ArticlePloS one2025
The spillover effects of Medicare's comprehensive care for joint replacement (CJR) model in California.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a bundled Medicare payment for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR), was initially randomized across the United States, providing a unique opportunity to study the broad impact of this alternative payment model. This study aimed to determine the spillover effects of the CJR model on older patients in California covered outside of the traditional Medicare program. The study analyzed hospitalizations for hip and knee joint replacement in California between January 2014 and December 2017 from the California Patient Discharge Dataset. The study used event study and difference-in-differences models to estimate changes in discharge-related outcomes in hospitals in treated and control areas before versus after CJR implementation (April 2016). Main outcomes were hospital length of stay and home discharge rates. All LEJR patients admitted to the treated or control hospitals were included in the study regardless of their primary payers. Of 312,914 analyzed LEJR hospitalizations (mean [SD] age, 68.3 [11.3] years; 189,575 [60.6%] women; 15,374 [4.9%] black), 113,590 (36.3%) were covered by traditional Medicare (TM), 83,277 (26.6%) were covered by Medicare Advantage (MA), and 116,047 (37.1%) were without Medicare coverage. After program implementation, TM and non-Medicare patients in treated hospitals experienced reductions in length of stay (-4.0% & -1.0%, p < 0.05) and TM, MA and non-Medicare patients in treated hospitals experienced increases in home discharge rates (3.4%, 4.7% & 2.3%, p < 0.001) relative to patients in untreated hospitals. CJR affected health care for non-targeted populations. Evaluating the program based on traditional Medicare beneficiaries alone does not capture the entire effect of the program on older adults.
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.