↓ Skip to main content

Lower- Versus Higher-Income Populations In The Alternative Quality Contract: Improved Quality And Similar Spending

Overview of attention for article published in Health Affairs, January 2017
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
66 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
49 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.
Title
Lower- Versus Higher-Income Populations In The Alternative Quality Contract: Improved Quality And Similar Spending
Published in
Health Affairs, January 2017
DOI 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0682
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zirui Song, Sherri Rose, Michael E Chernew, Dana Gelb Safran

Abstract

As population-based payment models become increasingly common, it is crucial to understand how such payment models affect health disparities. We evaluated health care quality and spending among enrollees in areas with lower versus higher socioeconomic status in Massachusetts before and after providers entered into the Alternative Quality Contract, a two-sided population-based payment model with substantial incentives tied to quality. We compared changes in process measures, outcome measures, and spending between enrollees in areas with lower and higher socioeconomic status from 2006 to 2012 (outcome measures were measured after the intervention only). Quality improved for all enrollees in the Alternative Quality Contract after their provider organizations entered the contract. Process measures improved 1.2 percentage points per year more among enrollees in areas with lower socioeconomic status than among those in areas with higher socioeconomic status. Outcome measure improvement was no different between the subgroups; neither were changes in spending. Larger or comparable improvements in quality among enrollees in areas with lower socioeconomic status suggest a potential narrowing of disparities. Strong pay-for-performance incentives within a population-based payment model could encourage providers to focus on improving quality for more disadvantaged populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Researcher 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 14%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 534. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#46,326
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Health Affairs
#147
of 6,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,046
of 422,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Affairs
#8
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 422,731 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.