nach oben

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Erschienen in:

03.06.2016 | Original Research

Variation in Specialty Outpatient Care Patterns in the Medicare Population

verfasst von: Jeffrey D. Clough, MD, MBA, Kavita Patel, MD, William H. Shrank, MD, MSHS

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 11/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Multiple payment reform efforts are under way to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, yet few directly address the interface between primary and specialty care.

Objective

To describe regional variation in outpatient visits for individual specialties and the association between specialty physician-specific payments and patient-reported satisfaction with care and health status.

Design

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Patients

A 20 % random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012.

Main Measures

Regions were grouped into quartiles of specialist index, defined as the observed/expected regional likelihood of having an outpatient visit to a specialist, for ten common specialties, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Outcomes were per capita specialty-specific physician payments and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses.

Key Results

The proportion of beneficiaries seeing a specialist varied the most for endocrinology and gastroenterology (3.7- and 3.9-fold difference between the highest and lowest quartiles, respectively) and least for orthopedics and urology (1.5- and 1.7-fold difference, respectively). Multiple analyses suggested that this variation was not explained by prevalence of disease. Average specialty-specific payments were strongly associated with the likelihood of visiting a specialist. Differences in per capita payments from lowest (Q1) to highest quartiles (Q4) were greatest for cardiology ($89, $135, $172, $251) and dermatology ($46, $64, $82, $124). Satisfaction with overall care (median [interquartile range] across specialties: Q1, 93.3 % [92.6–93.7 %]; Q4, 93.1 % [92.9–93.2 %]) and self-reported health status (Q1, 37.1 % [36.9–37.7 %]; Q4, 38.2 % [37.2–38.4 %]) was similar across quartiles. Satisfaction with access to specialty care was consistently lower in the lowest quartile of specialty index (Q1, 89.7 % [89.2–91.1 %]; Q4, 94.5 % [94.4–94.8 %]).

Conclusions

Substantial regional variability in outpatient specialist visits is associated with greater payments with limited benefits in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with care or reported health status. Reducing outpatient physician visits may represent an important opportunity to improve the efficiency of care.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Edwards ST, Landon BE. Medicare’s chronic care management payment—payment reform for primary care. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2049–51.CrossRefPubMed

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Specialty practitioner payment model opportunities: General information [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): CMS. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/specialty-practitioner/. Accessed March 12, 2015.

Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals--HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:897–9.CrossRefPubMed

Steinbrook R. The repeat of Medicare’s sustainable growth rate for physician payment. JAMA. 2015;313:2025–6.CrossRefPubMed

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Oncology care model [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): CMS. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Oncology-Care/. Accessed March 12, 2015.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): CMS. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/bundled-payments/. Accessed March 12, 2015.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Comprehensive ESRD care initiative [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): CMS. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/comprehenive-esrd-care/. Accessed March 12, 2015.

Forrest CB. A typology of specialists’ clinical roles. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1062–8.CrossRefPubMed

Barnett ML, Song Z, Landon BE. Trends in physician referrals in the United States, 1999–2009. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:163–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Edwards ST, Mafi JN, Landon BE. Trends and quality of care in outpatient visits to generalist and specialist physicians delivering primary care in the United States, 1997–2010. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:947–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

O'Malley AS, Reschovsky JD. Referral and consultation communication between primary care and specialist physicians: finding common ground. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:56–65.PubMed

12.

Mehrotra A, Forrest CB, Lin CY. Dropping the baton: specialty referrals in the United States. Milbank Q. 2011;89:39–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Guevara JP, Hsu D, Forrest CB. Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Shea D, Stuart B, Vasey J, Nag S. Medicare physician referral patterns. Health Serv Res. 1999;34:331–48.PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Aliu O, Sun G, Burke J, Chung KC, Davis MM. Specialist participation in healthcare delivery transformation: influence of patient self-referral. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20:e22–6.PubMed

16.

Smetana GW, Landon BE, Bindman AB, et al. A comparison of outcomes resulting from generalist vs specialist care for a single discrete medical condition: a systematic review and methodologic critique. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:10–20.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Javorsky E, Robinson A, Boer KA. Evidence-based guidelines to determine follow-up intervals: a call for action. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20:17–9.PubMed

18.

Ganguli I, Wasfy JH, Ferris TG. What is the right number of clinic appointments? Visit frequency and the accountable care organization. JAMA. 2015;313:1905–6.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Society of General Internal Medicine. Choosing Wisely: Five things physicians and patients should question. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Choosing-Wisely-Recommendations.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2015.

20.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician Quality Reporting System: Measures Codes. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/PQRS/MeasuresCodes.html. Accessed July 31, 2015.

21.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Data source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqrdr10/datasources/cms.html. Accessed January 26, 2016.

22.

Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(4):288–98.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Lum HD, Studenski SA, Degenholtz HB, Hardy SE. Early hospital readmission is a predictor of one-year mortality in community-dwelling older Medicare beneficiaries. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1467–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Kautter J, Khatutsky G, Pope GC, Chromy JR, Adler GS. Impact of nonresponse on Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey estimates. Health Care Financ Rev. 2006;27:71–93.PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Wennberg JE, Staiger DO, Sharp SM, et al. Observational intensity bias associated with illness adjustment: cross sectional analysis of insurance claims. BMJ. 2013;346:f549.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Wennberg DE, Sharp SM, Bevan G, Skinner JS, Gottlieb DJ, Wennberg JE. A population health approach to reducing observational intensity bias in health risk adjustment: cross sectional analysis of insurance claims. BMJ. 2014;348:g2392.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Welch HG, Sharp SM, Gottlieb DJ, Skinner JS, Wennberg JE. Geographic variation in diagnosis frequency and risk of death among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2011;305:1113–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Song Y, Skinner J, Bynum J, Sutherland J, Wennberg JE, Fisher ES. Regional variations in diagnostic practices. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):45–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Public use file [Internet]. Baltimore: CMS. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Geographic-Variation/GV_PUF.html. Accessed June 17, 2015.

30.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey: 2004 Appendix A [Internet]. Baltimore (MD): CMS. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/MCBS/downloads/2004_Appendix_A.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2015.

31.

Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:273–87.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Cassidy A. Geographic variation in Medicare spending. Available at: http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=109. Accessed July 31, 2015.

33.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Arthritis: State statistics [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: CDC. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/state-data-current.htm. Accessed June 16, 2015.

34.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maps of trends in diagnosed diabetes [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: CDC. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/maps_diabetes_trends.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2015.

35.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overweight and obesity [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: CDC. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html. Accessed June 16, 2015.

36.

Yasaitis LC, Bynum JP, Skinner JS. Association between physician supply, local practice norms, and outpatient visit rates. Med Care. 2013;51:524–31.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Miller DC, Gust C, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer N, Skinner J, Birkmeyer JD. Large variations in Medicare payments for surgery highlight savings potential from bundled payment programs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:2107–15.CrossRef

38.

Schwartz AL, Landon BE, Elshaug AG, Chernew ME, McWilliams JM. Measuring low-value care in Medicare. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1067–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Arora S, Kalishman S, Dion D, et al. Partnering urban academic medical centers and rural primary care clinicians to provide complex chronic disease care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:1176–84.CrossRef

40.

Straus SG, Chen AH, Yee H Jr, Kushel MB, Bell DS. Implementation of an electronic referral system for outpatient specialty care. AMIA Ann Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1337–46.

41.

Chen AH, Yee HF Jr. Improving primary care-specialty care communication: lessons from San Francisco’s safety net: comment on "Referral and consultation communication between primary care and specialist physicians.". Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:65–7.PubMed

42.

Song Z, Sequist TD, Barnett ML. Patient referrals: a linchpin for increasing the value of care. JAMA. 2014;312:597–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Dupree JM, Patel K, Singer SJ, et al. Attention to surgeons and surgical care is largely missing from early medicare accountable care organizations. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:972–9.CrossRef

44.

McWilliams JM, Chernew ME, Dalton JB, Landon BE. Outpatient care patterns and organizational accountability in Medicare. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:938–45.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Landon BE, Onnela JP, Keating NL, Barnett ML, Paul S, O’Malley AJ, et al. Using administrative data to identify naturally occurring networks of physicians. Med Care. 2013;51:715–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Reschovsky JD, Hadley J, Romano PS. Geographic variation in fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries’ medical costs is largely explained by disease burden. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:542–63.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Variation in Specialty Outpatient Care Patterns in the Medicare Population
verfasst von: Jeffrey D. Clough, MD, MBA
Kavita Patel, MD
William H. Shrank, MD, MSHS
Publikationsdatum: 03.06.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3745-8

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren.

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Proximale Humerusfraktur: Auch 100-Jährige operieren?

01.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Mit dem demographischen Wandel versorgt auch die Chirurgie immer mehr betagte Menschen. Von Entwicklungen wie Fast-Track können auch ältere Menschen profitieren und bei proximaler Humerusfraktur können selbst manche 100-Jährige noch sicher operiert werden.

Die „Zehn Gebote“ des Endokarditis-Managements

30.04.2024 Endokarditis Leitlinie kompakt

Worauf kommt es beim Management von Personen mit infektiöser Endokarditis an? Eine Kardiologin und ein Kardiologe fassen die zehn wichtigsten Punkte der neuen ESC-Leitlinie zusammen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Patients

Main Measures

Key Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2016

Using Adherence Information to Improve Care: From Clinic Visits to Populations

Bilateral Scalp Necrosis: A Rare Manifestation of Giant Cell Arteritis

Capsule Commentary on Jacobs et al., Development and Validation of the Spanish-Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument

Capsule Commentary on Lee et al., Patient Perceptions of Electronic Medical Record Use by Faculty and Resident Physicians: A Mixed Methods Study

Capsule Commentary on Goodwin et al., Receipt of Cancer Screening is a Predictor of Life Expectancy

Empathy as a Diagnostic Tool in a 33-Year-Old Man with Eye Pain and Vision Loss: Exercises in Clinical Reasoning