Dataset Information

Association of Organizational Factors and Physician Practices' Participation in Alternative Payment Models.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Consolidation among physician practices and between hospitals and physician practices has accelerated in the past decade, resulting in higher prices in commercial markets. The resulting integration of health care across clinicians and participation in alternative payment models (APMs), which aim to improve quality while constraining spending, are cited as reasons for consolidation, but little is known about the association between integration and APM participation. Objective:To examine the association of organizational characteristics, ownership, and integration with intensity of participation in APMs among physician practices. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional descriptive study, adjusted for sampling and nonresponse weights, was conducted in US physician practice respondents to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems conducted between June 16, 2017, and August 17, 2018; of 2333 responses received (response rate, 46.9%) and after exclusion of ineligible and incomplete responses, the number of practices included in the analysis was 2061. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. Exposures:Self-reported physician practice characteristics, including ownership, integration (clinical, cultural, financial, and functional), care delivery capabilities, activities, and environmental factors. Main Outcomes and Measures:Participation in APMs: (1) bundled payments, (2) comprehensive primary care and medical home programs, (3) pay-for-performance programs, (4) capitated contracts with commercial health plans, and (5) accountable care organization contracts. Results:A total of 49.2% of the 2061 practices included reported participating in 3 or more APMs; most participated in pay-for-performance and accountable care organization models. Covariate-adjusted analyses suggested that operating within a health care system (odds ratio [OR] for medical group: 2.35; 95% CI, 1.70-3.25; P?

SUBMITTER: Ouayogode MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7118519 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Organizational Factors and Physician Practices' Participation in Alternative Payment Models.

Ouayogodé Mariétou H MH Fraze Taressa T Rich Eugene C EC Colla Carrie H CH

JAMA network open 20200401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Consolidation among physician practices and between hospitals and physician practices has accelerated in the past decade, resulting in higher prices in commercial markets. The resulting integration of health care across clinicians and participation in alternative payment models (APMs), which aim to improve quality while constraining spending, are cited as reasons for consolidation, but little is known about the association between integration and APM participation.<h4>Objectiv ...[more]

PMID: 32239223

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ambulatory care-sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations are used to evaluate physicians' performance in Medicare value-based payment programs. However, these measures may disadvantage physicians caring for vulnerable populations because they omit social, cognitive, and functional factors that may be important determinants of hospitalization. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether social, cognitive, and functional risk factors are associated with ACSC hospitalization rates and whether adjusting for them changes outpatient safety-net providers' performance. DESIGN:Using data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we conducted patient-level multivariable regression to estimate the association (as incidence rate ratios (IRRs)) between patient-reported social, cognitive, and functional risk factors and ACSC hospitalizations. We compared outpatient safety-net and non-safety-net providers' performance after adjusting for clinical comorbidities alone and after additional adjustment for social, cognitive, and functional factors captured in survey data. SETTING:Safety-net and non-safety-net clinics. PARTICIPANTS:Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries contributing 38,616 person-years from 2006 to 2013. MEASUREMENTS:Acute and chronic ACSC hospitalizations. RESULTS:After adjusting for clinical comorbidities, Alzheimer's/dementia (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02-1.65), difficulty with 3-6 activities of daily living (ADLs) (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.05-1.94), difficulty with 1-2 instrumental ADLs (IADLs, IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26-1.90), and 3-6 IADLs (IRR 1.90, 95% CI 1.49-2.43) were associated with acute ACSC hospitalization. Low income (IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.58), lack of educational attainment (IRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.04-1.69), being unmarried (IRR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.36), difficulty with 1-2 IADLs (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.60), and 3-6 IADLs (IRR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16-1.80) were associated with chronic ACSC hospitalization. Adding these factors to standard Medicare risk adjustment eliminated outpatient safety-net providers' performance gap (p?<?.05) on ACSC hospitalization rates relative to non-safety-net providers. CONCLUSIONS:Social, cognitive, and functional risk factors are independently associated with ACSC hospitalizations. Failure to account for them may penalize outpatient safety-net providers for factors that are beyond their control.

Project description:Daytime intensivist physician staffing is associated with improved outcomes in the ICU. However, it is unclear whether this association persists in the era of interprofessional, protocol-directed critical care. We sought to reexamine the association between daytime intensivist physician staffing and ICU mortality and determine if interprofessional rounding and protocols for mechanical ventilation in part mediate this relationship.Retrospective cohort study of ICUs in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation clinical information system from 2009 to 2010.Forty-nine ICUs in 25 U.S. hospitals.Adults (17 yr and older) admitted to a study ICU.None.We defined high-intensity daytime intensivist staffing as either a mandatory consult or closed ICU model; interprofessional rounds as rounds that included a respiratory therapist, pharmacist, physician and nurse; and protocol use as having protocols for liberation from mechanical ventilation and lung protective mechanical ventilation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we estimated the independent effect of daytime intensivist physician staffing on in-hospital mortality controlling for interprofessional rounds and protocols for mechanical ventilation, as well as other patient and hospital characteristics. Twenty-seven ICUs (55%) reported high-intensity daytime physician staffing, 42 ICUs (85%) reported daily interprofessional rounds, and 31 (63%) reported having protocols for mechanical ventilation. There was no association between daytime intensivist physician staffing and in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.14). After adjusting for interprofessional rounds and protocols for mechanical ventilation, the effect of daytime intensivist physician staffing remained nonsignificant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.70-1.17).High-intensity daytime physician staffing in the ICU was not significantly associated with lower mortality in a modern cohort. This association was not affected by interprofessional rounds or protocols for mechanical ventilation.

