Dataset Information

Primary care quality and cost for privately insured patients in and out of US Health Systems: Evidence from four states.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To characterize physician health system membership in four states between 2012 and 2016 and to compare primary care quality and cost between in-system providers and non-system providers for the commercially insured population.

Data sources

Physician membership in health systems was obtained from a unique longitudinal database on health systems and matched at the provider level to 2014 all-payer claims data from Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah.

Study design

Using an observational study design, we compared physicians in health systems to non-system physicians located in the same state and geography on average cost of care (risk-adjusted using the Johns Hopkins' Adjusted Clinical Grouper), five HEDIS quality measures, one measure of developmental screening, and two Prevention Quality Indicator Measures.

Data collection/extraction methods

Patients in commercial health plans were attributed to a primary care physician accounting for the plurality of office visits. A cohort for each quality measure was constructed based on appropriate measure specifications.

Principal findings

The share of physicians in health systems increased steadily from 2012 to 2016 and ranged from 48% in Colorado to 63% in Utah in 2016. Compared to physicians not in a system, system physicians performed similarly on most HEDIS quality metrics compared to non-system physicians. Patients attributed to in-system physicians had about 40% higher rates (P < .05) of Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions (measured in admissions per 100 000:921.33 in-system vs 674.61 not-in-system for acute composite; 2540.91 in-system vs 1972.17 for chronic composite In-system providers were associated with $29 (P < .05) higher average per member per month costs (453.37 vs 432.93). Overall, differences in performance by system membership were relatively small compared to differences across states and geography.

Conclusion

A growing share of physicians is part of a health system from 2012 to 2016. Providers in health systems are not delivering primary care more efficiently than non-system providers for the commercially insured.

SUBMITTER: Zhou RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720710 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians. Objective:To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347?356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116?749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82?372]; hysterectomy [67?452]; total knee replacement [42?313]; breast lumpectomy [18?018]; colectomy [14?074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017. Exposure:Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service. Results:Among 347?356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P?<?.001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P?<?.001). Among 83?021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill. Conclusions and Relevance:In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

Project description:Importance:To achieve the World Health Organization goal of viral hepatitis elimination by 2030, it is important to estimate current rates of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) diagnosis and treatment. Objective:To provide an accurate accounting of the number of patients with CHB aged 6 years or older who have not yet been diagnosed in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used the commercial US Truven Health MarketScan Database (138 634 154 privately insured individuals in January 2007 to December 2014) to identify patients with CHB diagnosis and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to estimate the actual number of privately insured persons with CHB. Based on sex and age distribution derived from the US Census Bureau, we calculated the total population with CHB and the proportion of those who remained undiagnosed among the 198 073 302 privately insured individuals. Next, we identified diagnosed CHB patients who received 1 or more prescription for CHB medications to calculate the treatment rate for those with severe disease states, such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, that would warrant treatment. Analyses were performed from October 2017 to January 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures:The rate and number of patients with CHB who remained undiagnosed and treatment rates for patients with CHB who have cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. Results:Among the 198 073 302 privately insured individuals (48.55% male; 15.52% aged 6-17 years; 84.48% aged ≥18 years), there were 511 029 (95% CI, 317 733-704 325) individuals with CHB, but only 95 075 of these had been diagnosed, yielding a diagnosis rate of only 18.60% (95% CI, 13.50%-29.92%), meaning that 81.40% (95% CI, 70.08%-86.50%) were undiagnosed. The treatment rates were 34.79% (95% CI, 33.31%-36.27%) for those with cirrhosis and 48.64% (95% CI, 45.59%-51.69%) for those with hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, only approximately 1 in 5 privately insured patients with CHB had been diagnosed. Only one-third of patients with CHB who had cirrhosis and one-half who had hepatocellular carcinoma received antiviral therapy. Further efforts are needed to improve the current situation of poor connection to care for patients with CHB, especially for those with advanced liver disease.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough surprise medical bills are receiving considerable attention from lawmakers and the news media, to date there has been little systematic study of the incidence and financial consequences of out-of-network billing.ObjectiveTo examine out-of-network billing among privately insured patients with an inpatient admission or emergency department (ED) visit at in-network hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective analysis using data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database (Optum), which includes health insurance claims for individuals from all 50 US states receiving private health insurance from a large commercial insurer was conducted of all inpatient admissions (n = 5 457 981) and ED visits (n = 13 579 006) at in-network hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Data were collected and analyzed in March 2019.ExposuresReceipt of a bill for care from at least 1 out-of-network physician or medical transport service associated with patient admission or ED visit.Main outcomes and measuresThe incidence of out-of-network billing and the potential amount of patients' financial liability associated with out-of-network bills from the admission or visit.ResultsOf 5 457 981 inpatient admissions and 13 579 006 ED admissions between 2010 and 2016, the percentage of ED visits with an out-of-network bill increased from 32.3% to 42.8% (P < .001) during the study period, and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility for these bills increased from $220 ($420) to $628 ($865) (P < .001; all dollar values in 2018 US$). Similarly, the percentage of inpatient admissions with an out-of-network bill increased from 26.3% to 42.0% (P < .001), and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility increased from $804 ($2456) to $2040 ($4967) (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceOut-of-network billing appears to have become common for privately insured patients even when they seek treatment at in-network hospitals. The mean amounts billed appear to be sufficiently large that they may create financial strain for a substantial proportion of patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Infants younger than 6?months are at increased risk of complications and mortality from pertussis infection. In October 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices revised its recommendation to include a Tdap dose during each pregnancy, ideally between 27 and 36?weeks gestation. OBJECTIVE:Assess trends in Tdap vaccination coverage among privately insured pregnant women from 2009 to 2016 including timing of Tdap vaccination (before, during, or after pregnancy), trimester of vaccination for women vaccinated during pregnancy, and missed vaccination opportunities for unvaccinated women. Identify factors associated with vaccination during the optimal period of 27-36?weeks gestation. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of privately insured women 15-49?years who delivered live births during 2009-2016 conducted using 2009-2016 MarketScan data. Tdap vaccination coverage and the timing of Tdap vaccine administration were assessed for women continuously enrolled from 6?months before pregnancy to 1?month after delivery. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors independently associated with receipt of Tdap vaccine at 27-36?weeks gestation. RESULTS:Tdap vaccination coverage during pregnancy increased from 0.4% in 2009 to 6.2% in 2012 and to 53.2% in 2016. The proportion of vaccinated women receiving Tdap at 27-36?weeks gestation increased from <10% in 2009 to nearly 90% in 2016, with most vaccination occurring at 27-32?weeks gestation. Women of older age, residing in a metropolitan statistical area, residing outside the South, and having a capitated health insurance plan were more likely to receive Tdap at 27-36?weeks gestation than their counterparts. Among women not vaccinated during pregnancy, 77.7% had a pregnancy-related medical claim between 27 and 36?weeks gestation. CONCLUSION:Tdap vaccination coverage during pregnancy increased significantly from 2009 to 2016, with the greatest increase occurring after the revised Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation. Most women who did not receive Tdap vaccine had a missed vaccination opportunity during pregnancy, indicating potential for much higher vaccination coverage and consequent infant protection against pertussis.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To analyze utilization of, and payments for, pelvic organ prolapse procedures after the 2011 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communication regarding transvaginal mesh. METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study examining private claims from three insurance providers for inpatient and outpatient prolapse procedures from 2010 to 2013 in the Health Care Cost Institute. Primary outcomes were the change in utilization of prolapse procedures, with and without mesh, before and after the July 2011 FDA communication. Secondary outcomes were the changes in payments and reimbursements for these procedures. Utilization rates and payments were compared using generalized linear models and interrupted time-series analysis. RESULTS:Utilization of prolapse procedures decreased from 12.3 to 9.7 per 10,000 woman-years (P=.027) with a decrease of 30.7% (3.9 in 2010 to 2.7 in 2013, P=.05) in number of mesh procedures and 16.6% (8.4 in 2010 to 7.0 in 2013, P=.011) for nonmesh procedures. Quarterly utilization of mesh procedures was increasing before the FDA communication and then significantly declined after its release (slope=0.024 vs -0.025, P=.002). Nonmesh procedures, however, were already slightly decreasing before July 2011 and continued to decline at a more rapid pace after that time, although not significantly (slope=-0.004 vs -0.022, P=.47). Inpatient utilization decreased 52.2% (P=.002), whereas outpatient utilization increased 18.5% (P=.132). Payments for individual inpatient procedures, with and without mesh, increased by 12.0% ($8,315 in 2010 to $9,315 in 2013, P=.001) and 15.6% ($7,826 in 2010 to $9,048 in 2013, P=.005), respectively, whereas those for outpatient procedures increased by 41% ($4,961 in 2010 to $6,981 in 2013, P=.006) and 30% ($3,955 in 2010 to $5,149 in 2013, P=.004), respectively. CONCLUSION:Use of prolapse surgery declined during the study period. After the 2011 FDA communication regarding transvaginal mesh, there was a significant decrease in the utilization of procedures with mesh but not for those without mesh. A shift toward outpatient surgeries was observed, and payments for both individual inpatient and outpatient cases increased.