Dataset Information

Differences in the Complexity of Office Visits by Physician Specialty: NAMCS 2013-2016.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Specialty-to-specialty variation in use of outpatient evaluation and management service codes could lead to important differences in reimbursement among specialties.

Objective

To compare the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management services to the complexity of visits to physicians whose incomes are largely dependent on procedures.

Design, setting, and participants

We analyzed 53,670 established patient outpatient visits reported by physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2013 to 2016. We defined high complexity visits as those with an above average number of diagnoses (> 2) and/or medications (> 3) listed We based our comparison on time intervals corresponding to typical outpatient evaluation and management times as defined by the Current Procedural Terminology Manual and specialty utilization of evaluation and management codes based on 2015 Medicare payments.

Main outcome and measures

Proportion of complex visits by specialty category.

Key results

We found significant differences in the content of similar-length office visits provided by different specialties. For level 4 established outpatient visits (99214), the percentage involving high diagnostic complexity ranged from 62% for internal medicine, 52% for family medicine/general practice, and 41% for neurology (specialties whose incomes are largely dependent on evaluation and management codes), to 34% for dermatology, 42% for ophthalmology, and 25% for orthopedic surgery (specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedure codes) (p value of the difference < 0.001). High medication complexity was found in the following proportions of visits: internal medicine 56%, family medicine/general practice 49%, and neurology 43%, as compared with dermatology 33%, ophthalmology 30%, and orthopedic surgery 30% (p value of the difference < 0.001).

Conclusion

Within the same duration visits, specialties whose incomes depend more on evaluation and management codes on average addressed more clinical issues and managed more medications than specialties whose incomes are more dependent on procedures.

SUBMITTER: Goodson JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7280404 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePractice arrangements in physician offices were characterised by examining the share of visits that involved physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). The hypothesis was that collaborative practice (ie, care delivered by a dyad of physician-PA and/or physician-NP) was increasing.DesignTemporal ecological study.SettingNon-federal physician offices.ParticipantsPatient visits to a physician, PA or NP, spanning years 2007-2016.MethodsA stratified random sample of visits to office-based physicians was pooled through the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey public use linkage ﬁle. Among 317 674 visits to physicians, PAs or NPs, solo and collaborative practices were described and compared over two timespans of 2007-2011 and 2012-2016. Weighted patient visits were aggregated in bivariate analyses to achieve nationally representative estimates. Survey statistics assessed patient demographic characteristics, reason for visit and visit specialty by provider type.ResultsWithin years 2007-2011 and 2012-2016, there were 4.4 billion and 4.1 billion physician office visits (POVs), respectively. Comparing the two timespans, the rate of POVs with a solo PA (0.43% vs 0.21%) or NP (0.31% vs 0.17%) decreased. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-PA increased non-significantly. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-NP (0.49% vs 0.97%, p<0.01) increased. Overall, collaborative practice, in particular physician-NP, has increased in recent years (p<0.01), while visits handled by a solo PA or NP decreased (p<0.01). In models adjusted for patient age and chronic conditions, the odds of collaborative practice in years 2012-2016 compared with years 2007-2011 was 35% higher (95% CI 1.01 to 1.79). Furthermore, in 2012-2016, NPs provided more independent primary care, and PAs provided more independent care in a non-primary care medical specialty. Preventive visits declined among all providers.ConclusionsIn non-federal physician offices, collaborative care with a physician-PA or physician-NP appears to be a growing part of office-based healthcare delivery.

Project description:BackgroundThe American Heart Association (AHA) published guidelines for treatment of resistant hypertension in 2008 recommending use of thiazide diuretics (particularly chlorthalidone), aldosterone antagonists, and fixed-dose combination medications, but it is unclear the extent to which these guidelines are being followed.ObjectiveTo describe trends in physician use of recommended medications for resistant hypertension and assess variations in medication use based on geography, physician specialty and patient characteristics.DesignCross-sectional analysis using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2006 to 2010.Study sampleWe analyzed visits of hypertension patients to family physicians, general internists, and cardiologists. Resistant hypertension was defined as concurrent use of ? 4 classes of blood pressure (BP) medications or elevated BP despite the use of ? 3 medications. Pregnant patients and visits with diagnosed heart failure or end-stage renal disease were excluded.Main outcomeUse of AHA-recommended medications for management of resistant hypertension.ResultsOf 19,500 patient visits with hypertension, 1,567 or 7.1 % CI (6.6-7.7 %) met criteria for resistant hypertension. Thiazide diuretic use was reported in 58.9 % of visits pre-guidelines vs. 54.8 % post-guidelines (p?=?0.37). Use of aldosterone antagonists was low and also did not change significantly after guideline publication (3.1 % vs. 4.5 %, p?=?0.27). Fixed-dose combinations use was 42.0 % before and 37 % after guideline publication (p?=?0.29). Each 10-year increase in patient age was associated with lower thiazide use (OR 0.87, CI 0.77-0.97), as was presence of comorbid ischemic heart disease (OR 0.62, CI 0.41-0.94). Medication use did not vary by geography or physician specialty.ConclusionUse of AHA-recommended medications for resistant hypertension remains low after publication of guidelines. Healthcare systems should encourage more frequent prescribing of these medications to improve care in this high-risk population.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician ratings websites have emerged as a novel forum for consumers to comment on their health care experiences. Little is known about such ratings in Canada.ObjectiveWe investigated the scope and trends for specialty, geographic region, and time for online physician ratings in Canada using a national data source from the country's leading physician-rating website.MethodsThis observational retrospective study used online ratings data from Canadian physicians (January 2005-September 2013; N=640,603). For specialty, province, and year of rating, we assessed whether physicians were likely to be rated favorably by using the proportion of ratings greater than the overall median rating.ResultsIn total, 57,412 unique physicians had 640,603 individual ratings. Overall, ratings were positive (mean 3.9, SD 1.3). On average, each physician had 11.2 (SD 10.1) ratings. By comparing specialties with Canadian Institute of Health Information physician population numbers over our study period, we inferred that certain specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, family practice, surgery, and dermatology) were more commonly rated, whereas others (pathology, radiology, genetics, and anesthesia) were less represented. Ratings varied by specialty; cardiac surgery, nephrology, genetics, and radiology were more likely to be rated in the top 50th percentile, whereas addiction medicine, dermatology, neurology, and psychiatry were more often rated in the lower 50th percentile of ratings. Regarding geographic practice location, ratings were more likely to be favorable for physicians practicing in eastern provinces compared with western and central Canada. Regarding year, the absolute number of ratings peaked in 2007 before stabilizing and decreasing by 2013. Moreover, ratings were most likely to be positive in 2007 and again in 2013.ConclusionsPhysician-rating websites are a relatively novel source of provider-level patient satisfaction and are a valuable source of the patient experience. It is important to understand the breadth and scope of such ratings, particularly regarding specialty, geographic practice location, and changes over time.

Project description:Importance:Differences in childhood obesity by demographics and urbanization have been reported. Objective:To present data on obesity and severe obesity among US youth by demographics and urbanization and to investigate trends by urbanization. Design, Setting, and Participants:Measured weight and height among youth aged 2 to 19 years in the 2001-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, which are serial, cross-sectional, nationally representative surveys of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. Exposures:Sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, education of household head, and urbanization, as assessed by metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs; large: ? 1 million population). Main Outcomes and Measures:Prevalence of obesity (body mass index [BMI] ?95th percentile of US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] growth charts) and severe obesity (BMI ?120% of 95th percentile) by subgroups in 2013-2016 and trends by urbanization between 2001-2004 and 2013-2016. Results:Complete data on weight, height, and urbanization were available for 6863 children and adolescents (mean age, 11 years; female, 49%). In 2013-2016, the prevalence among youth aged 2 to 19 years was 17.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-19.6%) for obesity and 5.8% (95% CI, 4.8%-6.9%) for severe obesity. Prevalence of obesity in large MSAs (17.1% [95% CI, 14.9%-19.5%]), medium or small MSAs (17.2% [95% CI, 14.5%-20.2%]) and non-MSAs (21.7% [95% CI, 16.1%-28.1%]) were not significantly different from each other (range of pairwise comparisons P?=?.09-.96). Severe obesity was significantly higher in non-MSAs (9.4% [95% CI, 5.7%-14.4%]) compared with large MSAs (5.1% [95% CI, 4.1%-6.2%]; P?=?.02). In adjusted analyses, obesity and severe obesity significantly increased with greater age and lower education of household head, and severe obesity increased with lower level of urbanization. Compared with non-Hispanic white youth, obesity and severe obesity prevalence were significantly higher among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic youth. Severe obesity, but not obesity, was significantly lower among non-Hispanic Asian youth than among non-Hispanic white youth. There were no significant linear or quadratic trends in obesity or severe obesity prevalence from 2001-2004 to 2013-2016 for any urbanization category (P range?=?.07-.83). Conclusions and Relevance:In 2013-2016, there were differences in the prevalence of obesity and severe obesity by age, race and Hispanic origin, and household education, and severe obesity was inversely associated with urbanization. Demographics were not related to the urbanization findings.

Project description:ImportanceDisparities in quality of care according to patient race and socioeconomic status persist in the US. Differential referral patterns to specialist physicians might be associated with observed disparities.ObjectiveTo examine whether differences exist between Black and White Medicare beneficiaries in the observed patterns of patient sharing between primary care physicians (PCPs) and physicians in the 6 specialties to which patients were most frequently referred.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional observational study of Black and White Medicare beneficiaries used claims data from 2009 to 2010 on 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries who were seen by PCPs and selected high-volume specialists in 12 health care markets with at least 10% of the population being Black. Statistical analyses were conducted from December 20, 2017, to September 30, 2020.ExposuresDifferences in patterns of patient sharing among Black and White patients.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary care physician and specialist degree (the number of other PCPs or specialists to whom each physician is connected) and strength (the number of shared patients per connection, overall, for Black patients and White patients and after equalizing the numbers of Black and White patients per PCP), as well as distance between PCP and patient and specialist zip code centroids.ResultsThe 12 selected markets ranged in size from Manhattan, New York (187 054 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 9794 total physicians), to Tallahassee, Florida (44 644 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 847 total physicians). The percentage of Black beneficiaries ranged from 11.5% (Huntsville, Alabama) to 46.8% (Chicago, Illinois). The mean PCP-specialist degree (number of specialists with whom a PCP shares patients) was lower for Black patients than for White patients. For instance, the mean PCP-cardiologist degree across all markets for White patients was 17.5 compared with 8.8 for Black patients. After sampling White patients to equalize the numbers of patients seen, the degree differences narrowed but were still not equivalent in many markets (eg, for all specialties in Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 4.5 for Black patients vs 5.7 for White patients). Specialist networks among White patients were much larger than those constructed based just on Black patients (eg, for cardiology across all markets: 135 for Black patients vs 330 for White patients), even after equalizing the numbers of patients seen per PCP (123 for Black patients vs 211 for White patients). The overall test for differences in referral patterns was statistically significant for all 6 specialties examined in 7 of the 12 markets and in 5 specialties for another 3.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that differences exist in specialist referral patterns by race among Medicare beneficiaries. This is an observational study, and thus some differences might have resulted from patient-initiated visits to specialists.