Dataset Information

Assessment of Racial Disparities in Primary Care Physician Specialty Referrals.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Disparities 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

This 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.

Exposures

Differences in patterns of patient sharing among Black and White patients.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary 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.

Results

The 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 relevance

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Landon BE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7835717 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of Racial Disparities in Primary Care Physician Specialty Referrals.

Landon Bruce E BE Onnela Jukka-Pekka JP Meneades Laurie L O'Malley A James AJ Keating Nancy L NL

JAMA network open 20210104 1

<h4>Importance</h4>Disparities 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.<h4>Objective</h4>To 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.<h4>Desig ...[more]

PMID: 33492373

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improving access to specialty care has been identified as a critical issue in the delivery of health services, especially given an increasing burden of chronic disease. Identifying and addressing problems that impact access to specialty care for patients referred to speciality care for non-emergent procedures and how these deficiencies can be managed via health system delivery interventions is important to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. However, the primary-specialty care interface is complex and may be impacted by a variety of potential health services delivery deficiencies; with an equal range of interventions developed to correct them. Consequently, the literature is also diverse and difficult to navigate. We present a narrative review to identify existing literature, and provide a conceptual map that categorizes problems at the primary-specialty care interface with linkages to corresponding interventions aimed at ensuring that patient transitions across the primary-specialty care interface are necessary, appropriate, timely and well communicated. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2005 until Dec 31, 2014, grey literature and reference lists to identify articles that report on interventions implemented to improve the primary-specialty care interface. Selected articles were categorized to describe: 1) the intervention context, including the deficiency addressed, and the objective of the intervention 2) intervention activities, and 3) intervention outcomes. RESULTS:We identified 106 articles, producing four categories of health services delivery deficiencies based in: 1) clinical decision making; 2) information management; 3) the system level management of patient flows between primary and secondary care; and 4) quality-of-care monitoring. Interventions were divided into seven categories and fourteen sub-categories based on the deficiencies addressed and the intervention strategies used. Potential synergies and trade-offs among interventions are discussed. Little evidence exists regarding the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of alternative intervention strategies. CONCLUSION:The categorization acts as an aid in identifying why the primary-specialty care interface may be failing and which interventions may produce improvements. Overlap and interconnectedness between interventions creates potential synergies and conflicts among co-implemented interventions.

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:BackgroundMuch of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and subsequent US health care policies were designed to address deficiencies in health care access and enhance primary care services. How residency positions and physician incomes have changed in the post-ACA era is not well characterized.ObjectiveWe evaluated the growth of US trainee positions and physician income, in the pre- vs post-ACA environment by specialty and among primary care vs specialty care.MethodsTotal resident complement by specialty and year was extracted from the National Graduate Medical Education (GME) Census and stratified into primary care vs specialty care. Median incomes were extracted from Medical Group Management Association surveys. Piecewise linear regression with interaction terms (pre-ACA, 2001-2010, vs post-ACA, 2011-2019) assessed growth rate by specialty and growth rate differences between primary care and specialty care. Sensitivity analyses were performed by focusing on family medicine and excluding additional GME positions contributed by the introduction of the 2015 single GME accreditation system.ResultsResident complements increased for primary care (+0.16%/year pre-ACA to +2.06%/year post-ACA, P < .001) and specialty care (+1.49%/year to +2.07%/year, P = .005). Specialty care growth outpaced primary care pre-ACA (P < .001) but not post-ACA (P = .10). Family medicine had the largest increase in the pre- vs post-ACA era (-0.77%/year vs +2.09%/year, P < .001). Excluding positions contributed by the single GME accreditation system transition did not result in any statistically significant changes to the findings. Income growth increased for primary care (+0.84%/year to +1.37%/year, P = .044), but decreased for specialty care (+1.44%/year to +0.49%/year, P = .011). Specialty care income growth outpaced primary care pre-ACA (P < .001), but not post-ACA (P = .22).ConclusionsWe found significant growth differences in resident complement and income among primary care versus specialty care in the pre-/post-ACA eras.

Project description:To investigate racial/ethnic differences in teachers' and other adults' identification and/or encouragement of parents to seek treatment for psychiatric problems in their children and to evaluate if and whether identification/encouragement is associated with service use.Data on identification/encouragement to seek treatment for externalizing disorders (i.e., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder, and/or conduct disorder) and internalizing disorders (i.e., major depressive episode/dysthymia and/or separation anxiety disorder) and services used were obtained for 6,112 adolescents (13-17 years of age) in the National Comorbidity Survey Adolescent Supplement. Racial/ethnic differences were examined for Latinos, non-Latino blacks, and non-Latino whites.There were few racial/ethnic differences in rates of youth identification/encouragement and how identification/encouragement related to service use. Only non-Latino black youth with low severity internalizing disorders were less likely to be identified/encouraged to seek services compared with non-Latino white youth with the same characteristics (odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.2-0.7]). Identification/encouragement increased the likelihood of seeking services for externalizing and internalizing disorders for all youth. However, compared with their non-Latino white counterparts, non-Latino black youth who met criteria for internalizing disorders appeared less likely to have used any services (OR = 0.4, 95%, CI = 0.2-0.7), after adjusting for identification/encouragement, clinical, and sociodemographic characteristics. Non-Latino black youth with internalizing disorders and without identification/encouragement were less likely to use the specialty care sector than their non-Latino white counterparts.In this study of a nationally representative sample of adolescents, almost no ethnic/racial differences in identification/encouragement were found. However, identification/encouragement may increase service use for all youth.

Project description:PurposeRacial disparities in BRCA1/2 testing have been documented, but causes of these disparities are poorly understood. The study objective was to investigate whether the distribution of black and white patients across cancer providers contributes to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing.Patients and methodsWe conducted a population-based study of women in Pennsylvania and Florida who were 18 to 64 years old and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2009, linking cancer registry data, the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and patient and physician surveys. The study included 3,016 women (69% white, 31% black), 808 medical oncologists, and 732 surgeons.ResultsBlack women were less likely to undergo BRCA1/2 testing than white women (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.48; P < .001). This difference was attenuated but not eliminated by adjustment for mutation risk, clinical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and attitudes about testing (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). The care of black and white women was highly segregated across surgeons and oncologists (index of dissimilarity 64.1 and 61.9, respectively), but adjusting for clustering within physician or physician characteristics did not change the size of the testing disparity. Black women were less likely to report that they had received physician recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing even after adjusting for mutation risk (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P < .001). Adjusting for physician recommendation further attenuated the testing disparity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.02; P = .06).ConclusionAlthough black and white patients with breast cancer tend to see different surgeons and oncologists, this distribution does not contribute to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. Instead, residual racial differences in testing after accounting for patient and physician characteristics are largely attributable to differences in physician recommendations. Efforts to address these disparities should focus on ensuring equity in testing recommendations.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Racial Disparities in Primary Care Physician Specialty Referrals.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Assessment of Racial Disparities in Primary Care Physician Specialty Referrals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets