Bundled Care in Elective Total Joint Replacement: Payment Models in Sweden, Canada, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
➢: Rising health-care expenditures and payer dissatisfaction with traditional models of reimbursement have driven an interest in alternative payment model initiatives. ➢: Bundled payments, an alternative payment model, have been introduced for total joint replacement in Sweden, the United States, and Canada to help to curb costs, with varying degrees of success. ➢: Outpatient total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty are becoming increasingly common and provide value for patients and payers, but have negatively impacted providers participating in bundled payment models due to considerable losses and decreased reimbursement. ➢: A fine balance exists between achieving cost savings for payers and enticing participation by providers in bundled payment models. ➢: The design of each model is key to payer, provider, and patient satisfaction and should feature comprehensive coverage for a full cycle of care whether it is in the inpatient or outpatient setting, is linked to quality and patient-reported outcomes, features appropriate risk adjustment, and sets limits on responsibility for unrelated complications and extreme outlier events.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".