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: 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. · 4.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance (P4P) intents to stimulate both more effective and more efficient health care delivery. To date, evidence on whether P4P itself is an efficient method has not been systematically analyzed. OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze the existing literature regarding economic evaluation of P4P. DATA SOURCES: English, German, Spanish, and Turkish language literature were searched in the following databases: Business Source Complete, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, ISI web of knowledge, Medline (via PubMed), and PsycInfo (January 2000-April 2010). STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in peer-reviewed journals and describing economic evaluations of P4P initiatives. Full economic evaluations, considering costs and consequences of the P4P intervention simultaneously, were the prime focus. Additionally, comparative partial evaluations were included if costs were described and the study allows for an assessment of consequences. Both experimental and observational studies were considered. RESULTS: In total, nine studies could be identified. Three studies could be regarded as full economic evaluations, and six studies were classified as partial economic evaluations. Based on the full economic evaluations, P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. Partial economic evaluations showed mixed results, but several flaws limit their significance. Ranges of costs and consequences were typically narrow, and programs differed considerably in design. Methodological quality assessment showed scores between 32% and 65%. CONCLUSION: The results show that evidence on the efficiency of P4P is scarce and inconclusive. P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. The small number and variability of included studies limit the strength of our conclusions. More research addressing P4P efficiency is needed.
    The European Journal of Health Economics 06/2011; · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We show that lower semicontinuous Lyapunov functions can be used to determine both stable and attractive sets of differential equations with a short proof similar to that of the original Lyapunov indirect method. Several examples illustrate the flexibility of using such lower semicontinuous Lyapunov functions.
    Decision and Control, 2002, Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on; 01/2003


Available from