Association of Participation in Medicare's Oncology Care Model With Spending, Utilization, and Quality Outcomes Among Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Members.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM), a value-based payment model for traditional Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, yielded total spending reductions that were outweighed by incentive payments, resulting in net losses to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We studied whether the OCM yielded spillover effects in total episode spending, utilization, and quality among commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) members, who were not targeted by the program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study used administrative claims from a large national payer, yielding 157,189 total patients with commercial insurance or MA with solid malignancies who initiated 229,376 systemic anticancer therapy episodes before (2012-2015) and during (2016-2021) the OCM at 125 OCM-participating practices (a subset of total OCM practices) and a 1:10 propensity-matched set of 860 non-OCM practices. We used difference-in-differences analyses to assess the association between the OCM and total episode spending, defined as medical spending during a 6-month episode. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization and emergency department (ED) utilization and quality measures. RESULTS: From the pre-OCM to the OCM period, mean total episode payments increased from $45,504 in US dollars (USD) to $46,239 USD for OCM-participating practices, and increased from $50,519 USD to $58,591 USD for non-OCM practices (adjusted difference-in-differences -$6,287 USD [95% CI, -$10,076 USD to -$2,498 USD], P = .001). The OCM was associated with adjusted spending decreases for both high-risk (-$6,756 USD [95% CI, -$10,731 USD to -$2,781 USD], P = .001) and low-risk (-$4,171 USD [95% CI, -$7,799 USD to -$543 USD], P = .025) episodes. OCM-associated spending reductions were strongest for outpatient (-$5,243 USD [95% CI, -$8,589 USD to -$1,897 USD], P = .002) and infused/injected anticancer drug (-$3,031 USD [95% CI, -$5,193 USD to -$869 USD], P = .006) spending. There were no associations between OCM participation and changes in hospital or ED utilization nor quality of care. CONCLUSION: The OCM was associated with reductions in spending for nontargeted members, a spillover effect.

Association between mandatory bundled payments and changes in socioeconomic disparities for joint replacement outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mandatory participation by hospitals in bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) was associated with changes in outcome disparities for patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We used Medicare claims data for beneficiaries undergoing LEJR in the United States between 2011 and 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a differences-in-differences method to compare changes in outcome disparities between dual-eligible and non-dual eligible beneficiaries after hospital participation in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program. The primary outcome was LEJR complications. Secondary outcomes included 90-day readmissions and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified hospitals in the US market areas eligible for CJR. We included beneficiaries in the intervention group who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets randomized to participate in CJR. The comparison group included patients who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets who were eligible for CJR but randomized to control. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The study included 1,603,555 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 74.6 years, 64.3% women, 11.0% dual-eligible). Among participant hospitals, complications decreased between baseline and intervention periods from 11.0% to 10.1% for dual-eligible and 7.0% to 6.4% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. Among nonparticipant hospitals, complications decreased from 10.3% to 9.8% for dual-eligible and 6.7% to 6.0% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In adjusted analysis, CJR participation was associated with a reduced difference in complications between dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (-0.9 percentage points, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.1). The reduction in disparities was observed among hospitals without prior experience in a voluntary LEJR bundled payment model. There were no differential changes in 90-day readmissions or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory participation in a bundled payment program was associated with reduced disparities in joint replacement complications for Medicare beneficiaries with low income. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of reduced socioeconomic disparities in outcomes under value-based payments.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Led To A Large Decline In Physician Gross Revenue Across All Specialties In 2020.

US health care use declined during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although utilization is known to have recovered in 2021 and 2022, it is unknown how revenue in 2020-22 varied by physician specialty and practice setting. This study linked medical claims from a large national federation of commercial health plans to physician and practice data to estimate pandemic-associated impacts on physician revenue (defined as payments to eligible physicians) by specialty and practice characteristics. Surgical specialties, emergency medicine, and medical subspecialties each experienced a greater than 9 percent adjusted gross revenue decline in 2020 relative to prepandemic baselines. By 2022, pathology and psychiatry revenue experienced robust recovery, whereas surgical and oncology revenue remained at or below baseline. Revenue recovery in 2022 was greater for physicians practicing in hospital-owned practices and in practices participating in accountable care organizations. Pandemic-associated revenue recovery in 2021 and 2022 varied by specialty and practice type. Given that physician financial instability is associated with health care consolidation and leaving practice, policy makers should closely monitor revenue trends among physicians in specialties or practice settings with sustained gross revenue reductions during the pandemic.

Hospice Administrators' and Providers' Perspectives on Providing Upstream Palliative Care: Facilitators, Barriers, and Policy Prescriptions.

