↓ Skip to main content

From HMOs to ACOs: The Quest for the Holy Grail in U.S. Health Policy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
From HMOs to ACOs: The Quest for the Holy Grail in U.S. Health Policy
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11606-012-2024-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodore Marmor, Jonathan Oberlander

Abstract

The United States has been singularly unsuccessful at controlling health care spending. During the past four decades, American policymakers and analysts have embraced an ever changing array of panaceas to control costs, including managed care, consumer-directed health care, and most recently, delivery system reform and value-based purchasing. Past panaceas have gone through a cycle of excessive hope followed by disappointment at their failure to rein in medical care spending. We argue that accountable care organizations, medical homes, and similar ideas in vogue today could repeat this pattern. We explain why the United States persistently pursues health policy fads--despite their poor record--and how the promotion of panaceas obscures critical debate about controlling health care costs. Americans spend too much time on the quest for the "holy grail"--a reform that will decisively curtail spending while simultaneously improving quality of care--and too little time learning from the experiences of others. Reliable cost control does not, contrary to conventional wisdom, require fundamental delivery system reform or an end to fee-for-service payment. It does require the U.S. to emulate the lessons of other nations that have been more successful at limiting spending through budgeting, system wide fee schedules, and concentrated purchasing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 102 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Researcher 13 13%
Other 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 30%
Social Sciences 23 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 15 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 10 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,015,072
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,522
of 8,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,169
of 162,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#10
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 162,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.