Dataset Information

The formation of physician patient sharing networks in medicare: Exploring the effect of hospital affiliation.

ABSTRACT: This study explores the forces that drive the formation of physician patient sharing networks. In particular, I examine the degree to which hospital affiliation drives physicians' sharing of Medicare patients. Using a revealed preference framework where observed network links are taken to be pairwise stable, I estimate the physicians' pair-specific values using a tetrad maximum score estimator that is robust to the presence of unobserved physician specific characteristics. I also control for a number of potentially confounding patient sharing channels, such as (a) common physician group or hospital system affiliation, (b) physician homophily, (c) knowledge complementarity, (d) patient side considerations related to both geographic proximity and insurance network participation, and (e) spillover from other collaborations. Focusing on the Chicago hospital referral region, I find that shared hospital affiliation accounts for 36.5% of the average pair-specific utility from a link. Implications for reducing care fragmentation are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Linde S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6899902 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The formation of physician patient sharing networks in medicare: Exploring the effect of hospital affiliation.

Linde Sebastian S

Health economics 20191028 12

This study explores the forces that drive the formation of physician patient sharing networks. In particular, I examine the degree to which hospital affiliation drives physicians' sharing of Medicare patients. Using a revealed preference framework where observed network links are taken to be pairwise stable, I estimate the physicians' pair-specific values using a tetrad maximum score estimator that is robust to the presence of unobserved physician specific characteristics. I also control for a n ...[more]

PMID: 31657506

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe interdependence of hospitals is underappreciated in patient outcomes studies. We used a network science approach to foreground this interdependence. Specifically, within two large state-based interhospital networks, we examined the relationship of a hospital's network position with in-hospital mortality and length of stay.MethodsWe constructed interhospital network graphs using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey for Florida (2014) and California (2011). The exposure of interest was hospital centrality, defined as weighted degree (sum of all ties to a given hospital from other hospitals). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality and length of stay with sub-analyses for four acute medical conditions: pneumonia, heart failure, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction. We compared outcomes for each quartile of hospital centrality relative to the most central quartile (Q4), independent of patient- and hospital-level characteristics, in this retrospective cross-sectional study.ResultsThe inpatient cohorts had 1,246,169 patients in Florida and 1,415,728 in California. Compared to Florida's central hospitals which had an overall mortality 1.60%, peripheral hospitals had higher in-hospital mortality (1.97%, adjusted OR (95%CI): Q1 1.61 (1.37, 1.89), p<0.001). Hospitals in the middle quartiles had lower in-hospital mortality compared to central hospitals (%, adjusted OR (95% CI): Q2 1.39%, 0.79 (0.70, 0.89), p<0.001; Q3 1.33%, 0.78 (0.70, 0.87), p<0.001). Peripheral hospitals had longer lengths of stay (adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% CI): Q1 2.47 (2.44, 2.50), p<0.001). These findings were replicated in California, and in patients with heart failure and pneumonia in Florida. These results show a u-shaped distribution of outcomes based on hospital network centrality quartile.ConclusionsThe position of hospitals within an inter-hospital network is associated with patient outcomes. Specifically, hospitals located in the peripheral or central positions may be most vulnerable to diminished quality outcomes due to the network. Results should be replicated with deeper clinical data.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that health systems provide better care to patients with high needs by comparing differences in quality between system-affiliated and nonaffiliated physician organizations (POs) and to examine variability in quality across health systems.Data sources2015 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty linked physicians to POs. Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) and IRS Form 990 data identified health system affiliations. Fee-for-service Medicare enrollment and claims data were used to examine quality.Study designThis cross-sectional analysis of beneficiaries with high needs, defined as having more than twice the expected spending of an average beneficiary, examined six quality measures: continuity of care, follow-up visits after hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, ED visits, all-cause readmissions, and ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations. Using a matched-pair design, we estimated beneficiary-level regression models with PO random effects to compare quality of care in system-affiliated and nonaffiliated POs. We then limited the sample to system-affiliated POs and estimated models with system random effects to examine variability in quality across systems.Principal findingsAmong 2 323 301 beneficiaries with high needs, 52.3% received care from system-affiliated POs. Rates of ED visits were statistically significantly different in system-affiliated POs (117.5 per 100) and nonaffiliated POs (106.8 per 100, P < .0001). Small differences in the other five quality measures were observed across a range of sensitivity analyses. Among systems, substantial variation was observed for rates of continuity of care (90% of systems had rates between 70.8% and 89.4%) and follow-up after ED visits (90% of systems had rates between 56.9% and 73.5%).ConclusionsSmall differences in quality of care were observed among beneficiaries with high needs receiving care from system POs and nonsystem POs. Health systems may not confer hypothesized quality advantages to patients with high needs.

Project description:BackgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer centers rapidly adopted telehealth to deliver care remotely. Telehealth will likely remain a model of care for years to come and may not only affect the way oncologists deliver care to their own patients but also the physicians with whom they share patients.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine oncologist characteristics associated with telehealth use and compare patient-sharing networks before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in a rural catchment area with a particular focus on the ties between physicians at the comprehensive cancer center and regional facilities.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, we obtained deidentified electronic health record data for individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer at Dartmouth Health in New Hampshire from 2018-2020. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify physician factors associated with telehealth encounters post COVID-19. Patient-sharing networks for each cancer type before and post COVID-19 were characterized with global network measures. Exponential-family random graph models were performed to estimate homophily terms for the likelihood of ties existing between physicians colocated at the hub comprehensive cancer center.ResultsOf the 12,559 encounters between patients and oncologists post COVID-19, 1228 (9.8%) were via telehealth. Patient encounters with breast oncologists who practiced at the hub hospital were over twice as likely to occur via telehealth compared to encounters with oncologists who practiced in regional facilities (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.17-4.15; P=.01). Patient encounters with oncologists who practiced in multiple locations were less likely to occur via telehealth, and this association was statistically significant for lung cancer care (odds ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.76; P=.01). We observed an increase in ties between oncologists at the hub hospital and oncologists at regional facilities in the lung cancer network post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 (93/318, 29.3%, vs 79/370, 21.6%, respectively), which was also reflected in the lower homophily coefficients post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 for physicians being colocated at the hub hospital (estimate: 1.92, 95% CI 1.46-2.51, vs 2.45, 95% CI 1.98-3.02). There were no significant differences observed in breast cancer or colorectal cancer networks.ConclusionsTelehealth use and associated changes to patient-sharing patterns associated with telehealth varied by cancer type, suggesting disparate approaches for integrating telehealth across clinical groups within this health system. The limited changes to the patient-sharing patterns between oncologists at the hub hospital and regional facilities suggest that telehealth was less likely to create new referral patterns between these types of facilities and rather replace care that would otherwise have been delivered in person. However, this study was limited to the 2 years immediately following the initial outbreak of COVID-19, and longer-term follow-up may uncover delayed effects that were not observed in this study period.

Dataset Information

The formation of physician patient sharing networks in medicare: Exploring the effect of hospital affiliation.

Publications

The formation of physician patient sharing networks in medicare: Exploring the effect of hospital affiliation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets