Dataset Information

Incorporating statistical uncertainty in the use of physician cost profiles.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Physician cost profiles (also called efficiency or economic profiles) compare the costs of care provided by a physician to his or her peers. These profiles are increasingly being used as the basis for policy applications such as tiered physician networks. Tiers (low, average, high cost) are currently defined by health plans based on percentile cut-offs which do not account for statistical uncertainty. In this paper we compare the percentile cut-off method to another method, using statistical testing, for identifying high-cost or low-cost physicians.

Methods

We created a claims dataset of 2004-2005 data from four Massachusetts health plans. We employed commercial software to create episodes of care and assigned responsibility for each episode to the physician with the highest proportion of professional costs. A physicians' cost profile was the ratio of the sum of observed costs divided by the sum of expected costs across all assigned episodes. We discuss a new method of measuring standard errors of physician cost profiles which can be used in statistical testing. We then assigned each physician to one of three cost categories (low, average, or high cost) using two methods, percentile cut-offs and a t-test (p-value < or = 0.05), and assessed the level of disagreement between the two methods.

Results

Across the 8689 physicians in our sample, 29.5% of physicians were assigned a different cost category when comparing the percentile cut-off method and the t-test. This level of disagreement varied across specialties (17.4% gastroenterology to 45.8% vascular surgery).

Conclusions

Health plans and other payers should incorporate statistical uncertainty when they use physician cost-profiles to categorize physicians into low or high-cost tiers.

SUBMITTER: Adams JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2842268 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Incorporating statistical uncertainty in the use of physician cost profiles.

Adams John L JL McGlynn Elizabeth A EA Thomas J William JW Mehrotra Ateev A

BMC health services research 20100305

<h4>Background</h4>Physician cost profiles (also called efficiency or economic profiles) compare the costs of care provided by a physician to his or her peers. These profiles are increasingly being used as the basis for policy applications such as tiered physician networks. Tiers (low, average, high cost) are currently defined by health plans based on percentile cut-offs which do not account for statistical uncertainty. In this paper we compare the percentile cut-off method to another method, us ...[more]

PMID: 20205736

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) (or one of its derivatives) is the primary clinical metric for characterizing sleep disordered breathing-the value of which with respect to a threshold determines severity of diagnosis and eligibility for treatment reimbursement. The index value, however, is taken as a perfect point estimate, with no measure of statistical uncertainty. Thus, current practice does not robustly account for variability in diagnosis/eligibility due to chance. In this paper, we quantify the statistical uncertainty associated with respiratory event indices for sleep disordered breathing and the effect of uncertainty on treatment eligibility.MethodsWe develop an empirical estimate of uncertainty using a non-parametric bootstrap on the interevent times, as well as a theoretical Poisson estimate reflecting the current formulation of the AHI. We then apply these methods to estimate AHI uncertainty for 2049 subjects (954/1095 M/F, age: mean 69 ± 9.1) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).Results and conclusionsThe mean 95% empirical confidence interval width was 11.500 ± 6.208 events per hour and the mean 95% theoretical Poisson confidence interval width was 5.998 ± 2.897 events per hour, suggesting that uncertainty is likely a major confounding factor within the current diagnostic framework. Of the 278 subjects in the symptomatic population (ESS>10), 27% (76/278) had uncertain diagnoses given the 95% empirical confidence interval. Of the 2049 subjects in the full population, 43% (880/2049) had uncertain diagnoses given the 95% empirical confidence interval. The inclusion of subjects with uncertain diagnoses increases the number of eligible patients by 21.3% for the symptomatic population and by 84.8% for the full population. The exclusion of subjects with uncertain diagnoses given the 95% empirical confidence interval decreases the number of eligible patients by 12.4% for the symptomatic population and by 34.8% for full population. Additional analyses suggest that it is practically infeasible to gain diagnostic statistical significance through additional testing for a broad range of borderline cases. Overall, these results suggest that AHI uncertainty is a vital additional piece of information that would greatly benefit clinical practice, and that the inclusion of uncertainty in epidemiological analysis might help improve the ability for researchers to robustly link AHI with co-morbidities and long-term outcomes.

Dataset Information

Incorporating statistical uncertainty in the use of physician cost profiles.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Incorporating statistical uncertainty in the use of physician cost profiles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets