Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768676›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2022

Society of General Internal Medicine Position Statement on Social Risk and Equity in Medicare's Mandatory Value-Based Payment Programs.

Anders Chen, Arnab Ghosh, Kendrick B Gwynn, Celeste Newby, Tracey L Henry, Jackson Pearce, Marshall Fleurant, Stacie Schmidt, Jennifer Bracey, Elizabeth A Jacobs

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Anders ChenDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. andersch@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1376-0629
Arnab GhoshDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Kendrick B GwynnDivision of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Celeste NewbyDeming Department of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Tracey L HenryDepartment of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jackson PearceCollege of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Marshall FleurantDepartment of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Stacie SchmidtDepartment of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jennifer BraceyDepartment of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Elizabeth A JacobsMaine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, ME, USA.
Emory University · USMedical University of South Carolina · USCornell University · USJohns Hopkins University · USMaine Medical Center · USTulane University · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act (2010) and Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (2015) ushered in a new era of Medicare value-based payment programs. Five major mandatory pay-for-performance programs have been implemented since 2012 with increasing positive and negative payment adjustments over time. A growing body of evidence indicates that these programs are inequitable and financially penalize safety-net systems and systems that care for a higher proportion of racial and ethnic minority patients. Payments from penalized systems are often redistributed to those with higher performance scores, which are predominantly better-financed, large, urban systems that serve less vulnerable patient populations - a "Reverse Robin Hood" effect. This inequity may be diminished by adjusting for social risk factors in payment policy. In this position statement, we review the literature evaluating equity across Medicare value-based payment programs, major policy reports evaluating the use of social risk data, and provide recommendations on behalf of the Society of General Internal Medicine regarding how to address social risk and unmet health-related social needs in these programs. Immediate recommendations include implementing peer grouping (stratification of healthcare systems by proportion of dual eligible Medicare/Medicaid patients served, and evaluation of performance and subsequent payment adjustments within strata) until optimal methods for accounting for social risk are defined. Short-term recommendations include using census-based, area-level indices to account for neighborhood-level social risk, and developing standardized approaches to collecting individual socioeconomic data in a robust but sensitive way. Long-term recommendations include implementing a research agenda to evaluate best practices for accounting for social risk, developing validated health equity specific measures of care, and creating policies to better integrate healthcare and social services.

Indexed as

MedicarePatient Protection and Affordable Care ActAgedEthnicityHumansInternal MedicineMinority GroupsReimbursement, IncentiveUnited Statesmedicaresafety-net systemssocial determinants of healthvalue-based payment

Identifiers

PMID35768676
PMCPMC9485310
OpenAlexW4283762052

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.