↓ Skip to main content

Value-Based Reimbursement in Collectively Financed Healthcare Requires Monitoring of Socioeconomic Patient Data to Maintain Equality in Service Provision

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Value-Based Reimbursement in Collectively Financed Healthcare Requires Monitoring of Socioeconomic Patient Data to Maintain Equality in Service Provision
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4661-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toomas Timpka, James M. Nyce, Isis Amer-Wåhlin

Abstract

Value-based purchasing is increasingly discussed in association with efforts to develop modern healthcare systems. These models are the most recent example of models derived from health economics research intended to reform collectively financed healthcare. Previous examples have ranged from creation of pseudo-markets to opening these markets for competition between publicly and privately owned enterprises. Most value-based purchasing models tend to ignore that health service provision in collectively financed settings is based on an insurance with political, social obligations attached that challenge the notion of free market and individualist premises which these models rest on. Central social issues related to healthcare in any modern complex society, such as inequality in service provision, can all too easily "disappear" in value-based reform efforts. Based on an analysis of Swedish policy development, we contend that management information systems need to be extended to allow routine monitoring of socioeconomic data when models such as value-based purchasing are introduced in collectively financed health services. The experiences from Sweden are important for health policy in Europe and other regions with collectively financed healthcare plans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Social Sciences 8 15%
Computer Science 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 13 24%
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 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,057
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,485
of 340,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#94
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 340,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.