Cost Profiles: Should The Focus Be On Individual Physicians Or Physician Groups?

RAND, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 08/2010; 29(8):1532-8. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1091
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In an effort to rein in rising health care costs, health plans are using physician cost profiles as the basis for tiered networks that give patients incentives to visit low-cost physicians. Because physician cost profiles are often statistically unreliable some experts have argued that physician groups should be profiled instead. Using Massachusetts data, we evaluate the two options empirically. Although we find that physician-group profiles are statistically more reliable, the group profile is not a good predictor of individual physician performance within the group. Better methods for creating provider cost profiles are needed.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To use an empirical Bayesian approach, blending practice, and group quality data with physician results to increase the accuracy of quality of care measures. Performance data on diabetes glycemic screening for 8,357 physicians collected from multiple payers as part of a statewide physician performance reporting initiative. A variance components analysis assessed the strength of group, practice, and physician effects compared with random error. We derived formulas to describe reliability and measurement error variances and calculated the optimal blend of physician, practice, and group data. We constructed a simulation to show what various methods can achieve. The value of blending strategies was assessed by simulating a common pay-for-performance criterion-performance in the top 25 percent. We estimated the proportion of physicians whose true percentage would place them in the top 20 percent but who would not receive payment based on the observed success rate. Blending reduced the error rate from 29.7 to 22.7 percent. Simpler empirical Bayes estimates using shrinkage alone produced no gains over simple doctor percentages. When good structural data about physician groups and practices exist, gains from blending can be substantial.
    Health Services Research 07/2013; DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12086 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: Performance measures are widely used to profile primary care physicians (PCPs) but their reliability is often limited by small sample sizes. We evaluated the reliability of individual PCP profiles and whether they can be improved by combining measures into composites or by profiling practice groups. METHODS:: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of electronic health record data for patients with diabetes (DM), congestive heart failure (CHF), ischemic vascular disease (IVD), or eligible for preventive care services seen by a PCP within a large, integrated health care system between April 2009 and May 2010. We evaluated performance on 14 measures of DM care, 9 of CHF, 7 of IVD, and 4 of preventive care. RESULTS:: There were 51,771 patients observed by 163 physicians in 17 clinics. Few PCPs (0%-60%) could be profiled with 80% reliability using single process or intermediate-outcome measures. Combining measures into single-disease composites improved reliability for DM and preventive care with 74.5% and 76.7% of PCPs having sufficient panel sizes, but composites remained unreliable for CHF and IVD. A total of 85.3% of PCPs could be reliably profiled using a single overall composite. Aggregating PCPs into practice groups (3 to 21 PCPs per group) did not improve reliability in most cases because of little between-group practice variation. CONCLUSIONS:: Single measures rarely differentiate between individual PCPs or groups of PCPs reliably. Combining measures into single-disease or multidisease composites can improve reliability for some common conditions, but not all. Assessing PCP practice groups within a single health care system, rather than individual PCPs, did not substantially improve reliability.
    Medical care 01/2013; DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827da99c · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health plans and Medicare are using cost profiles to identify which physicians account for more health care spending than others. By identifying the costliest physicians, health plans and Medicare hope to craft policy interventions to reduce total health care spending. To identify which physician types, if any, might be costlier than others, we analyzed cost profiles created from health plan claims for physicians in Massachusetts. We found that physicians with fewer than ten years of experience had 13.2 percent higher overall costs than physicians with forty or more years of experience. We found no association between costs and other physician characteristics, such as having had malpractice claims or disciplinary actions, board certification status, and the size of the group in which the physician practices. Although winners and losers are inevitable in any cost-profiling effort, physicians with less experience are more likely to be negatively affected by policies that use cost profiles, unless they change their practice patterns. For example, these physicians could be excluded from high-value networks or receive lower payments under Medicare's planned value-based payment program. We cannot fully explain the mechanism by which more-experienced physicians have lower costs, but our results suggest that the more costly practice style of newly trained physicians may be a driver of rising health care costs overall.
    Health Affairs 11/2012; 31(11):2453-63. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0252 · 4.64 Impact Factor


Available from