Dataset Information

Health system integration with physician specialties varies across markets and system types.

ABSTRACT: Objective: To examine system integration with physician specialties across markets and the association between local system characteristics and their patterns of physician integration.

Data sources: Data come from the AHRQ Compendium of US Health Systems and IQVIA OneKey database.

Study design: We examined the change from 2016 to 2018 in the percentage of physicians in systems, focusing on primary care and the 10 most numerous nonhospital-based specialties across the 382 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the US. We also categorized systems by ownership, mission, and payment program participation and examined how those characteristics were related to their patterns of physician integration in 2018.

Data collection/extraction methods: We examined local healthcare markets (MSAs) and the hospitals and physicians that are part of integrated systems that operate in these markets. We characterized markets by hospital and insurer concentration and systems by type of ownership and by whether they have an academic medical center (AMC), a 340B hospital, or accountable care organization.

Principal findings: Between 2016 and 2018, system participation increased for primary care and the 10 other physician specialties we examined. In 2018, physicians in specialties associated with lucrative hospital services were the most commonly integrated with systems including hematology-oncology (57%), cardiology (55%), and general surgery (44%); however, rates varied substantially across markets. For most specialties, high market concentration by insurers and hospital-systems was associated with lower rates of physician integration. In addition, systems with AMCs and publicly owned systems more commonly affiliated with specialties unrelated to the physicians' potential contribution to hospital revenue, and investor-owned systems demonstrated more limited physician integration.

Conclusions: Variation in physician integration across markets and system characteristics reflects physician and systems' motivations. These integration strategies are associated with the financial interests of systems and other strategic goals (eg, medical education, and serving low-income populations).

SUBMITTER: Machta RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720709 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health system integration with physician specialties varies across markets and system types.

Machta Rachel M RM D Reschovsky James J Jones David J DJ Kimmey Laura L Furukawa Michael F MF Rich Eugene C EC

Health services research 20201201

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine system integration with physician specialties across markets and the association between local system characteristics and their patterns of physician integration.<h4>Data sources</h4>Data come from the AHRQ Compendium of US Health Systems and IQVIA OneKey database.<h4>Study design</h4>We examined the change from 2016 to 2018 in the percentage of physicians in systems, focusing on primary care and the 10 most numerous nonhospital-based specialties across the 382 metro ...[more]

PMID: 33284522

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveExamine care integration-efforts to unify disparate parts of health care organizations to generate synergy across activities occurring within and between them-to understand whether and at which organizational level health systems impact care quality and staff experience.Data sourcesSurveys administered to one practice manager (56/59) and up to 26 staff (828/1360) in 59 practice sites within 24 physician organizations within 17 health systems in four states (2017-2019).Study designWe developed manager and staff surveys to collect data on organizational, social, and clinical process integration, at four organizational levels: practice site, physician organization, health system, and outside health systems. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and regression.Principal findingsManagers and staff perceived opportunity for improvement across most types of care integration and organizational levels. Managers/staff perceived little variation in care integration across health systems. They perceived better care integration within practice sites than within physician organizations, health systems, and outside health systems-up to 38 percentage points (pp) lower (P < .001) outside health systems compared to within practice sites. Of nine clinical process integration measures, one standard deviation (SD) (7.2-pp) increase in use of evidence-based care related to 6.4-pp and 8.9-pp increases in perceived quality of care by practice sites and health systems, respectively, and a 4.5-pp increase in staff job satisfaction; one SD (9.7-pp) increase in integration of social services and community resources related to a 7.0-pp increase in perceived quality of care by health systems; one SD (6.9-pp) increase in patient engagement related to a 6.4-pp increase in job satisfaction and a 4.6-pp decrease in burnout; and one SD (10.6-pp) increase in integration of diabetic eye examinations related to a 5.5-pp increase in job satisfaction (all P < .05).ConclusionsMeasures of clinical process integration related to higher staff ratings of quality and experience. Action is needed to improve care integration within and outside health systems.

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:BACKGROUND:Physician-scientists (the physician-scientist workforce) are aging, and there are too few physician-scientists in the pipeline to replace those who retire. Moreover, the pipeline is leaky because some trainees and junior physician-scientists choose other career paths. Significant attention has been directed toward patching the leaking pipeline, thereby increasing the quantity of physician-scientists. Less attention has been devoted to identifying and training more successful physician-scientists, thereby increasing the quality of the pool and making up for the attrition. Though all training programs strive to develop more successful graduates, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes predictors of future success. Identifying characteristics of success would enable those who recruit trainees-and later hire and fund physician-scientists-to make more informed decisions. It also could impact on the training, as it would be possible to focus on competencies that foster success. Predictors of success are therefore important. Prior to taking on this task, however, we must first define success for physician-scientists. METHODS:To identify likely characteristics of success, we undertook a qualitative case study where 21 physician-scientists were interviewed to determine their perceptions of what constitutes a successful physician-scientist. Sixteen interviewees were selected based on convenience sampling, while the remaining five were selected based on the snowball effect. Interviews were transcribed and coded in Dedoose® and a qualitative analysis was conducted using an inductive approach to content analysis. RESULTS:There was considerable variation in their perceptions based on seniority and gender. Junior physician-scientists focused on metrics on which their promotion is based, e.g., publications and grants; senior physician-scientists focused on their legacy, e.g., contribution to the field and mentoring. Women were more likely to emphasize objective measures of success, like publications, while concurrently concentrating on relational skills, like networking, collaboration and public recognition. Men emphasized the impact of science and subjective characteristics like boldness, confidence and critical thinking. CONCLUSION:Clearly, physician-scientists are not working off of a uniform metric of success, thereby making their evaluation and remuneration a convoluted process, especially if those evaluating the physician-scientists are not of the same mind as to the definition of success.

