Cited by 254Healthcare cost, quality, practicesHealthcare Policy and ManagementPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discretionary Decision Making By Primary Care Physicians And The Cost Of U.S. Health Care

Open access

Abstract

Efforts to improve the quality and costs of U.S. health care have focused largely on fostering physician adherence to evidence-based guidelines, ignoring the role of clinical judgment in more discretionary settings. We surveyed primary care physicians to assess variability in discretionary decision making and evaluate its relationship to the cost of health care. Physicians in high-spending regions see patients back more frequently and are more likely to recommend screening tests of unproven benefit and discretionary interventions compared with physicians in low-spending regions; however, both appear equally likely to recommend guideline-supported interventions. Greater attention should be paid to the local factors that influence physicians' clinical judgment in discretionary settings.

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 · 10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.813

Cites

34 of 34 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

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?

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 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1542/peds.2005-2587 · DOI
  2. 10.1542/peds.2005-2587 · DOI
  3. 10.1377/hlthaff.var.19 · DOI
  4. 10.1377/hlthaff.var.19 · DOI
  5. 10.1377/hlthaff.var.19 · DOI
  6. 10.1377/hlthaff.21.w96 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s11606-004-0003-2 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s11606-004-0003-2 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/s11606-004-0003-2 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s11606-004-0003-2 · DOI
  11. 10.1097/00005650-200103000-00004 · DOI
  12. 10.1097/00005650-200103000-00004 · DOI
  13. 10.1001/archpedi.157.3.279 · DOI
  14. 10.1136/bmj.297.6648.599 · DOI
  15. 10.3322/canjclin.56.1.11 · DOI
  16. 10.1148/radiol.2361040512 · DOI
  17. 10.1001/jama.1994.03510360040033 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Sirovich, B., Gallagher, P. M., Wennberg, D. E., & Fisher, E. S.
Affiliations
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • White River Junction, Vermont
Venue
Health Affairs
Published
2008-05
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
813-823
ISSN
  • 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-5208
OpenAlex
W1970716113
Cited by
253
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 22
FWCI
48.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG19783, P01AG019783)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL080437)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
discretionary decision-making, clinical judgment, primary care physicians, health care costs, guideline adherence, quality of care
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Health Services, Humans, Hypertension, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, United States, Health Care Costs, Health Care Surveys

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