MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396899499 · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2024.04.042

Physician Financial Incentives to Reduce Unplanned Hospital Readmissions: A Propensity Score Weighted Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4396899499 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John A. Staples, Ying Yu, Mayesha Khan, Hiten Naik, Guiping Liu, Jeffrey R. Brubacher, Ahmer Karimuddin, Jason M. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia HospitalCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
FundersVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteMichael Smith Health Research BCDoctors of BC
KeywordsPropensity score matchingIncentiveCohortMedicineEmergency medicineActuarial scienceFamily medicineFinanceBusinessInternal medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmissions are associated with adverse patient outcomes and substantial healthcare costs. It remains unknown whether physician financial incentives for enhanced discharge planning can reduce readmission risk. METHODS: In 2012, policymakers in British Columbia, Canada, introduced a $75 fee-for-service physician payment to incentivize enhanced discharge planning (the "G78717" fee code). We used population-based administrative health data to compare outcomes among G78717-exposed and G78717-unexposed patients. We identified all nonelective hospitalizations potentially eligible for the incentive over a 5-year study interval. We examined the composite risk of unplanned readmission or death and total direct healthcare costs accrued within 30 days of discharge. Propensity score overlap weights and adjustment were used to account for differences between exposed and unexposed patients. RESULTS: A total of 5262 of 24,787 G78717-exposed and 28,096 of 136,541 unexposed patients experienced subsequent unplanned readmission or death, suggesting exposure to the G78717 incentive did not reduce the risk of adverse outcomes after discharge (crude percent, 21.1% vs 20.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .23). Mean direct healthcare costs within 30 days of discharge were $3082 and $2993, respectively (adjusted cost ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05; P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: A physician financial incentive that encouraged enhanced hospital discharge planning did not reduced the risk of readmission or death, and did not significantly decrease direct healthcare costs. Policymakers should consider the baseline prevalence and effectiveness of enhanced discharge planning, the magnitude and design of financial incentives, and whether auditing of incentivized activities is required when implementing similar incentives elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID, NCT03256734.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of MedicineSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207