↓ Skip to main content

Payment generosity and physician acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid patients

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Economics and Management, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Payment generosity and physician acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid patients
Published in
International Journal of Health Economics and Management, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10754-014-9152-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher S. Brunt, Gail A. Jensen

Abstract

Using 2008 physician survey data, we estimate the relationship between the generosity of fees paid to primary care physicians under Medicaid and Medicare and his/her willingness to accept new patients covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or both programs (i.e., dually enrolled patients). Findings reveal physicians are highly responsive to fee generosity under both programs. Also, their willingness to accept patients under either program is affected by the generosity of fees under the other program, i.e., there are significant spillover effects between Medicare and Medicare fee generosity. We also simulate how physicians in 2008 would have likely responded to Medicaid and Medicare payment reforms similar to those embodied in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, had they been permanently in place in 2008. Our findings suggest that "Medicaid Parity" for primary care physicians would have likely dramatically improved physician willingness to accept new Medicaid patients while only slightly reducing their willingness to accept new Medicare patients. Also, many more primary care physicians would have been willing to treat dually enrolled patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 14%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,913
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#174
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,767
of 240,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.