ArticleScientific reports2022
Removing anonymity protection and utilization review decisions: a real-world case under a single-payer health system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of anonymity on utilization review has never been examined in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of removing anonymity protection for claims reviewers on their review decisions. Using a single-blinded repeated measures design, we randomly selected 1457 claims cases (with 12,237 orders) that had been anonymously reviewed and reimbursed in 2016 and had them re-reviewed in a signed review program in 2017 under the Taiwanese National Health Insurance scheme. The signed review policy significantly decreased the likelihood of a deduction decision at the case and the order level (P < 0.001). Furthermore, signed reviewers tended to make more "too lenient" decisions, and were less likely to make "too harsh" decisions. Removing anonymity protection dramatically reduced the deduction rate and overturned the tendency of decisions from "too harsh" to "too lenient". However, whether to maintain the anonymity of utilization reviews is a challenge for health authorities around the globe.
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.