Dataset Information

Annual Spending per Patient and Quality in Hospital-Owned Versus Physician-Owned Organizations: an Observational Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recent 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.

Objective

To measure the association between physician-hospital integration and both spending and quality using patient-level data and explicit physician-hospital contracting information.

Design

Retrospective review of claims data from 2014 through 2016. Adjustments were made for patient, physician, and regional characteristics.

Patients

Patients 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 measures

Annual 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.

Results

Estimates 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 relevance

We 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.

SUBMITTER: Ho V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7080686 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of public payment policy may extend to private populations through "spillover" effects. If cost-saving efforts in Medicare also reduce costs among commercially insured patients, Medicare payment systems could be a versatile policy tool in future reform efforts.ObjectivesTo determine whether physicians who participated in a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) reduced spending among their commercial patients.DesignThis was a retrospective, longitudinal study which was conducted using Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) claims data from 2010 to 2015. We compared patients seen by physicians who participated in a Medicare ACO to patients whose physicians were not part of an ACO. We used a difference-in-differences (DIDs) design to test whether physician participation in an ACO was associated with reduced spending among their commercially insured patients. We also tested for heterogeneous effects: we assessed whether spillovers were larger among patients with clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure) that have previously been targeted by Medicare payment programs.SettingThis was a population-based study of commercially insured patients in Michigan.ParticipantsPatients who experienced a significant clinical episode (eg, labor and delivery, acute myocardial infarction) between 2010 and 2015.ExposureOur patient-level exposure is treatment by a Medicare ACO-affiliated physician.Main outcomes and measuresMedical spending of 0-90 days and 91-365 days after a clinical episode.ResultsPatients in the exposure group (n=54,750) and in the control group (n=137,883) were similar in demographic characteristics of age, sex, and type of clinical episodes. Adjusted mean 90-day spending in the preexposure period was $21,292 among the exposure group and $21,157 among the comparison group; these means declined to $21,250 and $20,995 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of $119 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$170 to $408]. Adjusted means for 91-365 days spending in the preperiod were $4258 among the exposure group and $4251 among the comparison group; these means rose to $4338 and $4421 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of -$90 (95% CI, -$312 to $132). We also separately examined patients with conditions that have been targeted by other Medicare payment programs. Among these patients, 90-day spending did not differ between exposure and comparison groups (DIDs, -$223; 95% CI, -$2037 to $1591), although 91-365 days spending decreased among the exposure group with marginal statistical significance (DIDs, -$1160; 95% CI, -$2459 to $140).Conclusions and relevancePhysicians who participated in Medicare ACOs did not reduce spending among most of their commercially insured patients. Medicare policy is unlikely to confer significant spillover benefits to the commercially insured population.

