ArticleJAMA health forum2024
Quality-of-Care Outcomes in Vertical Relationships Between Physicians and Health Systems.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary Care Physician Organization Affiliations With Health Systems Between 2014 and 2019 Were Associated With Modest Improvements in Quality of Care.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2026Article
- Association between integrated specialty pharmacy care model and pharmaceutical access and costs.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Hospital-Medicare Advantage Vertical Integration and Cardiopulmonary Care in Integrated Hospitals.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes and Medicare Advantage Payer-Hospital Integration.JAMA surgery · 2025Article
- Government's 10 year plan for the NHS in England.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- The "Iron Triangle" of Healthcare Services: Evaluating an Integrated Healthcare Alliance's Impact on Primary Care in Shenzhen, China.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Vertical relationships (ownership, affiliations, joint contracting) between physicians and health systems are increasing in the US. Many proponents of vertical relationships argue that increased spending associated with consolidation is accompanied by improvements in quality of care. Objective: To assess the association of vertical relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and large health systems and quality of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stacked difference-in-differences study compared outcomes for patients whose attributed PCP entered a vertical relationship with a large system in 2015 or 2017 to patients whose PCP was either never or always in a vertical relationship with a large system from 2013 to 2017. Models account for differences between PCPs, patient characteristics, market concentration, and secular trends. Data were derived from the 2013 to 2017 Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database. The study population included commercially insured individuals attributed to a PCP in the Massachusetts Health Quality Partners' Massachusetts Provider Database in 2013, 2015, or 2017. Analyses were conducted between January 2021 and January 2024. Exposure: PCPs attributed to patients in the study entering a vertical relationship with a large health system in 2015 or 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Low-value care utilization, posthospitalization follow-up, utilization among patients with ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, practice site visit fragmentation, and timeliness of specialty care. Results: The study population included 4 603 172 patient-year observations from 2013 to 2017. Among all patients in the study, 53.5% were female, 35.3% had any chronic condition, and the mean (SD) age was 38.9 (20.3) years. There was no association between vertical relationships and low-value care or ambulatory care-sensitive conditions utilization. A patient's PCP entering a vertical relationship had no association with the probability of follow-up within 90 days of cancer diagnosis with any oncologist but was associated with a 7.34-percentage point (pp) (95% CI, 2.28-12.40; P = .01) increase in the probability of follow-up with an oncologist in the health system. Vertical relationships were associated with increased posthospitalization follow-up with a physician in the health system by 7.51 pp (95% CI, 2.96-12.06: P = .001) in the 2015 subgroup. PCP-health system vertical relationships were associated with a significant decrease in fragmentation of practice site visits of -1.05 pp (95% CI, -2.05 to 0.05; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, vertical relationships between PCPs and large health systems were associated with patient steering and changes in care delivery processes, but not necessarily improvements in patient outcomes.
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.