A Safety-Net System Gains Efficiencies Through ‘eReferrals’ To Specialists
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Additional variables beyond reimbursement affect physicians' decisions about whether to accept public insurance, such as delays in payment and hassles of payment procedures, personal characteristics of providers, and structural features of the system in which they provide care.
“the literature indicates that additional variables affect physicians' decisions about whether to accept public insurance, such as delays in payment and hassles of payment procedures, 35,36 personal characteristics of providers (e.g., credentials or experience, 34,38,39 race or ethnic group, 34,[38][39][40][41] and underlying attitudes or prejudices 39,42 ), and structural features of the system in”
From Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance (2011) · cites this paper as [35]
Reimbursement levels influence providers' decisions about whether to accept public insurance.
“reimbursement levels influence providers' decisions about whether to accept public insurance.8,[34][35][36]”
From Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance (2011) · cites this paper as [35]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vimalananda, V. G., Gupte, G., Seraj, S. M., Orlander, J., Berlowitz, D., Fincke, B. G., & Simon, S. R. (2015) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x15582108 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Auditing Access to Specialty Care for Children with Public Insurance
Bisgaier, J., & Rhodes, K. V. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1013285 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Olayiwola, J. N., Anderson, D., Jepeal, N., Aseltine, R., Pickett, C., Yan, J., & Zlateva, I. (2016) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1869 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Osman, M. A., Schick-Makaroff, K., Thompson, S., Bialy, L., Featherstone, R., Kurzawa, J., Zaidi, D., Okpechi, I., Habib, S., Shojai, S., et al. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001629 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
“✓ “Its success at San Francisco General Hospital depended on…financial incentives that were not completely wedded to clinic productivity” 66 (p. 971).”
Barnett, M. L., Yee, H. F., Mehrotra, A., & Giboney, P. (2017) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1283 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Self-citationEvaluating diverse electronic consultation programs with a common framework
Tuot, D. S., Liddy, C., Vimalananda, V. G., Pecina, J., Murphy, E. J., Keely, E., Simon, S. R., North, F., Orlander, J. D., & Chen, A. H. (2018) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3626-4 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citationScheibe, M. M., Imboden, J. B., Schmajuk, G., Margaretten, M., Graf, J. D., Chen, A. H., Yelin, E. H., & Yazdany, J. (2015) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.22559 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Self-citationAsk the eConsultant: Improving access to haematology expertise using an asynchronous eConsult system
Fogel, A., Khamisa, K., Afkham, A., Liddy, C., & Keely, E. (2017) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x16644095 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Fort, M. P., Namba, L. M., Dutcher, S., Copeland, T., Bermingham, N., Fellenz, C., Lantz, D., Reusch, J. J., & Bayliss, E. A. (2017) · The Permanente Journal · doi:10.7812/tpp/16-022 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Electronic Preconsultation as a Method of Quality Improvement for Urological Referrals
McGeady, J. B., Blaschko, S. D., Brajtbord, J. S., Sewell, J. L., Chen, A. H., & Breyer, B. N. (2014) · Urology Practice · doi:10.1016/j.urpr.2014.06.005 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationMinding the Gaps: Assessing Communication Outcomes of Electronic Preconsultation Exchange
Price, E. L., Sewell, J. L., Chen, A. H., & Sarkar, U. (2016) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(16)42048-9 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chen, A. H., Kushel, M. B., Grumbach, K., & Yee, H. F.
- Affiliations
- San Francisco General Hospital (US)
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 969-971
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2080725721
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 13.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- safety-net hospitals, electronic referral, specialist referral, health care efficiency, primary care, health care delivery
- MeSH terms
- Appointments and Schedules, Health Surveys, Hospitals, General, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Referral and Consultation, San Francisco, Efficiency, Organizational, Systems Integration, Internet, Electronic Health Records
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
