Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implementation of a Value-Driven Outcomes Program to Identify High Variability in Clinical Costs and Outcomes and Association With Reduced Cost and Improved Quality

Open access
Lee, Vivian S., Kawamoto, Kensaku, Hess, Rachel, Park, Charlton, Young, Jeffrey, Hunter, Cheri, Johnson, Steven, Gulbransen, Sandi, Pelt, Christopher E., Horton, Devin J., Graves, Kencee K., Greene, Tom H., Anzai, Yoshimi, Pendleton, Robert C.·2016·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Transformation of US health care from volume to value requires meaningful quantification of costs and outcomes at the level of individual patients. OBJECTIVE: To measure the association of a value-driven outcomes tool that allocates costs of care and quality measures to individual patient encounters with cost reduction and health outcome optimization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Uncontrolled, pre-post, longitudinal, observational study measuring quality and outcomes relative to cost from 2012 to 2016 at University of Utah Health Care. Clinical improvement projects included total hip and knee joint replacement, hospitalist laboratory utilization, and management of sepsis. EXPOSURES: Physicians were given access to a tool with information about outcomes, costs (not charges), and variation and partnered with process improvement experts. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total and component inpatient and outpatient direct costs across departments; cost variability for Medicare severity diagnosis related groups measured as coefficient of variation (CV); and care costs and composite quality indexes. RESULTS: From July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, there were 1.7 million total patient visits, including 34 000 inpatient discharges. Professional costs accounted for 24.3% of total costs for inpatient episodes ($114.4 million of $470.4 million) and 41.9% of total costs for outpatient visits ($231.7 million of $553.1 million). For Medicare severity diagnosis related groups with the highest total direct costs, cost variability was highest for postoperative infection (CV = 1.71) and sepsis (CV = 1.37) and among the lowest for organ transplantation (CV ≤ 0.43). For total joint replacement, a composite quality index was 54% at baseline (n = 233 encounters) and 80% 1 year into the implementation (n = 188 encounters) (absolute change, 26%; 95% CI, 18%-35%; P < .001). Compared with the baseline year, mean direct costs were 7% lower in the implementation year (95% CI, 3%-11%; P < .001) and 11% lower in the postimplementation year (95% CI, 7%-14%; P < .001). The hospitalist laboratory testing mean cost per day was $138 (median [IQR], $113 [$79-160]; n = 2034 encounters) at baseline and $123 (median [IQR], $99 [$66-147]; n = 4276 encounters) in the evaluation period (mean difference, -$15; 95% CI, -$19 to -$11; P < .001), with no significant change in mean length of stay. For a pilot sepsis intervention, the mean time to anti-infective administration following fulfillment of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in patients with infection was 7.8 hours (median [IQR], 3.4 [0.8-7.8] hours; n = 29 encounters) at baseline and 3.6 hours (median [IQR], 2.2 [1.0-4.5] hours; n = 76 encounters) in the evaluation period (mean difference, -4.1 hours; 95% CI, -9.9 to -1.0 hours; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of a multifaceted value-driven outcomes tool to identify high variability in costs and outcomes in a large single health care system was associated with reduced costs and improved quality for 3 selected clinical projects. There may be benefit for individual physicians to understand actual care costs (not charges) and outcomes achieved for individual patients with defined clinical conditions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.12226

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 284

Metadata

Authors
Lee, V. S., Kawamoto, K., Hess, R., Park, C., Young, J., Hunter, C., Johnson, S., Gulbransen, S., Pelt, C. E., Horton, D. J., Graves, K. K., Greene, T. H., Anzai, Y., & Pendleton, R. C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2016-09-13
Volume
316
Issue
10
Pages
1061
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2519879197
Cited by
284
References
29
FWCI
70.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Implementation of a Value-Driven Outcomes Program to Identify High Variability in Clinical Costs and Outcomes and Association With Reduced Cost and Improved Quality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2016.12226
The paper
Lee, V. S., Kawamoto, K., Hess, R., Park, C., Young, J., Hunter, C., Johnson, S., Gulbransen, S., Pelt, C. E., Horton, D. J., Graves, K. K., Greene, T. H., Anzai, Y., & Pendleton, R. C. (2016). Implementation of a Value-Driven Outcomes Program to Identify High Variability in Clinical Costs and Outcomes and Association With Reduced Cost and Improved Quality. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12226

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.