Guide to Utilization Management

Utilization Management in Value-Based Care: A Framework for Healthcare Optimization and Quality Assurance

Utilization Management (UM) in value-based care represents the cornerstone of healthcare transformation, evolving from traditional cost-containment mechanisms to sophisticated care optimization systems that directly drive quality outcomes, population health improvement, and shared savings achievement.

The U.S. utilization management solutions market, valued at $613.15 million in 2024 and projected to reach nearly $1 billion by 2030,¹ reflects the healthcare industry’s recognition that effective UM is not merely administrative oversight but the essential mechanism for succeeding in value-based payment models.

The Value-Based Care Imperative

The fundamental shift from volume to value redefines utilization management’s role in healthcare delivery.

In traditional fee-for-service models, UM primarily focused on cost containment through denial and restriction. In value-based systems, the role of UM shifts from gatekeeping to aligning the right patient with the right care, achieving the triple aim of better health outcomes, improved patient experience, and lower per capita costs.

With 14% of nationwide provider reimbursement now tied to delegated or capitated risk models – double from three years prior² – organizations without sophisticated UM capabilities face significant financial risk and competitive disadvantage.

Financial Impact in Value-Based Contracts

The financial implications of effective UM in value-based care extend far beyond traditional cost savings:

• Shared Savings Achievement: Medicare Shared Savings Program participants earned an average of $21 per member per month (PMPM) in 2022, with top performers achieving $50-75 PMPM through optimized utilization management.³ These savings directly correlate with UM program maturity and sophistication.
• Quality Performance Impact: Each star rating improvement generates a 5% benchmark increase for Medicare Advantage plans, with UM effectiveness directly influencing HEDIS measures that drive $11.8 billion in annual quality bonuses.⁴ Organizations with integrated UM programs achieve 20% higher quality scores on average compared to those with fragmented approaches.
• Risk Mitigation: With initial claim denials reaching 11.8% in 2024,⁵ effective UM prevents revenue leakage while ensuring appropriate care delivery. More importantly, proactive UM reduces potentially preventable admissions by 40-50%, generating substantial savings in risk-bearing contracts.

2026 Value-Based Care Landscape

The regulatory environment creates both opportunities and imperatives for UM excellence:

• Prior Authorization Evolution: Beginning in 2026, payers must provide prior authorization decisions within 72 hours for urgent requests and seven calendar days for standard requests.⁶ This acceleration demands process optimization that maintains quality while meeting tighter timelines — a challenge that becomes an opportunity for organizations using advanced UM systems.
• Medicare Advantage Alignment: CMS requirements — which mandate that prior authorization only confirms medical necessity⁷ — align perfectly with value-based care principles, shifting focus from denial to appropriateness and care optimization.
• Technology Governance: While states like Texas prohibit automated adverse determinations,⁸ artificial intelligence (AI) and automation can still drive tremendous value through predictive analytics, care gap identification, and workflow optimization — all critical for value-based success.

Introduction: UM as the Foundation of Value-Based Success

The Transformation from Volume to Value

Value-based care fundamentally transforms healthcare delivery from transactional, volume-driven models to longitudinal population health management. As Maria Ansari, MD, CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, states: "Value-based care is really a care-delivery system that rewards for patient outcomes and quality of care, managing a population rather than transactional care."⁹ This transformation places utilization management at the center of organizational strategy, not as a cost-control mechanism but as a value-creation engine.

Core Components Driving Value Creation

Modern value-based UM encompasses interconnected processes that collectively drive quality and efficiency:

• Prior Authorization as Care Optimization: In value-based contracts, prior authorization transforms from a barrier into a care optimization tool, ensuring patients receive the right care, in the right setting, at the right time — maximizing clinical value while managing total cost of care.
• Concurrent Review as Quality Assurance: Real-time review during care delivery ensures appropriate level of care, preventing both under and over-utilization that could harm outcomes and increase costs in risk-bearing arrangements.
• Retrospective Analysis for Continuous Improvement: Rather than focusing on denial, retrospective review in value-based care identifies patterns and opportunities, driving population health strategies and clinical program development.
• Case Management Integration: The integration of UM with case management creates synergies essential for managing high-risk populations that drive disproportionate costs in value-based contracts.

