Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37710262›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Challenges in predicting future high-cost patients for care management interventions.

Chris Crowley, Jennifer Perloff, Amy Stuck, Robert Mechanic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Chris CrowleyWest Health Institute, 10350 N Torrey Pines Rd, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. ccrowley@westhealth.org.
Jennifer PerloffInstitute for Accountable Care and Brandeis University, 415 South St. MS 035, Waltham, MA, 02453, USA.
Amy StuckWest Health Institute, 10350 N Torrey Pines Rd, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA.
Robert MechanicInstitute for Accountable Care and Brandeis University, 415 South St. MS 035, Waltham, MA, 02453, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo test the accuracy of a segmentation approach using claims data to predict Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be hospitalized in a subsequent year.

methodsThis article uses a 100-percent sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2017 to 2018. This analysis is designed to illustrate the actuarial limitations of person-centered risk segmentation by looking at the number and rate of hospitalizations for progressively narrower segments of heart failure patients and a national fee-for-service comparison group. Cohorts are defined using 2017 data and then 2018 hospitalization rates are shown graphically.

resultsAs the segments get narrower, the 2018 hospitalization rates increased, but the percentage of total Medicare FFS hospitalizations accounted for went down. In all three segments and the total Medicare FFS population, more than half of all patients did not have a hospitalization in 2018.

conclusionsWith the difficulty of identifying future high utilizing beneficiaries, health systems should consider the addition of clinician input and 'light touch' monitoring activities to improve the prediction of high-need, high-cost cohorts. It may also be beneficial to develop systemic strategies to manage utilization and steer beneficiaries to efficient providers rather than targeting individual patients.

Indexed as

Heart FailureMedicareAgedFee-for-Service PlansHospitalizationHumansMedical AssistanceUnited StatesCare managementHigh-cost patientsMedicareRisk-stratificationSegmentationUtilization

Identifiers

PMID37710262
PMCPMC10503094

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.