↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Lack of a substantive effect of insurance and the national US payment system on the relative distribution of surgical cases among hospitals in the State of Iowa: A retrospective, observational, cohort study
Published in
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, August 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.08.006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Our aim was to quantify the extent to which the distribution of patients among payers and changes to the payers' policies has influenced the market of surgery among hospitals in a relatively rural state. Retrospective cohort study. Iowa Hospital Association data analyzed were from 2007 through 2016 for the N = 121 hospitals with at least one case performed that included a major therapeutic procedure. We used five categories of payer (e.g., Medicare), five categories of patient age (e.g., 18 to 64 years), and three categories of patient residence location (e.g., neither from the county of the hospital nor from a county contiguous to the county of the hospital). Sorting hospitals in descending sequence of numbers of surgical cases, depending on year, the top 10% of hospitals performed 58.4% to 59.2% of the cases. Increases in numbers of cases among patients with commercial insurance increased the heterogeneity among hospitals in numbers of surgical cases (P < 0.0001). However, the magnitude of the effect was very small, with an estimated relative marginal effect on the overall Gini index of only 0.9% ± 0.2% (SE). Increases in numbers of cases of patients with Medicare insurance reduced the heterogeneity in numbers of cases among hospitals (P < 0.0001), but also with very small magnitude (-0.9% ± 0.2%). In contrast, factors encouraging patient travel contributed to larger hospitals becoming larger, and smaller hospitals becoming smaller (3.9% ± 0.7%, P < 0.0001). We found the absence of a substantive effect of insurance and national US payment systems on the relative distribution of surgical cases among hospitals. Anesthesia groups should focus on payer and payment reform in terms of their effects on payment rates (e.g., average payment per relative value guide unit), not on their potential effects on hospital caseloads.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 7 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 7 44%
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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
#1,291
of 1,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,259
of 341,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
#22
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,861 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 341,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.