Clinical Guidelines and Level of Care Determinations in Value-Based Care

Observation versus Inpatient Status: A Value-Based Perspective

The determination between observation and inpatient status exemplifies how value-based care transforms traditional UM decisions. Rather than focusing solely on payment optimization, value-based organizations prioritize placing patients in settings that optimize outcomes while managing total cost of care.

Value Implications of Status Determination

In shared risk arrangements, the observation versus inpatient decision affects the entire care continuum and multiple quality metrics:

• Quality Metric Impact: Inappropriate inpatient admissions increase readmission rates by 3 - 5%, negatively affect length of stay efficiency metrics, reduce patient satisfaction scores, and increase the risk of hospital-acquired conditions—all directly impacting value-based performance.¹⁰
• Total Cost of Care Considerations: The financial implications extend beyond the initial stay:
  1. Inpatient admission averages $12,000 - 14,000.¹¹
  2. Observation stays average $2,500 - 3,500.¹²
  3. Post-acute utilization differs dramatically: 60% of inpatients require SNF placement versus 15% of observation patients.¹³
  4. 30-day post-discharge costs run 40% higher for inappropriate inpatient admissions.¹⁴

Clinical Criteria Through a Value Lens

Evidence-Based Criteria Application

InterQual and MCG criteria provide standardized frameworks for status determination. However, in value-based care, these tools serve not as rigid rules but as clinical decision support that ensures consistency while allowing for clinical judgment.¹⁵

The Two-Midnight Rule presents unique challenges for Medicare Advantage plans, as CMS clarifies that the presumption of appropriateness for stays crossing two midnights does apply.¹⁶ Value-based organizations must therefore focus on clinical appropriateness rather than time-based rules, considering:

• Medical necessity based on severity of illness and intensity of service.
• Total episode cost including downstream utilization.
• Quality outcomes and complication risk.
• Patient preferences and social circumstances.

Best Practices for Value-Based Status Determination

Real-Time Physician Advisor Programs

Organizations with robust physician advisor programs report 25% reduction in inappropriate admissions, 30% decrease in denial rates, and $2-3 million annual shared savings improvement.¹⁷ These programs succeed by:

• Providing consultation within 24 hours of admission.
• Collaborating with attending physicians rather than overruling.
• Focusing on clinical appropriateness over financial considerations.
• Using data to identify and address systematic issues.

Technology-Enabled Decision Support

AI-powered tools demonstrate 95% accuracy in status prediction while reducing review time by 50%.¹⁸ However, these tools augment rather than replace clinical judgment, providing:

• Real-time integration with clinical workflows.
• Evidence-based recommendations.
• Predictive analytics for length of stay.
• Automated documentation support.

Elective Surgery Management: Maximizing Value Across the Surgical Episode

Elective surgery represents approximately 30% of healthcare spending,¹⁹ making surgical optimization critical for value-based success. Effective management spans the entire surgical episode from pre-operative optimization through post-acute recovery.

Pre-Surgical Optimization for Value Creation

The Business Case for Prehabilitation

Pre-surgical optimization programs demonstrate remarkable value-based outcomes:

• 35% reduction in post-operative complications.²⁰
• 2.5-day average length of stay reduction.²¹
• 40% decrease in 30-day readmissions.²²
• $3,000-5,000 lower episode costs.²³

These improvements directly impact bundled payment performance and shared savings achievement while improving patient experience — a true win-win in value-based care.

