Article

Impact of managed care on physicians' decisions to manipulate reimbursement rules: an explanatory model.

WellStar College of Health and Human Services, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591, USA.
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (Impact Factor: 1.73). 08/2007; 12(3):147-52. DOI: 10.1258/135581907781543102
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To develop and test an explanatory model of the impact of managed care on physicians' decisions to manipulate reimbursement rules for patients.
A self-administered mailed questionnaire of a national random sample of 1124 practicing physicians in the USA. Structural equation modelling was used. The main outcome measure assessed whether or not physicians had manipulated reimbursement rules (such as exaggerated the severity of patients conditions, changed billing diagnoses, or reported signs or symptoms that the patients did not have) to help patients secure coverage for needed treatment or services.
The response rate was 64% (n = 720). Physicians' decisions to manipulate reimbursement rules for patients are directly driven not only by ethical beliefs about gaming the system but also by requests from patients, the perception of insufficient time to deliver care, and the proportion of Medicaid patients. Covert advocacy is also the indirect result of utilization review hassles, primary care specialty, and practice environment.
Managed care is not just a set of rules that physicians choose to follow or disobey, but an environment of competing pressures from patients, purchasers, and high workload. Reimbursement manipulation is a response to that environment, rather than simply a reflection of individual physicians' values.

Full-text

Available from: Jonathan B Vangeest, May 30, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
97 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past two decades, the use of antidepressant medications has grown to the point that they are now the third most commonly prescribed class of medications in the United States. Much of this growth has been driven by a substantial increase in antidepressant prescriptions by nonpsychiatrist providers without an accompanying psychiatric diagnosis. Our analysis found that between 1996 and 2007, the proportion of visits at which antidepressants were prescribed but no psychiatric diagnoses were noted increased from 59.5 percent to 72.7 percent. These results do not clearly indicate a rise in inappropriate antidepressant use, but they highlight the need to gain a deeper understanding of the factors driving this national trend and to develop effective policy responses. To the extent that antidepressants are being prescribed for uses not supported by clinical evidence, there may be a need to improve providers' prescribing practices, revamp drug formularies, or vigorously pursue implementation of broad reforms of the health care system that will increase communication between primary care providers and mental health specialists.
    Health Affairs 08/2011; 30(8):1434-42. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1024 · 4.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess limitations of using select Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) core claims-based measures in capturing the preventive services that may occur in the clinical setting. We use claims data from ALL Kids, the Alabama Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), to calculate each of four quality measures under two alternative definitions: (1) the formal claims-based guidelines outlined in the CMS Technical Specifications, and (2) a broader definition of appropriate claims for identifying preventive service use. Additionally, we examine the extent to which these two claims-based approaches to measuring quality differ in assessments of disparities in quality of care across subgroups of children. Statistically significant differences in rates were identified when comparing the two definitions for calculating each quality measure. Measure differences ranged from a 1.9 percentage point change for measure #13 (receiving preventive dental services) to a 25.5 percentage point change for measure #12 (adolescent well-care visit). We were able to identify subgroups based upon family income, rural location, and chronic disease status with differences in quality within the core measures. However, some identified disparities were sensitive to the approach used to calculate the quality measure. Differences in CHIP design and structure, across states and over time, may limit the usefulness of select claims-based core measures for detecting disparities accurately. Additional guidance and research may be necessary before reporting of the measures becomes mandatory.
    01/2013; 3(3). DOI:10.5600/mmrr.003.03.a04
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to examine the use of electronic health record (EHR) data for diabetes performance measurement. Data were extracted from the EHR of a health system to identify patients with diabetes using 8 different EHR data-based methods of identification. These EHR-based methods were compared to the gold standard of a manual medical record review. The study team then assessed whether the method of identifying patients with diabetes could affect performance measurement scores. The sensitivity of the 8 EHR-based methods of identifying patients with diabetes ranged from moderate to high. The use of certain data elements in the EHR to identify patients with diabetes selectively identified those who had better performance measures. Diabetes performance measures are influenced by the data elements used to identify patients. As EHR data are used increasingly to measure performance, continuing to improve our understanding of how EHR data are collected and used will be critical.
    American Journal of Medical Quality 09/2013; 29(4). DOI:10.1177/1062860613500808 · 1.78 Impact Factor