↓ Skip to main content

Economic Incentives to Promote Innovation in Healthcare Delivery

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Economic Incentives to Promote Innovation in Healthcare Delivery
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, June 2009
DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-0930-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harold S. Luft

Abstract

Economics influences how medical care is delivered, organized, and progresses. Fee-for-service payment encourages delivery of services. Fee-for-individual-service, however, offers no incentives for clinicians to efficiently organize the care their patients need. Global capitation provides such incentives; it works well in highly integrated practices but not for independent practitioners. The failures of utilization management in the 1990s demonstrated the need for a third alternative to better align incentives, such as bundling payment for an episode of care. Building on Medicare's approach to hospital payment, one can define expanded diagnosis-related groups that include all hospital, physician, and other costs during the stay and appropriate preadmission and postdischarge periods. Physicians and hospitals voluntarily forming a new entity (a care delivery team) would receive such bundled payments along with complete flexibility in allocating the funds. Modifications to gainsharing and antikickback rules, as well as reforms to malpractice liability laws, will facilitate the functioning of the care delivery teams. The implicit financial incentives encourage efficient care for the patient; the episode focus will facilitate measuring patient outcomes. Payment can be based on the resources used by those care delivery teams achieving superior outcomes, thereby fostering innovation improving outcomes and reducing waste.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 102 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Master 20 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 32%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 24 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,586
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,689
of 122,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#36
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 122,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.