Medical Optimization Components

Value-based organizations implement comprehensive pre-surgical protocols:

• Glycemic Control: Achieving HbA1c under 8% reduces surgical site infections by 40% and decreases length of stay by 2 days.²⁴ Programs include endocrinology consultation, continuous glucose monitoring for high-risk patients, and perioperative insulin protocols.
• Cardiovascular Optimization: Blood pressure control and cardiac risk stratification prevent 50% of perioperative cardiac events.²⁵ This includes medication optimization, stress testing when indicated, and anesthesia planning for high-risk patients.
• Nutritional Support: Malnutrition affects 30% of surgical patients and doubles complication rates.²⁶ Nutritional screening and supplementation reduce infections by 25% and improve wound healing.
• Functional Conditioning: Structured prehabilitation programs improve recovery time by 30% through targeted exercise, respiratory training, and cognitive preparation.²⁷

Site of Service Optimization in Value-Based Models

Value-based UM considers efficient care delivery alternatives to high-cost hospitalizations. Facilities like freestanding imaging centers, office-based infusion centers, and ambulatory surgery care centers match the right care to the right setting — increasing access, reducing unnecessary spending, even improving outcomes.

Freestanding Imaging Centers

Compared to hospital-based imaging departments, freestanding imaging centers offer a number of advantages:

• Cost savings (30 - 50%).^a
• Faster appointment availability.
• Extended evening and weekend hours.
• Less exposure to hospital-based pathogens.^b
• Comparable diagnostic accuracy and radiologist interpretation quality to hospital-based imaging, with many centers accredited by the American College of Radiology.^c

While hospital outpatient imaging provides integrated care and access to emergency services, it requireshigh overhead costs relative to freestanding centers.

Office-based Infusion Centers

When appropriate, biologics and specialty drug infusions can be performed in office-based settings to generate substantial value compared to hospital outpatient departments:

• Administration costs 40–60% lower.^d
• Reduced adverse event rates, emergency visits, and hospital admissions.^e
• Shorter wait times and community access, increasing patient convenience.^e
• Direct physician oversight, improving treatment adherence.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Migrating appropriate procedures to ASCs generates immediate value while maintaining quality:

• Cost savings average 45-60% compared to hospital outpatient departments.²⁸
• Surgical site infection rates run 50% lower in ASCs.²⁹
• Patient satisfaction scores average 15 points higher.³⁰
• Same-day discharge rates exceed 99% for appropriate cases.³¹

Value-based organizations develop systematic approaches to site optimization

1. Evidence-based criteria for ASC appropriateness.
2. Risk stratification protocols ensuring patient safety.
3. Quality monitoring across all surgical sites.
4. Patient choice and convenience considerations.

Procedure-Specific Value Analysis:

• Cataract surgery: $1,800 savings per case with 99% ASC appropriateness.³²
• Colonoscopy: $800 savings per case with 95% ASC appropriateness.³³
• Arthroscopy: $2,500 savings per case with 90% ASC appropriateness.³⁴
• Pain procedures: $1,200 savings per case with 85% ASC appropriateness.³⁵

Surgical Episode Bundled Payments

Organizations participating in bundled payments alongside value-based contracts achieve dual savings through episode optimization and shared savings programs. Success factors include:

• Clinical Pathway Standardization: Reducing variation by 60% through evidence-based protocols, order sets, and outcome tracking.³⁶
• Post-Acute Network Management: Preferred provider relationships with high-quality, efficient post-acute providers reduce costs by 40% while maintaining outcomes.³⁷
• Nutritional Support: Malnutrition affects 30% of surgical patients and doubles complication rates.²⁶ Nutritional screening and supplementation reduce infections by 25% and improve wound healing.
• Gainsharing Arrangements: Aligning surgeon incentives with efficiency and quality drives 15-20% improvement in episode costs.

Emergency Department Utilization: The Value-Based Imperative

Emergency department utilization represents one of the most significant opportunities for value creation in value-based contracts. With potentially preventable ED visits costing $32 billion annually, effective ED management directly impacts shared savings, quality metrics, and patient experience.

