Impact of Alternative Payment Methodology on Primary Care Visits and Scheduling.
Clicks: 295
ID: 17682
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
71.1
/100
295 views
209 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #4 of 4 articles by views in journal of the american board of family medicine : jabfm
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In 2013, Oregon initiated an Alternative Payment Methodology (APM) Experiment for select health centers, initiating capitated payments for patients with Medicaid.To use electronic health record data to evaluate the impact of APM on visit and scheduling metrics in the first wave of experiment clinics.Retrospective clinic cohort. Difference-in-differences analysis using generalized linear mixed modeling across 2 time thresholds: the initiation of APM and the start of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.Eight primary clinics enrolled in APM on March 1, 2013 and 10 comparison clinics not enrolled in APM during the study period (July 1, 2012 to February 28, 2015).Independent variable: intervention status of the clinics (APM or comparison). Dependent variables: total patient encounters, total alternative encounters, new patient visits, provider appointment availability, number of appointment overbooks and no-shows/late cancellations.Comparison clinics had smaller patient panels and more advanced practice providers than APM clinics, but both had similar proportions of Hispanic, Medicaid, and uninsured patients. APM clinics had a 20% greater increase in same-day openings than non-APM clinics across the APM implementation (Relative Ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.42). Otherwise, there were minimal differences in APM clinics and control clinics in wait times, visit rates, patient no-shows, and overbooks.APM clinics experienced a greater increase in same-day visits over the course of this experiment, but did not significantly differ from comparators in other visit metrics. Further research into other impacts of this experiment are necessary and ongoing.
| Reference Key |
heintzmanimpactjournal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Heintzman, John;Cottrell, Erika;Angier, Heather;O'Malley, Jean;Bailey, Steffani;Jacob, Lorie;DeVoe, Jennifer;Ukhanova, Maria;Thayer, Erin;Marino, Miguel; |
| Journal | journal of the american board of family medicine : jabfm |
| Year | Year not found |
| DOI |
10.3122/jabfm.2019.04.180368
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.