↓ Skip to main content

Payment Reform Options: Episode Payment Is A Good Place To Start

Overview of attention for article published in Health Affairs, January 2009
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Payment Reform Options: Episode Payment Is A Good Place To Start
Published in
Health Affairs, January 2009
DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.w262
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

New strategies to control U.S. health spending growth are urgently needed. Although provider payment cuts are likely, cutting fee-for-service (FFS) payments will hurt quality and access. A more sensible approach would be to restructure the delivery system into organized networks of providers delivering reliable, evidence-based care. But restructuring will not occur without payment policy reform. Four policy options are commonly cited: recalibrating FFS, instituting pay-for-performance, creating episode-based payments, and adopting global payments. We argue that episode payments are the most immediately viable approach, and we recommend that payment reforms precede any payment reductions so that new delivery models can gain traction.

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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 7 5%
Canada 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 116 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 19%
Student > Master 23 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 28%
Social Sciences 22 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 27 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2012.
All research outputs
#4,403,566
of 29,461,039 outputs
Outputs from Health Affairs
#4,161
of 6,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,484
of 211,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Affairs
#42
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,461,039 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 211,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.