Understanding ED Utilization Through a Value Lens

The true cost of ED visits in value-based contracts extends far beyond the immediate visit:

• Average ED visit costs $1,500-2,500.⁴⁰
• 15-20% result in admission.⁴¹
• 30-day post-ED costs average $3,000-5,000.⁴²
• Each prevented ED visit saves approximately $5,000 in total episode costs.⁴³

More importantly, ED utilization affects multiple value-based performance measures including HEDIS ED utilization rates, ACO readmission measures, CAHPS emergency care scores, and total cost of care calculations.

Proactive Population Health Management to Prevent ED Visits

Risk Stratification for ED Utilization:

Advanced analytics identify high-risk patients before they become high utilizers. The top 5% of ED utilizers account for 30% of all visits,⁴⁴ making targeted intervention highly effective. Predictive models achieve 85% accuracy in identifying future high utilizers, enabling proactive intervention that reduces ED visits by 40-50%.⁴⁵

Value-Based ED Diversion Strategies:

• 24/7 Nurse Triage Lines: With costs of $15-25 per call and ED diversion rates of 30-40%, nurse triage delivers exceptional ROI — approximately $4.50 saved per dollar invested.⁴⁶ Patient satisfaction exceeds 90%, and the service provides valuable care coordination touchpoints.
• Urgent Care Integration: Strategic partnerships with urgent care centers capture the 60% of ED visits that are urgent care appropriate.⁴⁷ With average cost differentials of $1,200 per visit, this strategy generates immediate savings while improving access and convenience.
• Mobile Integrated Health Programs: Paramedic-led community programs achieve 45% reduction in ED visits for enrolled patients, saving $1,200 per patient per month.⁴⁸ These programs address acute needs in the home, prevent unnecessary transports, and provide critical linkage to primary care

Managing High ED Utilizers in Value-Based Contracts

Super-Utilizer Program Components

Comprehensive management creates substantial value through:

• Real-time ED notification systems alerting care teams within 2 hours.
• Embedded ED case managers engaging patients at point of care.
• Individualized care plans addressing root causes.
• Cross-continuum coordination between ED, primary care, and behavioral health.

These programs achieve 50-60% reduction in ED visits, saving $8,000-12,000 annually per patient while increasing primary care engagement by 75%.⁴⁹

Addressing Social Determinants

Value-based organizations recognize that social factors significantly drive ED utilization:

• Housing instability increases ED use by 300%.⁵⁰
• Food insecurity doubles ED utilization.⁵¹
• Transportation barriers account for 25% of missed appointments leading to ED visits.⁵²
• Behavioral health needs present in 40% of frequent ED users.⁵³

Targeted social interventions deliver strong ROI:

• Housing programs: $2.50 saved per dollar invested.⁵⁴
• Food assistance: $1.80 saved per dollar invested.⁵⁵
• Transportation services: $3.00 saved per dollar invested.⁵⁶
• Behavioral health integration: $4.00 saved per dollar invested.⁵⁷

Outpatient Care Optimization: The Foundation of Value-Based Success

Outpatient care represents the cornerstone of value-based care delivery. Effective ambulatory management prevents downstream utilization and drives quality outcomes, with organizations excelling in outpatient optimization achieving 20-30% better performance in value-based contracts.⁵⁸

Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions: Preventing Avoidable Utilization

Preventing admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) directly impacts shared savings and quality scores. The financial implications are substantial:

• Average preventable admission costs $12,000-15,000.⁵⁹
• Annual ACSC admission rates of 50-70 per 1,000 (benchmark: less than 30).⁶⁰
• Potential savings opportunity: $6-10 million per 10,000 lives.⁶¹

High-Impact Chronic Disease Management

• Diabetes Excellence: Comprehensive diabetes programs achieving HbA1c less than 8% in 70% of patients reduce admissions by 45% and save $3,500 per patient annually.⁶² Key components include continuous glucose monitoring for high-risk patients, pharmacist-led medication optimization, nutritionist counseling, and integrated specialty care.
• Heart Failure Management: Remote monitoring programs reduce readmissions by 38% and save $5,000-8,000 per patient annually.⁶³ Success requires daily weight monitoring, medication optimization, patient education, and rapid response to clinical changes.
• COPD Optimization: Pulmonary rehabilitation reduces readmissions by 40%, while action plans decrease ED visits by 35%.⁶⁴ Programs include inhaler technique training, smoking cessation support, oxygen therapy management, and early exacerbation intervention.

