↓ Skip to main content

Risk Adjustment And Medicare: Taking A Closer Look

Overview of attention for article published in Health Affairs, September 1997
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
7 policy sources
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Risk Adjustment And Medicare: Taking A Closer Look
Published in
Health Affairs, September 1997
DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.16.5.26
Pubmed ID
Authors

J P Newhouse, M B Buntin, J D Chapman

Abstract

Medicare's method for reimbursing at-risk managed care plans causes potential problems with selection (when beneficiaries with higher-than-expected costs stay in traditional plans) and stinting (the tendency to underprovide health services). Adjusting payment by diagnosis offers substantial improvement. We favor large-scale demonstrations of diagnosis-based reimbursement. Reducing payment, a Clinton administration proposal, would recoup excess payments in the short run but not address the selection problem, which could reemerge. Selection makes current payments vulnerable to upward spirals. We propose not using traditional Medicare to update reimbursement. Basing some payment on enrollees' actual use addresses selection and stinting. Rather than reinsurance, we propose blending traditional Medicare and risk-adjusted capitation. Ceding some cases to traditional Medicare in advance appears to be useful for terminally ill patients.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 4 10%
Unknown 36 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 30%
Researcher 6 15%
Professor 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,341,201
of 32,332,113 outputs
Outputs from Health Affairs
#2,227
of 6,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#482
of 39,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Affairs
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,332,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 69.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 39,623 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.