Project description:Study questionIs a higher use of resources by physicians associated with a reduced risk of malpractice claims?MethodsUsing data on nearly all admissions to acute care hospitals in Florida during 2000-09 linked to malpractice history of the attending physician, this study investigated whether physicians in seven specialties with higher average hospital charges in a year were less likely to face an allegation of malpractice in the following year, adjusting for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and diagnosis. To provide clinical context, the study focused on obstetrics, where the choice of caesarean deliveries are suggested to be influenced by defensive medicine, and whether obstetricians with higher adjusted caesarean rates in a year had fewer alleged malpractice incidents the following year.Study answer and limitationsThe data included 24,637 physicians, 154,725 physician years, and 18,352,391 hospital admissions; 4342 malpractice claims were made against physicians (2.8% per physician year). Across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. For example, among internists, the probability of experiencing an alleged malpractice incident in the following year ranged from 1.5% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 1.7%) in the bottom spending fifth ($19,725 (£12,800; €17,400) per hospital admission) to 0.3% (0.2% to 0.5%) in the top fifth ($39,379 per hospital admission). In six of the specialties, a greater use of resources was associated with statistically significantly lower subsequent rates of alleged malpractice incidents. A principal limitation of this study is that information on illness severity was lacking. It is also uncertain whether higher spending is defensively motivated.What this study addsWithin specialty and after adjustment for patient characteristics, higher resource use by physicians is associated with fewer malpractice claims.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (grant 1DP5OD017897-01 to ABJ) and National Institute of Aging (R37 AG036791 to JB). The authors have no competing interests or additional data to share.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess racial and ethnic disparities in care for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries and whether disparities differ between health system-affiliated physician organizations (POs) and nonaffiliated POs.Data sourcesWe used Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty (MD-PPAS), Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS), IRS Form 990, 100% Medicare FFS claims, and race/ethnicity estimated using the Medicare Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding 2.0 algorithm.Study designUsing a sample of 16 007 POs providing primary care in 2015, we assessed racial/ethnic disparities on 12 measures derived from claims (2 cancer screenings; diabetic eye examinations; continuity of care; two medication adherence measures; three measures of follow-up visits after acute care; all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, all-cause readmissions, and ambulatory care-sensitive admissions). We decomposed these "total" disparities into within-PO and between-PO components using models with PO random effects. We then pair-matched 1853 of these POs that were affiliated with health systems to similar nonaffiliated POs. We examined differences in within-PO disparities by affiliation status by interacting each nonwhite race/ethnicity with an affiliation indicator.Data collection/extraction methodsMedicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty identified POs billing Medicare; PECOS and IRS Form 990 identified health system affiliations. Beneficiaries age 18 and older were attributed to POs using a plurality visit rule.Principal findingsWe observed total disparities in 12 of 36 comparisons between white and nonwhite beneficiaries; nonwhites received worse care in 10. Within-PO disparities exceeded between-PO disparities and were substantively important (>=5 percentage points or>=0.2 standardized differences) in nine of the 12 comparisons. Among these 12, nonaffiliated POs had smaller disparities than affiliated POs in two comparisons (P < .05): 1.6 percentage points smaller black-white disparities in follow-up after ED visits and 0.6 percentage points smaller Hispanic-white disparities in breast cancer screening.ConclusionsWe find no evidence that system-affiliated POs have smaller racial and ethnic disparities than nonaffiliated POs. Where differences existed, disparities were slightly larger in affiliated POs.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs), healthcare spending reductions have been modest. This may relate to variable participation in ACOs by specialist physicians, who disproportionately drive spending. To examine whether specialist participation in Medicare ACOs was associated with changes in healthcare spending and clinical quality, we analyzed national Medicare data.Methods and resultsWorking with a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries (2008 to 2015), we identified those with cardiovascular disease. We estimated linear regression models at the beneficiary-quarter level to evaluate changes in healthcare spending and clinical quality after the start of the Shared Savings Program in 2012. We then examined whether changes in spending and quality across ACOs were conditional on cardiologist participation. Our study included ≈1.6 million beneficiaries per year. Although the number of ACOs increased over the study period (from 114 in 2012 to 392 in 2015), the proportion with any cardiologist participation remained stable (from 80% in 2012 to 83% in 2015). Compared with unaligned beneficiaries, those cared for by ACOs without cardiologist participation were associated with a spending reduction (per quarter) of -$75 (95% CI, -$105 to -$46; P<0.001). Care receipt in an ACO with cardiologist participation was associated with an additional difference in spending of -$56 (95% CI, -$87 to -$25; P<0.001), driven by lower spending for skilled nursing facilities, evaluation and management services, procedural care, and testing. While heart failure admission rates were similar among aligned and unaligned beneficiaries, ACO care was associated with fewer all-cause readmissions (P<0.001) and emergency department visits (P<0.001). Rates of these outcomes did not vary by cardiologist participation.ConclusionsAnnual spending for beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease was ≈$200 lower when cared for by ACOs with cardiologist participation (compared with those without). These spending reductions did not come at the expense of clinical quality.