Project description:Importance:Several recent policy proposals have sought to expand the role of Medicaid in providing health insurance for low-income Americans, but there is little recent information on how physician participation in Medicaid compares with alternative forms of coverage for low-income Americans. Objective:To compare the number of office-based physicians included in Medicaid managed care and health insurance exchange plans that operate in the same geographic markets. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used administrative data from physician network directories and survey data from office-based physicians for Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. The number of participants totaled 67?057 office-based physicians in the 5 sample states. Data were collected and analyzed from May 2018 to June 2019. Exposures:Physician participation in a Medicaid managed care or health insurance exchange plan network. Main Outcomes and Measures:The percentage of office-based physicians in a county who indicated during a phone survey that they participated in Medicaid; the percentage of office-based physicians in a county who participated in each Medicaid managed care and health insurance exchange plan network; and the percentage of office-based physicians in a county who participated in at least 1 Medicaid managed care plan or, separately, at least 1 health insurance exchange plan. Results:Of the 67?057 office-based physicians in our sample, 49?983 reported in a telephone survey that they accepted Medicaid. This survey-based measure undercounted the percentage of physicians participating in Medicaid by 5.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-8.1%; P?<?.001) relative to a measure based on physician network directories. Medicaid managed care physician networks covered a median (interquartile range) of 63.4% (48.0%-81.3%) of office-based physicians compared with health insurance exchange physician networks, which covered 51.0% (31.0%-70.5%). In adjusted analyses, Medicaid managed care plans covered 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.3%, P?<?.001) more office-based physicians than health insurance exchange plans operating in the same counties. In the states where the same insurers participated in both markets (New York, Tennessee, Washington), the Medicaid managed care physician networks were 6.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.8%, P?<?.001) larger than the health insurance exchange networks offered by the same insurer. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cross-sectional study of physician network data, Medicaid managed care physician networks included more office-based physicians than the physician networks of health insurance exchange plans operating in the same geographic markets. This suggests that Medicaid remains a viable option for expanding coverage in the United States.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The rapid advancements in health care can make it difficult for general physicians and specialists alike to keep their knowledge up to date. In medicine today, there are deficiencies in the application of knowledge translation (KT) in clinical practice. Some medical procedures are not required, and therefore, no value is added to the patient's care. These unnecessary procedures increase pressures on the health care system's resources, reduce the quality of care, and expose the patients to stress and to other potential risks. KT tools and better access to medical recommendations can lead to improvements in physicians' decision-making processes depending on the patient's specific clinical situation. These tools can provide the physicians with the available options and promote an efficient professional practice. Software for the Evolution of Knowledge in MEDicine (SEKMED) is a technological solution providing access to high-quality evidence, based on just-in-time principles, in the application of medical recommendations for clinical decision-making processes recognized by community members, accreditation bodies, the recommendations from medical specialty societies made available through campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, and different standards or accreditive bodies. OBJECTIVE:The main objective of this protocol is to assess the usefulness of the SEKMED platform used within a real working clinical practice, specifically the Centre intégré de santé et des services sociaux de l'Outaouais in Quebec, Canada. To achieve our main objective, 20 emergency physicians from the Hull and Gatineau Hospitals participate in the project as well as 20 patient care unit physicians from the Hull Hospital. In addition, 10 external students or residents studying family medicine from McGill University will also participate in our study. METHODS:The project is divided into 4 phases: (1) orientation; (2) data synthesis; (3) develop and validate the recommendations; and (4) implement, monitor, and update the recommendations. These phases will enable us to meet our 6 specific research objectives that aim to measure the integration of recommendations in clinical practices, the before and after improvements in practices, the value attributed by physicians to recommendations, the user's platform experience, the educational benefits according to medical students, and the organizational benefits according to stakeholders. The knowledge gained during each phase will be applied on an iterative and continuous basis to all other phases over a period of 2 years. RESULTS:This project was funded in April 2018 by the Fonds de soutien à l'innovation en santé et en services sociaux for 24 months. Ethics approval has been attained, the study began in June 2018, the data collection will be complete at the end of December 2019, and the data analysis will start in winter 2020. Both major city hospitals in the Outaouais region, Quebec, Canada, have agreed to participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS:If results show preliminary efficacy and usability of the system, a large-scale implementation will be conducted. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/11754.

Dataset Information

Health system integration with physician specialties varies across markets and system types.

Publications

Health system integration with physician specialties varies across markets and system types.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets