Positive clinical and financial outcomes of patient-management accountable metrics contract among hospitalists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies have shown positive outcomes for patients treated by hospitalists, however, the impact of Patientmanagement Accountable Metrics (PAM) contract among hospitalists on financial and clinical outcomes is unclear. This study intends to determine the impact of PAM contract among hospitalists on these outcomes.Methods: This retrospective cohort study conducted in a 7-hospital health system in southeast U.S. region included 93,037 adult inpatients treated by 264 hospitalists and discharged in 2018. It measures the impact of PAM contract among hospitalists on total cost, variable cost, contribution margin, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission and mortality per inpatient discharge. Univariate and multivariable regression analysis were used for measuring outcomes.Results: When compared with non- PAM contracted hospitalists, PAM contracted hospitalists were estimated per case to have $437 ([95% CI: $326 to $548]) lower in total cost, $123 ([95% CI: $73 to $173]) lower in variable cost, $361 ([95% CI: $241 to $481]) higher in contribution margin, 0.37 days ([95% CI: 0.33 to 0.42]) shorter in LOS, and lower 30-day readmissions probability with an odds ratio of 0.82, ([95% CI: 0.79 to 0.86]). The impact of PAM contractual status was not significant on mortality rates. Study hospital system projected $17 million annual cost reduction, $14 million contribution margin and 14,000 patient days savings if all hospitalists were PAM contracted.Conclusions: This study indicates that PAM contract had positive financial and clinical impact among hospitalists. These findings may help hospitals improve clinical outcomes while reducing costs and improve margin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".