Cited by 60Healthcare Policy and ManagementEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Alternative payment and care‐delivery models in oncology: A systematic review

Open access
Aviki, Emeline M., Schleicher, Stephen M., Mullangi, Samyukta, Matsoukas, Konstantina, Korenstein, Deborah·2018·Cancer

Abstract

Rising US health care costs have led to the creation of alternative payment and care‐delivery models designed to maximize outcomes and/or minimize costs through changes in reimbursement and care delivery. The impact of these interventions in cancer care is unclear. This review was undertaken to describe the landscape of new alternative payment and care‐delivery models in cancer care. In this systematic review, 22 alternative payment and/or care‐delivery models in cancer care were identified. These included 6 bundled payments, 4 accountable care organizations, 9 patient‐centered medical homes, and 3 other interventions. Only 12 interventions reported outcomes; the majority (n = 7; 58%) improved value, 4 had no impact, and 1 reduced value, but only initially. Heterogeneity of outcomes precluded a meta‐analysis. Despite the growth in alternative payment and delivery models in cancer, there is limited evidence to evaluate their efficacy. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society .

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 · 10.1002/cncr.31367

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The scoping review's findings and recommendations were consistent with those from a systematic review of alternative payment models for cancer care.

    “its findings and recommendations were consistent with those from a systematic review of alternative payment models for cancer care [25].”
  • Commercial funders consider payment models proprietary and tend to only release details when the payment model showed economic benefits.

    “However, there remains considerable information asymmetry between payors and providers in the healthcare marketplace: Providers may resist sharing the true costs of care to avoid scrutiny from funders, and commercial funders consider payment models proprietary and tend to only release details when the payment model showed economic benefits [25].”
  • There remains considerable information asymmetry between payors and providers in the healthcare marketplace.

    “However, there remains considerable information asymmetry between payors and providers in the healthcare marketplace: Providers may resist sharing the true costs of care to avoid scrutiny from funders, and commercial funders consider payment models proprietary and tend to only release details when the payment model showed economic benefits [25].”
  • Providers may resist sharing the true costs of care to avoid scrutiny from funders.

    “However, there remains considerable information asymmetry between payors and providers in the healthcare marketplace: Providers may resist sharing the true costs of care to avoid scrutiny from funders, and commercial funders consider payment models proprietary and tend to only release details when the payment model showed economic benefits [25].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]Bandell B Blue Cross signs first bundled payment deal with Miami firm South Florida Business Journal 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aviki, E. M., Schleicher, S. M., Mullangi, S., Matsoukas, K., & Korenstein, D.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Aviki, Emeline M.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-06
Volume
124
Issue
16
Pages
3293-3306
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2796292681
Cited by
60
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30 CA008748)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
alternative payment models, models of care, cancer care, bundled payment, accountable care organizations, patient-centered medical home, reimbursement, health care costs, health care value, cancer care delivery
MeSH terms
Health Expenditures, Medicare, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Quality of Health Care, Reimbursement Mechanisms, United States, Health Care Costs, Health Care Reform, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

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