Costs of accountable care organization participation for primary care providers: early stage results

Table 3 Estimated ATET by number of matches and pooled across the different numbers of matches. Year = 2013 and 7 RHCs that joined an ACO in 2012

Study	ATET	[95 % Conf. Interval]		% Weight
Part 1 (Year is 2012 and the 7 RHCs that joined an ACO in 2012, n = 544)
Test of ATET = 0: z = 6.68, p = 0.000
Matches = 1	26.740	8.022	45.458	15.61
Matches = 2	29.410	11.653	47.167	17.34
Matches = 3	26.610	8.931	44.289	17.50
Matches = 4	23.040	8.066	38.014	24.39
Matches = 5	22.430	7.691	37.169	25.17
Pooled ATET (note 1)	25.193	17.799	32.588	100.00
Percentage of mean	14.02 %	17.799	32.588	100.00
Part 2 (Year is 2013 and the 7 RHCs that joined an ACO in 2012, n = 435)
Test of ATET = 0: z = 3.17, p = 0.002
Matches = 1	14.110	−10.488	38.708	18.81
Matches = 2	19.790	−5.592	45.172	17.67
Matches = 3	18.450	−5.030	41.930	20.65
Matches = 4	16.980	−6.285	40.245	21.03
Matches = 5	17.170	−5.664	40.004	21.83
Pooled ATET (note 1)	17.282	6.612	27.951	100.00
Percentage of mean	14.02 %	6.612	27.951	100.00
Part 3 (Year is 2013 and the 14 RHCs that joined an ACO in 2013, n = 434)
Test of ATET = 0: z = 3.73, p = 0.000
Matches = 1	27.590	0.621	54.559	17.60
Matches = 2	23.840	−2.267	49.947	18.78
Matches = 3	20.180	−5.535	45.895	19.36
Matches = 4	17.740	−5.976	41.456	22.76
Matches = 5	19.850	−4.552	44.252	21.50
Pooled ATET (note 1)	21.545	10.231	32.859	100.00
Percentage of mean	17.48 %
Part 4 (Panel for 2012 and 2013 and the 7 RHCs that joined an ACO in 2012, n = 984) Test of ATET = 0: z = 5.12, p = 0.000
Matches = 1	13.490	−3.189	30.169	15.57
Matches = 2	17.020	3.300	30.740	23.02
Matches = 3	16.320	2.581	30.059	22.95
Matches = 4	19.670	4.441	34.899	18.68
Matches = 5	18.940	4.142	33.738	19.78
Pooled ATET (note 1)	17.185	10.603	23.766	100.00
Percentage of mean	14.05 %

Note 1: Employing the meta-analysis fixed effect model using the method of Mantel and Haenszel, 1959 [19]
Note 2: Mean cost/visit = $121.43 (2012), $123.29 (2013), and $122.36 (2012 and 2013)
Note 3: Panel 4 shows the results of using the fixed effects model (the within transformation) for a T = 2 panel. This is not the same as the fixed effect model used in the Mantel-Haenszel method

ISSN: 1472-6963