MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911459752 · doi:10.5430/jha.v8n1p50

Hospital value based purchasing scores highly associated with prior year score and organizational characteristics

2019· article· en· W2911459752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alissa S. Chen, Caroline Hussey, Lee Revere, John T. Large, Maria Ukanova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingValue-Based PurchasingMedicineRegression analysisOperations managementStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Medicare’s Hospital Value Based Purchasing program (HVBP) rewards hospitals which achieve a higher than mean Total Performance Score (TPS). This article investigates the relationship between hospital characteristics and prior year Total Performance Score (TPS) on current year TPS under Medicare’s Hospital Value Based Purchasing (HVBP) program.Methods: Regression analyses are used to investigate the relationship between prior year TPS and organizational characteristics on current year TPS.Results: Regression analyses show that certain geographic locations, smaller bed size, and lower disproportionate share hospital percentage (DSHPCT) lead to a significantly higher TPS in both FY 2015 and FY 2016. Teaching status is associated with higher scores in FY 2015 and lower scores in FY 2016. Furthermore, prior year TPS is a significant predictor of current year TPS.Conclusions: Results suggest HVBP performance is dependent upon organizational characteristics which may have little to do with quality or cost of care. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that prior year HVBP performance is the strongest predictor of future performance which may impede low performing hospitals from achieving success in future years, despite significant gains in improving cost and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207