Dataset Information

Association of Specialist Physician Payment Model With Visit Frequency, Quality, and Costs of Care for People With Chronic Disease.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Specialist physicians are key members of chronic care management teams; to date, however, little is known about the association between specialist payment models and outcomes for patients with chronic diseases. Objective:To examine the association of payment model with visit frequency, quality of care, and costs for patients with chronic diseases seen by specialists. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective cohort study using propensity-score matching in patients seen by a specialist physician was conducted between April 1, 2011, and September 31, 2014. The study was completed on March 31, 2015, and data analysis was conducted from June 2017 to February 2018 and finalized in August 2019. In a population-based design, 109 839 adults with diabetes or chronic kidney disease newly referred to specialists were included. Because patients seen by independent salary-based and fee-for-service (FFS) specialists were significantly different in observed baseline characteristics, patients were matched 1:1 on demographic, illness, and physician characteristics. Exposures:Specialist physician payment model (salary-based or FFS). Main Outcomes and Measures:Follow-up outpatient visits, guideline-recommended care delivery, adverse events, and costs. Results:A total of 90 605 patients received care from FFS physicians and 19 234 received care from salary-based physicians. Before matching, the patients seen by salary-based physicians had more advanced chronic kidney disease (2630 of 14 414 [18.2%] vs 6627 of 54 489 [12.2%]), and a higher proportion had 5 or more comorbidities (5989 of 19 234 [31.3%] vs 23 326 of 90 605 [25.7%]). Propensity-score matching resulted in a cohort of 31 898 patients (15 949 FFS, 15 949 salary-based) seeing 489 specialists. In the matched cohort, patients were similar (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [18.2] years; 17 632 women [55.3%]; 29 251 residing in urban settings [91.7%]). Patients seen by salary-based specialists had a higher follow-up visit rate compared with those seen by FFS specialists (1.74 visits; 95% CI, 1.58-1.92 visits vs 1.54 visits; 95% CI, 1.41-1.68 visits), but the difference was not significant (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.28; P = .06). There was no statistical difference in guideline-recommended care delivery, hospital or emergency department visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, or costs between patients seeing FFS and salary-based specialists. The median association of physician clustering with health care use and quality outcomes was consistently greater than the association with the physician payment, suggesting variation between physicians (eg, median rate ratio for follow-up outpatient visit rate was 1.74, which is greater than the rate ratio of 1.13). Conclusions and Relevance:Specialist physician payment does not appear to be associated with variation in visits, quality, and costs for outpatients with chronic diseases; however, there is variation in outcomes between physicians. This finding suggests the need to consider other strategies to reduce physician variation to improve the value of care and outcomes for people with chronic diseases.

SUBMITTER: Quinn AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6902778 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are concerns that alternate payment plans for physicians may be associated with erosion of data quality, given that physicians are paid regardless of whether claims are submitted. Our objective was to determine the proportion of claims submitted by physician specialists using fee-for-service and alternative payment plans, and to identify and compare the validity of information coded in physician billing claims submitted by these specialists in Calgary.MethodsWe conducted a survey of physician specialists to determine their plan status and obtained consent to use physicians' claims data from 4 acute care hospitals in Calgary. Inpatient and emergency department services were identified from the Discharge Abstract Database for Alberta (Canadian Institute for Health Information) and the Alberta Ambulatory Care Classification System database. We linked services to claims by Alberta physicians from 2002 to 2009 by using unique patient and physician identifiers. After identifying the proportion of claims submitted, we reviewed inpatient charts to determine the completeness of submissions as defined by positive predictive value.ResultsOf 182 physicians who responded to the survey, 94 (51.6%) used fee-for-service plans exclusively and 51 (28.0%) used alternative payment plans exclusively. Overall completeness of physician submissions for claims was 91.8% for physicians using fee-for-service plans and 90.0% for physicians using alternative payment plans. Submission rate varied by medical specialty (surgery: 92.4% for fee for service v. 88.6% for alternative payment; internal medicine: 94.1% v. 91.3%; neurology: 95.1% v. 91.0%; and pediatrics: 95.1% v. 89.3%). Among claims submitted, the physician accuracies for billing of medical conditions were 87.8% for fee-for-service and 85.0% for alternative payment.InterpretationOverall submission rates and accuracy in recording diagnoses by physicians who used both plans were high. These findings show that the implementation of alternative payment plan programs in Alberta may not have an impact on the quality of physician claims data.

