Dataset Information

Variation in Physician Spending and Association With Patient Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

While the substantial variation in health care spending across regions and hospitals is well known, key clinical decisions are ultimately made by physicians. However, the degree to which spending varies across physicians and the clinical consequences of that variation are unknown.

Objective

To investigate variation in spending across physicians and its association with patient outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants

For this retrospective data analysis, we analyzed a 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years and older who were hospitalized with a nonelective medical condition and treated by a general internist between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014. We first quantified the proportion of variation in Medicare Part B spending attributable to hospitals, physicians, and patients. We then examined the association between physician spending and patient outcomes, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (effectively comparing physicians within the same hospital). Our primary analysis focused on hospitalist physicians, whose patients are plausibly quasirandomized within a hospital based on physician work schedule. A secondary analysis focused on general internists overall. To ensure that patient illness severity did not directly affect physician spending estimates, we calculated physicians' spending levels in 2011 through 2012 and examined outcomes of their patients in 2013 and 2014.

Exposures

Physicians' adjusted Part B spending level in 2011 through 2012.

Main outcomes and measures

Patients' 30-day mortality and readmission rates in 2013 and 2014.

Results

To determine the amount of variation across physicians we included 485 016 hospitalizations treated by 21 963 physicians at 2837 acute care hospitals for the analysis of hospitalists and 839 512 hospitalizations treated by 50 079 physicians at 3195 acute care hospitals for the analysis of general internists. Variation in spending across physicians within hospital was larger than variation across hospitals (for hospitalists, 8.4% across physicians vs 7.0% across hospitals; for general internists, 10.5% across physicians vs 6.2% across hospitals). Higher physician spending was not associated with lower 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for additional $100 in physician spending, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01; P = .47) or readmissions (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01; P = .54) for hospitalists within the same hospital. We observed similar patterns among general internists.

Conclusions and relevance

Health care spending varies more across individual physicians than across hospitals. However, higher physician spending is not associated with better outcomes of hospitalized patients. Our findings suggest policies targeting both physicians and hospitals may be more effective in reducing wasteful spending than policies focusing solely on hospitals.

SUBMITTER: Tsugawa Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5470365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies that compared patient spending in hospital-owned physician practices versus physician-owned groups did not compare quality of care. Past studies had incomplete measures of physician-hospital integration, or lacked patient-level data.ObjectiveTo measure the association between physician-hospital integration and both spending and quality using patient-level data and explicit physician-hospital contracting information.DesignRetrospective review of claims data from 2014 through 2016. Adjustments were made for patient, physician, and regional characteristics.PatientsPatients aged 19 to 64 enrolled in a Blue Cross Blue Shield Texas Preferred Provider Organization in the four largest metropolitan areas in Texas who could be attributed to a physician practice based on claims.Main outcomes and measuresAnnual spending per patient was compared for patients treated by a physician practice that is billing through a hospital, versus billing through an independent physician practice; spending was also subdivided by BETOS category, by site and type of care, and percent of patients with positive spending by subcategory. Quality measures included readmission within 30 days of discharge for hospitalized patients, appropriate care for diabetic patients, and screening mammography for women ages 50-64.ResultsEstimates suggest that patients in a preferred provider organization incur spending which is 5.8 percentage points higher when treated by doctors in hospital-owned versus physician-owned practices (95% CI 1.7 to 9.9; p = 0.006). Spending is significantly higher for durable medical equipment, imaging, unclassified services, and outpatient care. The spending difference appears attributable to greater service utilization rather than higher prices. There was no consistent difference in care quality for hospital-owned versus physician-owned practices.Conclusions and relevanceWe find that financial integration between physicians and hospitals raises patient spending, but not care quality. Given that higher spending raises the price of health insurance, policy makers should carefully consider policies that limit consolidation of hospitals and physicians.

Project description:RATIONALE:Physicians are increasingly being held accountable for patient outcomes, yet their specific contribution to the outcomes remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES:To determine variation in outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients among intensivists, as well as associations between intensivist experience and patient outcomes. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated Medicare fee-for-service patients in acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania using administrative, clinical, and physician data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the American Medical Association from 2008 and 2009. We identified intensivists by training background, board certification, and claims for services provided to patients admitted to an intensive care unit. We assigned patients to intensivists for outcome attribution based on submitted claims for critical care and in-patient services. We estimated the physician-specific adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day mortality using a hierarchical model with a random effect for physician, adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. We tested for independent association of physician experience with patient outcomes using mixed-effects regression for the primary outcome of 30-day mortality. We defined physician experience in two ways: years since training completion ("duration") and annual number of mechanically ventilated patients ("volume"). RESULTS:We assigned 345 physicians to 11,268 patients. The 30-day mortality was 43% and median hospital length of stay was 11 days (interquartile range = 6-18). The physician adjusted OR varied from 0.72 to 1.64 (median = 0.99; interquartile range = 0.92-1.09). A total of 48% of physicians was outliers, with an adjusted OR significantly different from 1. However, among intensivists, physician experience was not associated with 30-day mortality (duration OR = 1.00 per additional year; 95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.01; volume OR = 1.00 per additional patient; 95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.00). CONCLUSIONS:Intensivists independently contribute to outcomes of Medicare patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, as evidenced by the variation in risk-adjusted mortality across intensivists. However, physician experience does not underlie this relationship between intensivists, suggesting the need to identify modifiable physician factors to improve outcomes.

