The Effect of Different Attribution Rules on Individual Physician Cost Profiles

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 17.81). 05/2010; 152(10):649-54. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-152-10-201005180-00005
Source: PubMed


Some health plans profile physicians on the basis of their relative costs and use these profiles to assign physicians to cost categories. Physician organizations have questioned whether the rules used to attribute costs to a physician affect the cost category to which that physician is assigned.
To evaluate the effect of 12 different attribution rules on physician cost profiles.
Under each of the 12 attribution rules, a cost profile was created for the physicians in the aggregated claims database and the physicians were assigned to a cost category (high cost, average cost, low cost, or low sample size). The attribution rules differed by unit of analysis, signal for responsibility, number of physicians who can be assigned responsibility, and threshold value for assigning responsibility.
Four commercial health plans in Massachusetts.
1.1 million adults continuously enrolled in 4 commercial health plans in 2004 and 2005.
Percentage of all episodes assigned to any physician and percentage of costs billed by a physician that were included in his or her own profile were calculated under each rule. The cost category assignments from a commonly used default rule were compared with those from each of the other 11 attribution rules and the rate of disagreement was calculated.
Percentage of episodes that could be assigned to a physician varied substantially across the 12 rules (range, 20% to 69%), as did the mean percentage of costs billed by a physician that were included in that physician's own cost profile (range, 13% to 60%). Depending on the alternate rule used, between 17% and 61% of physicians would be assigned to a different cost category than that assigned by using the default rule.
Results might differ if data from another state or from Medicare were used.
The choice of attribution rule affects how costs are assigned to a physician and can substantially affect the cost category to which a physician is assigned.
U.S. Department of Labor.

Download full-text


Available from: John L Adams, Oct 06, 2015
48 Reads
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Insurance products with incentives for patients to choose physicians classified as offering lower-cost care on the basis of cost-profiling tools are increasingly common. However, no rigorous evaluation has been undertaken to determine whether these tools can accurately distinguish higher-cost physicians from lower-cost physicians. We aggregated claims data for the years 2004 and 2005 from four health plans in Massachusetts. We used commercial software to construct clinically homogeneous episodes of care (e.g., treatment of diabetes, heart attack, or urinary tract infection), assigned each episode to a physician, and created a summary profile of resource use (i.e., cost) for each physician on the basis of all assigned episodes. We estimated the reliability (signal-to-noise ratio) of each physician's cost-profile score on a scale of 0 to 1, with 0 indicating that all differences in physicians' cost profiles are due to a lack of precision in the measure (noise) and 1 indicating that all differences are due to real variation in costs of services (signal). We used the reliability results to estimate the proportion of physicians in each specialty whose cost performance would be classified inaccurately in a two-tiered insurance product in which the physicians with cost profiles in the lowest quartile were labeled as "lower cost." Median reliabilities ranged from 0.05 for vascular surgery to 0.79 for gastroenterology and otolaryngology. Overall, 59% of physicians had cost-profile scores with reliabilities of less than 0.70, a commonly used marker of suboptimal reliability. Using our reliability results, we estimated that 22% of physicians would be misclassified in a two-tiered system. Current methods for profiling physicians with respect to costs of services may produce misleading results.
    New England Journal of Medicine 03/2010; 362(11):1014-21. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa0906323 · 55.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In an attempt to improve quality and control costs, health plans are creating tiered products that encourage enrollees to seek care from "high-value" physicians. However, tiered products may limit access to care because patients may have to travel unreasonable distances to visit the nearest high-value physician. To assess geographic access to high-value physicians, particularly for disadvantaged populations. Cross-sectional observational study. Physicians and adult patients in Massachusetts. Travel time from census block centroid to nearest physician address under two scenarios: patients can see (1) any physician or (2) only high-value physicians. Among the physicians, 768 (20.9%) primary care physicians (PCPs), 225 (26.6%) obstetricians/gynecologists, 69 (10.3%) cardiologists, and 31 (6.0%) general surgeons met the definition of high-value. Statewide mean travel times to the nearest PCP, obstetrician/gynecologist, cardiologist, or general surgeon under the two scenarios (any physician vs. only high-value physicians) were 2.8 vs. 4.8, 6.0 vs. 7.2, 7.0 vs. 12.4, and 6.6 vs. 14.8 minutes, respectively. Across the four specialties, between 89.4%-99.4% of the population lived within 30 minutes of the nearest high-value physician. Rural populations had considerably longer travel times to see high-value physicians, but other disadvantaged populations generally had shorter travel times than comparison groups. Most patients in Massachusetts are likely to have reasonable geographic access to high-value physicians in tiered health plans. However, local demographics, especially rural residence, should be taken into consideration when applying tiered health plans broadly. Future work should investigate whether patients can and will switch to receive care from high-value physicians.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2010; 26(4):440-5. DOI:10.1007/s11606-010-1607-3 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more