does not simply duplicate overall plan Star Ratings. It also identifies plans that provide excellent care to large numbers of those with SRFs. Our methodology could be extended to other SRFs, quality measures, and settings.

Indexed as

Health EquityMedicare Part CAgedEthnicityHumansMinority GroupsMotivationUnited StatesdisparitiesMedicare Advantage health planspublic reportingquality-of-caresocial risk factors

Identifiers

PMID31713030
PMCPMC8298664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.