Project description:ImportancePrivate equity acquisitions of physician practices in the US have been increasing rapidly; however, the implications for health care delivery and spending are unclear.ObjectiveTo examine changes in prices and utilization associated with private equity acquisitions of physician practices across multiple specialties.Design, settings, and participantsThis was a difference-in-differences event study of US physician practices specialized in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology that were acquired by private equity firms from 2016 to 2020. Within each specialty, each private equity-acquired (PE-acquired) practice was matched with as many as 5 control practices based on the preacquisition number of unique patients, encounters, risk score, share of services billed out-of-network, and spending. The PE-acquired practices were compared with matched controls through year 2 after acquisition, using a difference-in-differences event study. Data analyses were performed from March 2021 to February 2022.ExposuresPrivate equity acquisition of physician practices.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of spending and utilization, including the charge and price (amount paid) per claim, new and unique patients, and total encounters.ResultsCompared with the 2874 control practices, the 578 PE-acquired physician practices exhibited an average increase of $71 (+20.2%) charged per claim (95% CI, 13.1%-27.3%; P < .001) and $23 (+11.0%) in the allowed amount per claim (95% CI, 5.6%-16.5%; P < .001). The PE-acquired practices increased their numbers of unique patients seen by 25.8% (95% CI, 15.8%-35.6%; P < .001) compared with control practices, driven by a 37.9% increase in visits by new patients (95% CI, 25.6%-50.2%; P < .001). In aggregate, their volume of encounters increased by 16.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-32.0%; P = .04) compared with the control group, with a 9.4% increase in the share of office visits for established patients that were billed as longer than 30 minutes (95% CI, 1.7%-17.0%; P = .02). No statistically significant changes in patient risk scores were found between PE-acquired practices and controls. Within specialties, we found modest differences along selected outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceIn this difference-in-differences study, private equity acquisition of physician practices in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology were associated with differential increases in allowed amount and charges per claim, volume of encounters, and new patients seen, as well as some changes in billing and coding.

Project description:ObjectiveMusculoskeletal problems like hip and knee osteoarthritis and low-back pain are preference sensitive conditions. Patient engagement strategies (PES), such as shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, can help align patients' preferences with treatment options and potentially reduce spending. We assess the association of physician practice-level adoption of PES with utilisation and spending.DesignCross-sectional study in which patients were matched across low, moderate and high levels of PES via coarsened exact matching.SettingPrimary and secondary care in 2190 physician practices.Participants39 336 hip, 48 362 knee and 67 940 low-back patients who were Medicare beneficiaries were matched to the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTotal hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR), 1-2 level posterior lumbar fusion (LF), total annual spending, components of total annual spending.ResultsTotal annual spending for patients with musculoskeletal problems did not differ for practices with low versus moderate PES, low versus high PES or moderate versus high PES, but spending was significantly lower in some categories for practices with relatively higher PES adoption. For hospital-owned and health system-owned practices, the ORs of receiving LF were 0.632 (95% CI 0.396 to 1.009) for patients attributed to practices with high PES compared with patients attributed to practices with moderate PES. For independent practices, the odds of receiving THR were 1.403 (95% CI 1.035 to 1.902) for patients attributed to practices with moderate PES compared with patients attributed to practices with low PES.ConclusionsPractice-level adoption of PES for patients with musculoskeletal problems was generally not associated with total spending. PES, however, may steer patients toward evidence-based treatments. Opportunities for overall spending reduction exist as indicated by the variation in the subcomponents of total spending by PES adoption.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if greater non-profit hospital spending for community benefits is associated with better health outcomes in the county where they are located.Data sources and study settingCommunity benefit data from IRS Form 990/Schedule H was linked to health outcome data from Area Health Resource Files, Map the Meal Gap, and Medicare claims from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the county level. Counties with at least one non-profit hospital in the United States from 2015 to 2019 (N = 5469 across the 5 years) were included.Study designWe ran multiple regressions on community benefit expenditures linked with the number of health professionals, food insecurity, and adherence to diabetes and hypertension medication for each county.Data collectionThe three outcomes were chosen based on prior studies of community benefit and a recent survey sent to 12 health care executives across four regions of the U.S. Data on community benefit expenditures and health outcomes were aggregated at the county level.Principal findingsAverage hospital community benefit spending in 2019 was $63.6 million per county ($255 per capita). Multivariable regression results did not demonstrate significant associations of total community benefit spending with food insecurity or medication adherence for diabetes. Statistically significant associations with the number of health professionals per 1000 (coefficient, 12.10; SE, 0.32; p < 0.001) and medication adherence for hypertension (marginal effect, 0.27; SE, 0.09; p = 0.003) were identified, but both would require very large increases in community benefit spending to meaningfully improve outcomes.ConclusionsDespite varying levels of non-profit hospital community benefit investment across counties, higher community benefit expenditures are not associated with an improvement in the selected health outcomes at the county level. Hospitals can use this information to reassess community benefit strategies, while federal, state, and local governments can use these findings to redefine the measures of community benefit they use to monitor and grant tax exemption.