Specialty Referral Management in Value-Based Care

E-Consults: Transforming Specialty Access

E-consultations avoid 60-70% of in-person referrals while providing specialty input within 24-48 hours versus 30-45 days for traditional referrals.⁶⁵ Each e-consult saves $150-200 and improves PCP capability through curbside education. Patient satisfaction exceeds 90% due to convenience and faster resolution.

Value-Based Referral Optimization

Organizations implement systematic approaches including:

• Pre-referral requirements ensuring complete workup (30% reduction in referrals).⁶⁶
• Clinical pathways for common conditions.
• Preferred specialist networks based on quality and efficiency.
• Closed-loop tracking ensures follow-through.

Diagnostic Testing: Balancing Access with Appropriateness

Imaging Appropriateness: Clinical decision support reduces inappropriate imaging by 30%, while peer comparison feedback decreases variation by 40%.⁶⁷ Common low-value imaging to avoid includes routine annual scans without indication, duplicate imaging across systems (20% of advanced imaging), and defensive medicine protocols.

Laboratory Optimization: Value-based organizations focus on:

• Eliminating daily inpatient labs (30% reduction opportunity)⁶⁸
• Avoiding routine preoperative testing ($200-500 per surgery saved)⁶⁹
• Implementing standing orders for chronic disease monitoring
• Home collection programs improving compliance by 40%⁷⁰

Telehealth Integration for Value Optimization

Telehealth has stabilized at 10-15% of outpatient visits,⁷¹ with specific applications demonstrating exceptional value:

• Behavioral Health: Virtual therapy achieves 90% patient satisfaction with 50% reduction in no-show rates,⁷² improving access while saving $100-150 per visit.
• Chronic Disease Management: Telehealth programs improve medication adherence by 15-20% and achieve better clinical outcomes at lower cost.⁷³
• Post-Acute Care: Virtual follow-up reduces readmissions by 25% while enabling 30% of patients to avoid SNF placement.

Technology and Innovation Driving Value-Based UM

Artificial Intelligence: Transforming Value Creation

AI revolutionizes utilization management's ability to drive value-based care success. While regulatory constraints prohibit automated adverse determinations,⁷⁵ AI applications that augment human decision-making deliver tremendous value:

Predictive Analytics Impact:

• 85% accuracy identifying high-risk patients.⁷⁶
• 40% reduction in preventable admissions.⁷⁷
• 95% accuracy in care gap identification.⁷⁸
• 70% reduction in manual chart review.⁷⁹

Organizations report ROI of 4:1 on AI investments, with positive returns within 12-18 months.⁸⁰

Interoperability: Foundation of Care Coordination

The FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) Prior Authorization API requirement beginning January 1, 2026,⁸¹ creates opportunities for value creation through:

• Real-time authorization reducing delays by 70%.⁸²
• Automated eligibility checking prevents denials.
• Seamless clinical data exchange.
• Estimated savings of $15 billion over 10 years.⁸³

Automation and Workflow Optimization

Hospitals can automate up to 40% of inpatient reviews with 99% accuracy,⁸⁴ driving value through:

• $25-50 per case in reduced review costs.⁸⁵
• 50% reduction in determination time.⁸⁶
• 30% productivity gain through staff redeployment.

Conclusion: UM as the Engine of Value-Based Transformation

Utilization Management in value-based care transcends traditional cost containment to become the primary driver of clinical quality, patient experience, and financial sustainability. Organizations that excel at value-based UM demonstrate superior performance across all dimensions — achieving better outcomes at lower costs while improving provider and patient satisfaction.

The path forward requires viewing UM not as an administrative function but as a strategic capability essential for value-based success. With the utilization management solutions market approaching $1 billion by 2030,⁸⁸ the investments organizations make today in UM capabilities will determine their ability to thrive in tomorrow's value-based environment.

