ReviewPloS one2026
Choices and options in the care procurement process of bundled payment contracts: A literature-based overview from a payer's perspective.
Review in PloS one, 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
contextWhile the potential of bundled payment models to facilitate value-based care is hard to overestimate, the complexity of designing an effective and feasible care procurement contract forms a formidable barrier to their use. The objective of this study is to identify, structure, and interpret the key design choices and options during the care procurement process of bundled payment contracts using a payer's perspective.
methodsTwo reviewers independently conducted an iterative qualitative content analysis of a selectively sampled set of articles from a prior scoping review. First, they extracted and clustered all text excerpts about design choices or options relevant to a bundled payment procurement process. Where available, they assessed the potential impact of choosing that option. Second, the choices and options were analytically organized into six phases of a care procurement process. Third, the resulting framework was evaluated in an external expert panel session.
findings33 design choices with 110 unique options were identified and structured within a framework. An example of a design choice is to 'determine the method to select care and cost to include in the bundle,' in which case 4 options were identified: 1. based on historic claims data, 2. based on best-practices and/or local care pathways, 3. based on evidence-based clinical guidelines, and 4. based on the provider type or specialism that is willing to collaborate.
conclusionsThis study helps understand how design choices for payers to purchase value-based care with bundled payment contracts are context-dependent (e.g., in a single-payer system options are different than in a multi-payer system), interchangeable (i.e., different choices can achieve similar effects) and/or interrelated (i.e., choosing one option can have a positive or negative impact on the options in other procurement phases). The framework assists payers (and providers) in developing an effective and feasible bundled payment contract.
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.