Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38757002›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024

The business case for quality: estimating lives saved and harms avoided in a value-based purchasing model.

Peter Amico, Elizabeth E Drye, Peter Lee, Carolee Lantigua, Dana Gelb Safran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Peter AmicoAmico Consulting LLC, Orlando, FL 32806, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8734-4224
Elizabeth E DryeNational Quality Forum, Washington, DC 20005, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9687-6075
Peter LeeStanford University Clinical Excellence Research Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3134-4698
Carolee LantiguaNational Quality Forum, Washington, DC 20005, United States.
Dana Gelb SafranNational Quality Forum, Washington, DC 20005, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6039-0915

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ever-increasing concern about the cost and burden of quality measurement and reporting raises the question: How much do patients benefit from provider arrangements that incentivize performance improvements? We used national performance data to estimate the benefits in terms of lives saved and harms avoided if US health plans improved performance on 2 widely used quality measures: blood pressure control and colorectal cancer screening. We modeled potential results both in California Marketplace plans, where a value-based purchasing initiative incentivizes improvement, and for the US population across 4 market segments (Medicare, Medicaid, Marketplace, commercial). The results indicate that if the lower-performing health plans improve to 66th percentile benchmark scores, it would decrease annual hypertension and colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 7% and 2%, respectively. These analyses highlight the value of assessing performance accountability initiatives for their potential lives saved and harms avoided, as well as their costs and efforts.

Indexed as

health outcomespopulation healthquality measurementquality of care

Identifiers

PMID38757002
PMCPMC11098439

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.