Whose value is it anyway? Reconciling conflicting perceptions of patients and payers
Healthcare, ISSN: 2213-0764, Vol: 9, Issue: 4, Page: 100596
2021
- 9Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures9
- Readers9
Article Description
A promising pathway to achieving greater value in health care is to increase use of “high-value” services and decrease use of “low-value” services. Sometimes the value judgments of patients and payers are well-aligned, creating opportunities for policymakers to more forcefully influence use of services for which perceived value is concordant. More difficult situations arise when patients and payers have discordant value perceptions. We propose a novel framework for navigating situations where payers and patients agree or disagree on the relative value of services, and potential solutions for improving value under different conditions.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076421000798; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100596; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85118896039&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34768183; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213076421000798; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100596
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know