Project description:Rationale, aims and objectiveSubstituting outpatient hospital care with primary care is seen as a solution to decrease unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care and decrease rising healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects on quality of care, health and costs outcomes of substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care-based interventions, which are performed by medical specialists in face-to-face consultations in a primary care setting.MethodThe systematic review was performed using the PICO framework. Original papers in which the premise of the intervention was to substitute outpatient hospital care with primary care through the involvement of a medical specialist in a primary care setting were eligible.ResultsA total of 14 papers were included. A substitution intervention in general practitioner (GP) practices was described in 11 papers, three described a joint consultation intervention in which GPs see patients together with a medical specialist. This study showed that substitution initiatives result mostly in favourable outcomes compared to outpatient hospital care. The initiatives resulted mostly in shorter waiting lists, shorter clinic waiting times and higher patient satisfaction. Costs for treating one extra patient seemed to be higher in the intervention settings. This was mainly caused by inefficient planning of consultation hours and lower patient numbers.ConclusionsDespite the fact that internationally a lot has been written about the importance of performing substitution interventions in which preventing unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care was the aim, only 14 papers were included. Future systematic reviews should focus on the effects on the Triple Aim of substitution initiatives in which other healthcare professions than medical specialists are involved along with new technologies, such as e-consults. Additionally, to gain more insight into the effects of substitution initiatives operating in a dynamic healthcare context, it is important to keep evaluating the interventions in a longitudinal study design.

Project description:IntroductionFalls cause 75% of trauma in patients above 65 years of age, and thoracic trauma is the second commonest injury; rib fractures are the most common thoracic injury. These patients have up to 12% mortality, with 31% developing pneumonias. There is wide variation in care. Northumbria Healthcare has a team of respiratory consultants, physiotherapists, specialist nurses and anesthetists for thoracic-trauma management on a respiratory support unit.MethodsWith Caldicott approval, basic demographics and clinical outcomes of patients admitted with thoracic trauma between 20 August-21 April were analyzed. A descriptive statistical methodology was applied.ResultsA total of 119 patients were identified with a mean age of 71.1 years (range 23-97). Of the 119 patients, 53 were male, 66 females. The main mechanism of injury was falls from standing (65) and falls down stairs/bed or in the bath (18). Length of stay was 7.3 days (range 1-54). In total, 85 patients had more than one co-morbidity, 26 had a full trauma assessment and 75 had pan CTs. The mean number of rib fractures was 3.6 and 31 (26%) patients had a pneumothorax and/or haemothorax. A total of 18 chest drains were inserted (all small bore) and one needle aspiration was performed. No cardiothoracic input was required. Isolated chest trauma was present only in 45 patients. All patients had a pain team review, 22 erector spinae catheters were inserted with 2 paravertebral blocks. Overall, 82 patients did not require oxygen, 1 required CPAP and 1 HFNC. 7 needed intensive care transfer. Furthermore, 20 (17%) developed pneumonias and 16 (14%) deaths occurred within 30 days-all were in those with falls from standing. There was no correlation between number of fractured ribs, length of stay and mortality.ConclusionsHigh level care for thoracic trauma can be performed by a physician led team. Overall, 42% pneumothoraces/haemothoraces were observed. Further large scale randomised trials are warranted for definitive outcomes.

Dataset Information

Association of Specialist Physician Payment Model With Visit Frequency, Quality, and Costs of Care for People With Chronic Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure