ArticleHealth services research2022
Early experience of the quality improvement award program in federally funded health centers.
Article in Health services research, 2022. 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.
- Turf Wars: How Growth and Competitive Shocks Have Affected the Performance and Stability of Community Health Centers.The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Integrating eye care into Community Health Centers: a framework for advancing vision equity in underserved communities.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Early experience of the quality improvement award program in federally funded health centers.Health services research · 2022Article
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 describe the Health Resources and Services Administration's Quality Improvement Award (QIA) program, award patterns, and early lessons learned. STUDY
setting1413 health centers were eligible for QIA from 2014 to 2018. STUDY
designWe assessed cumulative QIA funding earned and modified funding excluding payments for per-patient bonuses, electronic health record (EHR) use, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) accreditation, and health information technology. We compared health centers on rural/urban location, PCMH accreditation, EHR reporting, and size. DATA COLLECTION: Organizational and quality measures are reported in the Uniform Data System, QIA program data. PRINCIPAL
findingsAverage cumulative funding was higher for health centers that were not rural (USD 380,387 [± USD 233,467] vs. USD 303,526 [± USD 164,272]), had PCMH accreditation (USD 401,675 [± USD 218,246] vs. USD 250,784 [± USD 144,404]), used their EHR for quality reporting (USD 374,214 (± USD 222,866) vs. USD 331,150 (± USD 198,689)), and were large (USD 435,473 (± USD 238,193) vs. USD 270,681 (± USD 114,484) an USD 231,917 (± USD 97,847) for small and medium centers, respectively). There were similar patterns, with smaller differences, for average modified payments.
conclusionsQIA is an important feasible initiative to introduce value-based payment principles to health centers. Early lessons for program design include announcing award criteria in advance and focusing on a smaller number of priority targets.
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.