Cargando…
Physician Service Attribution Methods for Examining Provision of Low-Value Care
OBJECTIVES: There has been significant research on provider attribution for quality and cost. Low-value care is an area of heightened focus, with little of the focus being on measurement; a key methodological decision is how to attribute delivered services and procedures. We illustrate the differenc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AcademyHealth
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5302861/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28203612 http://dx.doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1276 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: There has been significant research on provider attribution for quality and cost. Low-value care is an area of heightened focus, with little of the focus being on measurement; a key methodological decision is how to attribute delivered services and procedures. We illustrate the difference in relative and absolute physician- and panel-attributed services and procedures using overuse in cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional study in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We used 2013 physician-level data from Group Health Cooperative to calculate two utilization attributions: (1) panel attribution with the procedure assigned to the physician’s predetermined panel, regardless of who performed the procedure; and (2) physician attribution with the procedure assigned to the performing physician. We calculated the percentage of low-value cervical cancer screening tests and ranked physicians within the clinic using the two utilization attribution methods. RESULTS: The percentage of low-value cervical cancer screening varied substantially between physician and panel attributions. Across the whole delivery system, median panel- and physician-attributed percentages were 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Among sampled clinics, panel-attributed percentages ranged between 10 percent and 17 percent, and physician-attributed percentages ranged between 9 percent and 13 percent. Within a clinic, median panel-attributed screening percentage was 17 percent (range 0 percent–27 percent) and physician-attributed percentage was 11 percent (range 0 percent–24 percent); physician rank varied by attribution method. CONCLUSIONS: The attribution method is an important methodological decision when developing low-value care measures since measures may ultimately have an impact on national benchmarking and quality scores. Cross-organizational dialogue and transparency in low-value care measurement will become increasingly important for all stakeholders. |
---|