Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dropping the Baton: Specialty Referrals in the United States

Open access
MEHROTRA, ATEEV, FORREST, CHRISTOPHER B., LIN, CAROLINE Y.·2011·Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

CONTEXT: In the United States, more than a third of patients are referred to a specialist each year, and specialist visits constitute more than half of outpatient visits. Despite the frequency of referrals and the importance of the specialty-referral process, the process itself has been a long-standing source of frustration among both primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. These frustrations, along with a desire to lower costs, have led to numerous strategies to improve the specialty-referral process, such as using gatekeepers and referral guidelines. METHODS: This article reviews the literature on the specialty-referral process in order to better understand what is known about current problems with the referral process and what solutions have been proposed. The article first provides a conceptual framework and then reviews prior literature on the referral decision, care coordination including information transfer, and access to specialty care. FINDINGS: PCPs vary in their threshold for referring a patient, which results in both the underuse and the overuse of specialists. Many referrals do not include a transfer of information, either to or from the specialist; and when they do, it often contains insufficient data for medical decision making. Care across the primary-specialty interface is poorly integrated; PCPs often do not know whether a patient actually went to the specialist, or what the specialist recommended. PCPs and specialists also frequently disagree on the specialist's role during the referral episode (e.g., single consultation or continuing co-management). CONCLUSIONS: There are breakdowns and inefficiencies in all components of the specialty-referral process. Despite many promising mechanisms to improve the referral process, rigorous evaluations of these improvements are needed.

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 · 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00619.x

Cites

91 of 91 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 91 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
MEHROTRA, A., FORREST, C. B., & LIN, C. Y.
Venue
Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03
Volume
89
Issue
1
Pages
39-68
ISSN
0887-378X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112038757
Cited by
373
References
91
FWCI
20.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Dropping the Baton: Specialty Referrals in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00619.x
The paper
MEHROTRA, A., FORREST, C. B., & LIN, C. Y. (2011). Dropping the Baton: Specialty Referrals in the United States. Milbank Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00619.x

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.