Primary care payment models and avoidable hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada: A multivalued treatment effects analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving access to primary care physicians' services may help reduce hospitalizations due to Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions (ACSCs). Ontario, Canada's most populous province, introduced blended payment models for primary care physicians in the early- to mid-2000s to increase access to primary care, preventive care, and better chronic disease management. We study the impact of payment models on avoidable hospitalizations due to two incentivized ACSCs (diabetes and congestive heart failure) and two non-incentivized ACSCs (angina and asthma). The data for our study came from health administrative data on practicing primary care physicians in Ontario between 2006 and 2015. We employ a two-stage estimation strategy on a balanced panel of 3710 primary care physicians (1158 blended-fee-for-service (FFS), 1388 blended-capitation models, and 1164 interprofessional team-based practices). First, we account for the differences in physician practices using a generalized propensity score based on a multinomial logit regression model, corresponding to three primary care payment models. Second, we use fractional regression models to estimate the average treatment effects on the treated outcome (i.e., avoidable hospitalizations). The capitation-based model sometimes increases avoidable hospitalizations due to angina (by 7 per 100,000 patients) and congestive heart failure (40 per 100,000) relative to the blended-FFS-based model. Switching capitation physicians into interprofessional teams mitigates this effect, reducing avoidable hospitalizations from congestive heart failure by 30 per 100,000 patients and suggesting better access to primary care and chronic disease management in team-based practices.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".