Project description:Our purpose was to identify physicians' individual characteristics, attitudes, and organizational contextual factors associated with higher enrollment of patients in cancer clinical trials among physician participants in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). We hypothesized that physicians' individual characteristics, such as age, medical specialty, tenure, CCOP organizational factors (i.e. policies and procedures to encourage enrollment), and attitudes toward participating in CCOP would directly determine enrollment. We also hypothesized that physicians' characteristics and CCOP organizational factors would influence physicians' attitudes toward participating in CCOP, which in turn would predict enrollment.We evaluated enrollment in National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer clinical trials in 2011 among 481 physician participants using Structural Equation Modeling. The data sources include CCOP Annual Progress Reports, two surveys of CCOP administrators and physician participants, and the American Medical Association Masterfile.Physicians with more positive attitudes toward participating in CCOP enrolled more patients than physicians with less positive attitudes. In addition, physicians who practiced in CCOPs that had more supportive policies and practices in place to encourage enrollment (i.e. offered trainings, provided support to screen and enroll patients, gave incentives to enroll patients, instituted minimum accrual expectations) also significantly enrolled more patients. Physician status as CCOP Principal Investigator had a positive direct effect on enrollment, while physician age and non-oncology medical specialty had negative direct effects on enrollment. Neither physicians' characteristics nor CCOP organizational factors indirectly influenced enrollment through an effect on physician attitudes.We examined whether individual physicians' characteristics and attitudes, as well as CCOP organizational factors, influenced patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials among CCOP physicians. Physician attitudes and CCOP organizational factors had positive direct effects, but not indirect effects, on physician enrollment of patients. Our results could be used to develop physician-directed strategies aimed at increasing involvement in clinical research. For example, administrators may want to ensure physicians have access to support staff to help screen and enroll patients or institute minimum accrual expectations. Our results also highlight the importance of recruiting physicians for volunteer clinical research programs whose attitudes and values align with programmatic goals. Given that physician involvement is a key determinant of patient enrollment in clinical trials, these interventions could expand the overall number of patients involved in cancer research. These strategies will be increasingly important as the CCOP network continues to evolve.

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:ImportanceThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased 2013 to 2014 Medicaid payment rates for qualifying primary care physicians (PCPs) and services to higher Medicare payment levels, with the goal of improving primary care access for Medicaid enrollees.ObjectivesTo evaluate the payment increase policy and to assess whether it was associated with changes in Medicaid participation rates or Medicaid service volume among PCPs.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used 2012 to 2015 IMS Health aggregated medical claims and encounter data from PCPs eligible for the payment increase practicing in all states except Alaska and Hawaii and included 20 723 PCPs with observations in each month from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015. Data are for professional services performed in ambulatory settings, including office, hospital outpatient department, and emergency department. Regression models were used to test whether outcomes differed in months subject to higher payment rates relative to months before the increase and after the expiration of the increase in some states. The models controlled for time-invariant physician characteristics and time-varying characteristics, such as Medicaid enrollment. Interaction terms were included to estimate differential associations in subgroups of states (eg, by Medicaid managed care penetration) and physicians (eg, by specialty).Main outcomes and measuresPhysician-month records subject to higher Medicaid payment rates were flagged using state-specific implementation and end dates for the payment increase. Five outcomes were measured for each physician-month observation, including (1) an indicator for seeing any patients enrolled in Medicaid, (2) an indicator for seeing more than 5 patients enrolled in Medicaid, (3) the Medicaid share of total patients, (4) a count of new patient evaluation and management visits furnished to patients enrolled in Medicaid, and (5) a count of existing patient evaluation and management visits furnished to patients enrolled in Medicaid.ResultsAmong 20 723 PCPs, the payment increase had no association with PCP participation in Medicaid or Medicaid service volume. The estimated average marginal effects for all 5 outcomes were not statistically distinguishable from 0. This null result was robust to sensitivity analyses, including different time trend specifications and analyses focusing on the payment increase implementation and expiration time frames. Descriptively, the Medicaid share of patients increased by about 25% from 2012 to 2015, although the share did not increase differentially in states and months subject to higher payment rates.Conclusions and relevanceThe limited duration and design of the payment increase may have dampened its effectiveness. Future efforts to improve access through payment changes or other means can benefit from better understanding of the outcomes of this policy.

Dataset Information

Association of Organizational Factors and Physician Practices' Participation in Alternative Payment Models.

Publications

Association of Organizational Factors and Physician Practices' Participation in Alternative Payment Models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets