Cited by 174Healthcare Policy and ManagementPrimary Care and Health OutcomesPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare

Impact of Accountable Care Organizations on Utilization, Care, and Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Kaufman, Brystana G., Spivack, B. Steven, Stearns, Sally C., Song, Paula H., O’Brien, Emily C.·2019·Medical Care Research and Review

Abstract

Since 2010, more than 900 accountable care organizations (ACOs) have formed payment contracts with public and private insurers in the United States; however, there has not been a systematic evaluation of the evidence studying impacts of ACOs on care and outcomes across payer types. This review evaluates the quality of evidence regarding the association of public and private ACOs with health service use, processes, and outcomes of care. The 42 articles identified studied ACO contracts with Medicare ( N = 24 articles), Medicaid ( N = 5), commercial ( N = 11), and all payers ( N = 2). The most consistent associations between ACO implementation and outcomes across payer types were reduced inpatient use, reduced emergency department visits, and improved measures of preventive care and chronic disease management. The seven studies evaluating patient experience or clinical outcomes of care showed no evidence that ACOs worsen outcomes of care; however, the impact on patient care and outcomes should continue to be monitored.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077558717745916

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaufman, B. G., Spivack, B. S., Stearns, S. C., Song, P. H., & O’Brien, E. C.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
  • Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA
Corresponding author
Kaufman, Brystana G.
Venue
Medical Care Research and Review
Published
2017-12-12
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
255-290
ISSN
  • 1077-5587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6801
OpenAlex
W2774554851
Cited by
174
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 5
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care Research and Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (TL1TR001110)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Keywords
accountable care organizations, health care payment reform, Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, health care utilization, emergency department visits, preventive medicine, chronic disease management, patient experience, clinical outcomes, quality of care
MeSH terms
Emergency Service, Hospital, Medicare, Hospitalization, Humans, Medicaid, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Preventive Medicine, Quality of Health Care, United States, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Disease Management, Accountable Care Organizations

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