ArticleHealth services research2024
Examining alignment of community health teams' preferences for health, equity, and spending with state all-payer waiver priorities: A discrete choice experiment.
Article in Health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Canadian Insights into Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency: Perspectives on Daily and Long-Acting Growth Hormone from Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Providers.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Trends and Disparities in Appendicitis-Related Mortality Across U.S. Demographics and Regions: A 22-Year CDC WONDER Database Study.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Examining alignment of community health teams' preferences for health, equity, and spending with state all-payer waiver priorities: A discrete choice experiment.Health services research · 2024Article
- The big picture for this special issue: The state of the field, article highlights, and a look into the future.Health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe state of Vermont has a statewide waiver from the centers for medicare and medicaid services to allow all-payer Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The Vermont all-payer model (VAPM) waiver is layered upon previous reforms establishing regional community health teams (CHTs) and medical homes. The waiver is intended to incentivize healthcare value and quality and create alignment between health system payers, providers, and CHTs. The objective of this study was to examine CHT's trade-offs and preferences for health, equity, and spending and the alignment with VAPM priorities. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
settingData were gathered from a survey and discrete choice experiment among CHT leadership and CHT team members of the 13 CHTs in Vermont. STUDY
designWe used conditional logit models to model the choice as a function of its characteristics (attributes) and mixed logit models to analyze whether preferences for programs varied by persons and roles within CHTs. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsThere were 60 respondents who completed the survey online with 14 choice tasks, with three program options in each task, for a total sample size of 2520. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe found that CHTs prioritized programs in the community health plan and those with quantitative evidence of effectiveness. They were less likely to choose either programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities or programs having a small effect on a large population. Preferences did not vary across individual or community attributes. Program priorities of the VAPM, especially healthcare spending, were not prioritized.
conclusionsThe results suggest that the new VAPM does not automatically create system alignment: CHTs tended to prioritize local needs and voices. The statewide priorities are less important to CHTs, which have excellent internal alignment. This creates potential disconnection between state and community health goals. However, CHTs and the VAPM prioritize similar populations, indicating an opportunity to increase alignment by allowing flexible programs tailored to local needs. CHTs also prioritized programs with a strong evidence base, suggesting another potential avenue to create system alignment.
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.