MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019304256 · doi:10.1177/1355819620913141

The impacts of accountable care organizations on patient experience, health outcomes and costs: a rapid review

2020· review· en· W3019304256 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Wilson, Adrian Guţă, Kerry Waddell, John N. Lavis, Robert H. Reid, Cara Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Services Research & Policy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorTrillium Health CentreUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBusinessPopulation healthPer capitaPopulationMedicineConsistency (knowledge bases)Service delivery frameworkNursingService (business)MarketingEnvironmental healthEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Accountable care organizations were implemented as a system-level approach to address quality differences and curb increasing healthcare costs in the United States of America, and have garnered the interest of policy makers in other countries to support better management of patients. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) identify the impacts of accountable care organizations on improving the quadruple aim goals of improving patient experience of care, enhancing population health outcomes, reducing the per capita cost of health care and ensuring positive provider experiences and (2) determine how and why such impacts have been achieved through accountable care organizations. Methods We used a rapid review approach, searching Health Systems Evidence (for systematic reviews) and PubMed (for reviews and studies). Results were reviewed for inclusion independently by two researchers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for consistency by another. Results We identified one recent systematic review and 59 primary studies that addressed the first objective ( n = 54), the second objective ( n = 4) or both objectives ( n = 1). The reviewed studies suggest that accountable care organizations reduce costs without reducing quality. Key findings related to objective 1 include: (1) there are positive trends across the quadruple–aim outcomes for accountable care organizations as compared to Medicare fee-for-service or group physician fee-for-service models; (2) accountable care organizations produced modest cost savings, which are largely attributable to savings in outpatient expenses among the most medically complex patients and reductions in the delivery of low-value services; (3) accountable care organization models met the majority of quality measures and perform better than their fee-for-service counterparts and (4) there is relatively little evidence about the impact of accountable care organizations on provider experience. Qualitative studies related to objective 2 highlighted mechanisms that were important for enabling accountable care organizations, including supplemental staff to enhance coordination and accountable care organization-wide electronic health records. Conclusions General trends and increased adoption of models similar to accountable care organizations outside of the USA suggest that these models outperform traditional fee-for-service models across the quadruple aim goals, although with mixed evidence about health outcomes.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.006
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 head0.573
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.099 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Services Research & PolicySame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207