ReviewHealth economics review2026
Prospective payment system transformation (2000-2024): temporal trends, payment architecture, and cross-national variation.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProspective Payment Systems (PPS) have been widely adopted over the past two decades as instruments for cost containment and efficiency improvement in health systems. However, much of the existing literature focuses on individual payment arrangements or single-country experiences, with limited attention to broader temporal, structural, and regional patterns reported across PPS-related reforms. This study examines patterns reported in the PPS-related literature published between 2000 and 2024, with particular emphasis on temporal trends, payment architecture, and regional variation in reform approaches.
methodsThis study constitutes a secondary narrative analysis of 168 studies included in a prior systematic review. No additional searches were conducted. Using an interpretive analytical framework, the included studies were synthesized across three dimensions: temporal trends reported in the literature, structural characteristics of payment architecture, and regional or country-level variation in implementation and reform patterns.
resultsFrom 8,615 identified records, 168 studies met the inclusion criteria. Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG)-based systems (32.1%) and pay-for-performance arrangements (26.2%) were the most frequently examined configurations, followed by global budget and capitation approaches (17.9%). A substantial increase in publications was observed after 2016, with 63.7% of studies published between 2016 and 2024. Across the reviewed literature, three broad periods of policy and research emphasis were identified: an earlier period focused primarily on cost standardization and inpatient expenditure control (2000-2007); a subsequent period characterized by increasing attention to hybrid arrangements and quality-linked components (2008-2015); and a more recent period emphasizing bundled payments, context-adapted designs, and integration with budgetary constraints (2016-2024). Regional variation revealed heterogeneous implementation and reform patterns across North America, Europe, and Asia.
conclusionsThe findings of this review suggest that PPS-related reforms are more appropriately understood as configurations of payment architecture embedded within broader institutional and governance contexts rather than as isolated payment models. Reported outcomes appear to depend less on model labels and more on design configuration and implementation capacity. Future research and policy analysis may benefit from more systematic reporting of payment architecture and its institutional prerequisites.
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.