Healthcare leaders must recognize that excellence in utilization management creates a virtuous cycle: better care coordination leads to improved outcomes, which drives quality performance and shared savings, enabling further investment in population health capabilities. This transformation from utilization review to utilization optimization represents the future of healthcare delivery — where clinical excellence, operational efficiency, and patient experience converge to create sustainable, high-value care for all populations.

References

1. Grand View Research. (2024). U.S. Utilization Management Solutions Market Report, 2030.
2. Advisory Board. (2025). VBC in 2025: What's now and what's next.
3. Guidehouse. (2024). Delivering Stronger Yield and Utilization in Value-Based Arrangements.
4. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). 2025 Medicare Advantage and Part D Star Ratings Fact Sheet.
5. Waystar. (2024). The 2024 Revenue Cycle Denials Index.
6. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule (CMS-0057-F).
7. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). 2024 Medicare Advantage and Part D Final Rule (CMS-4201-F).
8. Holland & Knight. (2025). Upcoming Utilization Review Restrictions in Light of Emerging Artificial Intelligence.
9. American Medical Association. (2024). What is value-based medical care?
10. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2024). Prevention Quality Indicators Overview.
11. Healthcare Financial Management Association. (2024). Understanding Hospital Payment Systems: DRG vs. Observation.
12. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. (2024). Report to Congress: Medicare Payment Policy.
13. Avalere Health. (2024). Post-Acute Care Utilization Patterns in Medicare Advantage.
14. Health Affairs. (2024). The Hidden Costs of Inappropriate Hospital Admissions.
15. MCG Health. (2023). MCG and the CMS 2024 Medicare Advantage Final Rule.
16. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). Two-Midnight Rule and Medicare Advantage Guidance.
17. Association of Healthcare Internal Auditors. (2024). Physician Advisor Programs: ROI and Best Practices.
18. XSOLIS. (2024). AI-Powered Clinical Decision Support in Utilization Review.
19. American Hospital Association. (2024). TrendWatch: Surgical Services in Value-Based Care
20. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. (2024). Prehabilitation Outcomes in Major Surgery
21. Annals of Surgery. (2024). Impact of Pre-Surgical Optimization on Length of Stay.
22. JAMA Surgery. (2024). Readmission Reduction Through Surgical Prehabilitation Programs.
23. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. (2024). Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Optimization.
24. Diabetes Care. (2024). Perioperative Glycemic Control and Surgical Outcomes.
25. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. (2024). Cardiovascular Risk Optimization Before Non-Cardiac Surgery.
26. Clinical Nutrition. (2024). Malnutrition Prevalence and Impact on Surgical Outcomes.
27. British Journal of Anaesthesia. (2024). Multimodal Prehabilitation in Major Surgery.
28. Ambulatory Surgery Center Association. (2024). ASC Cost Savings and Quality Report.
29. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. (2024). Surgical Site Infections: Hospital vs. ASC Settings.
30. Press Ganey. (2024). Patient Experience in Ambulatory Surgery Centers.
31. Outpatient Surgery Magazine. (2024). Same-Day Discharge Rates and Safety Outcomes.
32. American Academy of Ophthalmology. (2024). Cataract Surgery Site of Service Analysis.
33. Gastroenterology. (2024). Colonoscopy Quality and Cost by Setting.
34. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. (2024). Economic Analysis of Arthroscopy Settings.
35. Pain Medicine. (2024). Interventional Pain Procedures: Facility Cost Comparison.
36. New England Journal of Medicine. (2024). Clinical Pathway Standardization and Surgical Outcomes.
37. Journal of Arthroplasty. (2024). Post-Acute Network Management in Joint Replacement.
38. Health Services Research. (2024). Physician Gainsharing in Bundled Payment Programs.
39. RAND Corporation. (2024). Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits.
40. Health Care Cost Institute. (2024). Emergency Department Utilization and Costs.
41. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. (2024). ED Visit Disposition Patterns.
42. Medical Care. (2024). Post-Emergency Department Healthcare Utilization and Costs.
43. American Journal of Managed Care. (2024). Total Episode Costs Following ED Visits.
44. Annals of Emergency Medicine. (2024). Super-Utilizer Patterns in Emergency Departments.
45. Health Affairs. (2024). Predictive Analytics for ED Utilization Management.
46. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. (2024). Nurse Triage Line Effectiveness and ROI.
47. Urgent Care Association. (2024). ED Diversion to Urgent Care: National Statistics.
48. Prehospital Emergency Care. (2024). Mobile Integrated Health Program Outcomes.
49. Population Health Management. (2024). Super-Utilizer Program Results and Best Practices.
50. Housing and Health Partners. (2024). Housing Instability and Healthcare Utilization.
51. Health Affairs. (2024). Food Insecurity as a Driver of Emergency Department Use.
52. Transportation Research Board. (2024). Transportation Barriers and Healthcare Access.
53. Psychiatric Services. (2024). Behavioral Health Needs in Frequent ED Users.
54. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. (2024). ROI of Housing Support Programs.
55. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (2024). Food Assistance Programs and Healthcare Utilization.
56. Medical Care Research and Review. (2024). Non-Emergency Medical Transportation ROI.
57. Community Mental Health Journal. (2024). Integrated Behavioral Health Economic Analysis.
58. Milliman. (2024). Outpatient Care Management in Value-Based Contracts.
59. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2024). Costs of Preventable Hospitalizations.
60. National Committee for Quality Assurance. (2024). HEDIS Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions.
61. Actuarial Research Corporation. (2024). ACSC Savings Opportunities in Medicare Advantage.
62. Diabetes Care. (2024). Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program Outcomes.
63. Journal of Cardiac Failure. (2024). Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure Management.
64. CHEST Journal. (2024). COPD Management Programs and Readmission Prevention.
65. JAMA Internal Medicine. (2024). E-Consultation Implementation and Outcomes.
66. American Journal of Managed Care. (2024). Referral Management in Value-Based Care.
67. Journal of the American College of Radiology. (2024). Clinical Decision Support for Imaging.
68. JAMA Internal Medicine. (2024). Reducing Low-Value Laboratory Testing.
69. Anesthesiology. (2024). Eliminating Routine Preoperative Testing.
70. Clinical Chemistry. (2024). Home Sample Collection and Testing Compliance.
71. McKinsey & Company. (2024). Telehealth: A Quarter-Trillion-Dollar Post-Pandemic Reality.
72. Telemedicine and e-Health. (2024). Virtual Behavioral Health Outcomes and Satisfaction.
73. Journal of Medical Internet Research. (2024). Telehealth in Chronic Disease Management.
74. Home Health Care Management & Practice. (2024). Virtual Post-Acute Care Programs.
75. Holland & Knight. (2025). State AI Regulations in Healthcare Utilization Review.
76. Nature Medicine. (2024). Machine Learning for Healthcare Risk Prediction.
77. Healthcare Management Science. (2024). AI-Driven Admission Prevention Programs.
78. Medical Care. (2024). Automated Care Gap Identification Using AI.
79. Journal of Healthcare Information Management. (2024). Natural Language Processing in Clinical Documentation.
80. Healthcare Financial Management Association. (2024). ROI of AI Investments in Healthcare.
81. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). FHIR Prior Authorization Implementation Guide.
82. Health Level Seven International. (2024). FHIR API Impact on Prior Authorization.
83. Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. (2024). Interoperability Cost-Benefit Analysis.
84. XSOLIS. (2024). Automation in Inpatient Utilization Review: National Statistics.
85. Modern Healthcare. (2024). Cost Analysis of Automated Utilization Review.
86. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society. (2024). Workflow Automation in Healthcare.
87. Medical Group Management Association. (2024). Staff Productivity Gains Through Automation.
88. Grand View Research. (2024). Healthcare Utilization Management Market Projections 203.