IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/70714de1cb3d4620a5957f68dde5ce2e.html

Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Third Annual Report

Author

Listed:
  • Deborah Peikes
  • Grace Anglin
  • Erin Fries Taylor
  • Stacy Dale
  • Ann O'Malley
  • Arkadipta Ghosh
  • Kaylyn Swankoski
  • Lara Converse
  • Rosalind Keith
  • Mariel Finucane
  • Jesse Crosson
  • Anne Mutti
  • Thomas Grannemann
  • Aparajita Zutshi
  • Randall Brown

Abstract

This article describes the impacts for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries’ cost, service use, quality of care, and patient experience of the first three years of the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative.

Suggested Citation

  • Deborah Peikes & Grace Anglin & Erin Fries Taylor & Stacy Dale & Ann O'Malley & Arkadipta Ghosh & Kaylyn Swankoski & Lara Converse & Rosalind Keith & Mariel Finucane & Jesse Crosson & Anne Mutti & Tho, "undated". "Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Third Annual Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 70714de1cb3d4620a5957f68d, Mathematica Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:70714de1cb3d4620a5957f68dde5ce2e
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mathematica.org/-/media/publications/pdfs/health/2016/cpc-third-annual-report.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    2. Dmitriy Poznyak & Deborah N. Peikes & Breanna A. Wakar & Randall S. Brown & Robert J. Reid, "undated". "Development and Validation of the Modified Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment for the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative," Mathematica Policy Research Reports bbe30b537e51421fbe276ec45, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. Peikes, Deborah N. & Moreno, Lorenzo & Orzol, Sean Michael, 2008. "Propensity Score Matching: A Note of Caution for Evaluators of Social Programs," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 62, pages 222-231, August.
    4. Shadish, William R. & Clark, M. H. & Steiner, Peter M., 2008. "Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1334-1344.
    5. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    6. Deborah N. Peikes & Lorenzo Moreno & Sean Michael Orzol, "undated". "Propensity Score Matching: A Note of Caution for Evaluators of Social Programs," Mathematica Policy Research Reports dd0866e4646a4e0ea77079d5b, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Dehejia, Rajeev, 2005. "Practical propensity score matching: a reply to Smith and Todd," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 355-364.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deborah Peikes & Erin Fries Taylor & Stacy Dale & Ann O'Malley & Arkadipta Ghosh & Grace Anglin & Kaylyn Swankoski & Aparajita Zutshi & Lara Converse & Randall Brown, "undated". "Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Second Annual Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports ba9f7ec1dc504e4abe15302c2, Mathematica Policy Research.
    2. Heinrich, Carolyn J. & Mueser, Peter R. & Troske, Kenneth & Jeon, Kyung-Seong & Kahvecioglu, Daver C., 2009. "New Estimates of Public Employment and Training Program Net Impacts: A Nonexperimental Evaluation of the Workforce Investment Act Program," IZA Discussion Papers 4569, IZA Network @ LISER.
    3. Fortson, Kenneth & Gleason, Philip & Kopa, Emma & Verbitsky-Savitz, Natalya, 2015. "Horseshoes, hand grenades, and treatment effects? Reassessing whether nonexperimental estimators are biased," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 100-113.
    4. Vivian C. Wong & Peter M. Steiner & Kylie L. Anglin, 2018. "What Can Be Learned From Empirical Evaluations of Nonexperimental Methods?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(2), pages 147-175, April.
    5. Iacus, Stefano M. & Porro, Giuseppe, 2007. "Missing data imputation, matching and other applications of random recursive partitioning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 773-789, October.
    6. Yechan Park & Yuya Sasaki, 2024. "Matching $\leq$ Hybrid $\leq$ Difference in Differences," Papers 2411.07952, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    7. David McKenzie & John Gibson & Steven Stillman, 2010. "How Important Is Selection? Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Measures of the Income Gains from Migration," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(4), pages 913-945, June.
    8. McKenzie, David & Gibson, John & Stillman, Steven, 2006. "How important is selection ? Experimental versus non-experimental measures of the income gains from migration," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3906, The World Bank.
    9. Jochen Kluve & Boris Augurzky, 2007. "Assessing the performance of matching algorithms when selection into treatment is strong," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 533-557.
    10. Gensler, Sonja & Leeflang, Peter & Skiera, Bernd, 2012. "Impact of online channel use on customer revenues and costs to serve: Considering product portfolios and self-selection," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 192-201.
    11. Caliendo, Marco & Mahlstedt, Robert & Mitnik, Oscar A., 2017. "Unobservable, but unimportant? The relevance of usually unobserved variables for the evaluation of labor market policies," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 14-25.
    12. Paudel, G. & Krishna, V. & McDonald, A., 2018. "Why some inferior technologies succeed? Examining the diffusion and impacts of rotavator tillage in Nepal Terai," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277149, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Kenneth Fortson & Natalya Verbitsky-Savitz & Emma Kopa & Philip Gleason, 2012. "Using an Experimental Evaluation of Charter Schools to Test Whether Nonexperimental Comparison Group Methods Can Replicate Experimental Impact Estimates," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 27f871b5b7b94f3a80278a593, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2014. "The performance of non-experimental designs in the evaluation of environmental programs: A design-replication study using a large-scale randomized experiment as a benchmark," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 344-365.
    15. Giuseppe PORRO & Stefano Maria IACUS, 2004. "Average treatment effect estimation via random recursive partitioning," Departmental Working Papers 2004-28, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    16. Zafar E. Nazarov, 2016. "Can Benefits and Work Incentives Counseling be a Path to Future Economic Self-Sufficiency for Individuals with Disabilities?," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 211-234, June.
    17. Kenneth Fortson & Philip Gleason & Emma Kopa & Natalya Verbitsky-Savitz, "undated". "Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and Treatment Effects? Reassessing Bias in Nonexperimental Estimators," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 1c24988cd5454dd3be51fbc2c, Mathematica Policy Research.
    18. Kluve, Jochen & Lehmann, Hartmut & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2008. "Disentangling Treatment Effects of Active Labor Market Policies: The Role of Labor Force Status Sequences," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 1270-1295, December.
    19. Ayala, Luis & Rodríguez, Magdalena, 2013. "Health-related effects of welfare-to-work policies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 103-112.
    20. Seonho Shin, 2022. "Evaluating the Effect of the Matching Grant Program for Refugees: An Observational Study Using Matching, Weighting, and the Mantel-Haenszel Test," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 103-133, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:70714de1cb3d4620a5957f68dde5ce2e. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joanne Pfleiderer or Cindy George The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Cindy George to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mathius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.