Physicians’ Participation In ACOs Is Lower In Places With Vulnerable Populations Than In More Affluent Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early evidence suggested that accountable care organizations (ACOs) could improve health care quality while constraining costs, and ACOs are expanding throughout the United States. However, if disadvantaged patients have unequal access to physicians who participate in ACOs, that expansion may exacerbate health care disparities. We examined the relationship between physicians' participation in both Medicare and commercial ACOs across the country and the sociodemographic characteristics of their likely patient populations. Physicians' participation in ACOs varied widely across hospital referral regions, from nearly 0 percent to over 85 percent. After we adjusted for individual physician and practice characteristics, we found that physicians who practiced in ZIP Code Tabulation Areas where a higher percentage of the population was black, living in poverty, uninsured, or disabled or had less than a high school education-compared to other areas-had significantly lower rates of ACO participation than other physicians. Our findings suggest that vulnerable populations' access to physicians participating in ACOs may not be as great as access for other groups, which could exacerbate existing disparities in health care quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".