Redesigning the Regulatory Framework for Ambulatory Care Services in New York
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: Policy Points: The landscape of ambulatory care services in the United States is rapidly changing on account of payment reform, primary care transformation, and the rise of convenient care options such as retail clinics. New York State has undertaken a redesign of regulatory policy for ambulatory care rooted in the Triple Aim (better health, higher-quality care, lower costs)-with a particular emphasis on continuity of care for patients. Key tenets of the regulatory approach include defining and tracking the taxonomy of ambulatory care services as well as ensuring that convenient care options do not erode continuity of care for patients. CONTEXT: While hospitals remain important centers of gravity in the health system, services are increasingly being delivered through ambulatory care. This shift to ambulatory care is giving rise to new delivery structures, such as retail clinics and urgent care centers, as well as reinventing existing ambulatory care capacity, as seen with the patient-centered medical home model and the movement toward team-based care. To protect the public's interests, oversight of ambulatory care services must keep pace with these rapid changes. With this purpose, in January 2013 the New York Public Health and Health Planning Council undertook a redesign of the regulatory framework for the state's ambulatory care services. This article describes the principles undergirding the framework as well as the regulatory recommendations themselves. METHODS: We explored and analyzed the regulation of ambulatory care services in New York in accordance with the available gray and peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents. The deliberations of the Public Health and Health Planning Council informed our review. FINDINGS: The vision of high-performing ambulatory care should be rooted in the Triple Aim (better health, higher-quality care, lower costs), with a particular emphasis on continuity of care for patients. There is a pressing need to better define the taxonomy of ambulatory care services. From the state government's perspective, this clarification requires better reporting from new health care entities (eg, retail clinics), connections with regional and state health information technology hubs, and coordination among state agencies. A uniform nomenclature also would improve consumers' understanding of rights and responsibilities. Finally, the regulatory mechanisms employed-from mandatory reporting to licensure to regional planning to the certificate of need-should remain flexible and match the degree of consensus regarding the appropriate regulatory path. CONCLUSIONS: Few other states have embarked on a wide-ranging assessment of their regulation of ambulatory care services. By moving toward adopting the regulatory approach described here, New York aims to balance sound oversight with pluralism and innovation in health care delivery.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,056 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».