Background: Among patients with serious illness, palliative care before hospice enrollment is associated with improved quality of life, reduced symptom burden, and earlier transitions to hospice. However, fewer than half of eligible patients receive specialty palliative care referrals. As most hospice clinicians and administrators have experience in specialty palliative care, several emerging programs propose engaging hospice clinicians to provide early palliative care. Objective: We sought to identify barriers and facilitators to upstream palliative care. Design: We conducted a key informant qualitative study among hospice administrators and clinicians. Setting/Subjects: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 hospice administrators and clinicians in eight states from March to August 2022. We identified participants using snowball and purposive sampling using states that participate in Medicare Advantage's value-based insurance design Model. Results: Respondents indicated that barriers to early palliative care included inadequate staffing and reimbursement. Hospice clinicians providing community-based palliative care can address access barriers and improve transitions to hospice. Respondents expressed desire for payer guidance in identifying eligible patients but were cautious about payers acting as direct palliative care providers. However, payers could facilitate uptake by broadening and specifying coverage of services to include goals of care conversations and symptom management. Routine referrals initiated by objective measures could potentially increase access. Conclusions: Utilizing hospice providers to provide upstream palliative care can increase access, improve outcomes, and ease the transition to hospice.

The Promise and Challenge of Value-Based Payment.

This Viewpoint discusses the benefits and challenges of transitioning to a value-based payment design for health care rather than a fee-for-service system.

Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations.

BACKGROUND: Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. MAIN MEASURES: Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022. KEY RESULTS: Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2 pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Clinician Perspectives on Virtual Specialty Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Illnesses.

Background: Patients with serious illnesses have unmet symptom and psychosocial needs. Specialty palliative care could address many of these needs; however, access varies by geography and health system. Virtual visits and automated referrals could increase access and lead to improved quality of life, health outcomes, and patient-centered care for patients with serious illness. Objectives: We sought to understand referring clinician perspectives on barriers and facilitators to utilizing virtual tools to increase upstream access to palliative care. Design: Participants in this multisite qualitative study included practicing clinicians who commonly place palliative care referrals across multiple specialties, including hematology/oncology, family medicine, cardiology, and geriatrics. All interviews were transcribed and subsequently coded and analyzed by trained research coordinators using Atlas.ti software. Settings/Subjects: This study included 23 clinicians (21 physicians, 2 nonphysicians) across 5 specialties, 4 practice settings, and 7 states in the United States. Results: Respondents felt that community-based specialty palliative services including symptom management, advance care planning, physical therapy, and mental health counseling would benefit their patients. However, they had mixed feelings about automated referrals, with some clinicians feeling hesitant about not being alerted to such referrals. Many respondents were supportive of virtual palliative care, particularly for those who may have difficulty accessing physician offices, but most respondents felt that such care should only be provided after an initial in-person consultation where clinicians can meet face-to-face with patients. Conclusion: Clinicians believe that automated referrals and virtual palliative care could increase access to the benefits of specialty palliative care. However, virtual palliative care models should give attention to iterative communication with primary clinicians and the perceived need for an initial in-person visit.

Association of Electronic Self-Scheduling and Screening Mammogram Completion.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if an electronic health record (EHR) self-scheduling function was associated with changes in mammogram completion for primary care patients who were eligible for a screening mammogram using U.S. Preventive Service Task Force recommendations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study (September 1, 2014-August 31, 2019, analyses completed in 2022) using a difference-in-differences design to examine mammogram completion before versus after the implementation of self-scheduling. The difference-in-differences estimate was the interaction between time (pre-versus post-implementation) and group (active EHR patient portal versus inactive EHR patient portal). The primary outcome was mammogram completion among all eligible patients, with completion defined as receiving a mammogram within 6 months post-visit. The secondary outcome was mammogram completion among patients who received a clinician order during their visit. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 35,257 patient visits. The overall mammogram completion rate in the pre-period was 22.2% and 49.7% in the post-period. EHR self-scheduling was significantly associated with increased mammogram completion among those with an active EHR portal, relative to patients with an inactive portal (adjusted difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 10.6-15.8]). For patients who received a clinician mammogram order at their eligible visit, self-scheduling was significantly associated with increased mammogram completion among patients with an active EHR portal account (adjusted difference 14.7 percentage points, [95% CI 10.9-18.5]). CONCLUSIONS: EHR-based self-scheduling was associated with a significant increase in mammogram completion among primary care patients. Self-scheduling can be a low-cost, scalable function for increasing preventive cancer screenings.

Eliminating Algorithmic Racial Bias in Clinical Decision Support Algorithms: Use Cases from the Veterans Health Administration.

The Veterans Health Administration uses equity- and evidence-based principles to examine, correct, and eliminate use of potentially biased clinical equations and predictive models. We discuss the processes, successes, challenges, and next steps in four examples. We detail elimination of the race modifier for estimated kidney function and discuss steps to achieve more equitable pulmonary function testing measurement. We detail the use of equity lenses in two predictive clinical modeling tools: Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) and Care Assessment Need (CAN) predictive models. We conclude with consideration of ways to advance racial health equity in clinical decision support algorithms.

The role of payment and financing in achieving health equity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to identify healthcare payment and financing reforms to promote health equity and ways that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may promote those reforms. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: AHRQ convened a payment and financing workgroup-the authors of this paper-as part of its Health Equity Summit held in July 2022. This workgroup drew from its collective experience with healthcare payment and financing reform, as well as feedback from participants in a session at the Health Equity Summit, to identify the evidence base and promising paths for reforms to promote health equity. STUDY DESIGN: The payment and financing workgroup developed an outline of reforms to promote health equity, presented the outline to participants in the payment and financing session of the July 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit, and integrated feedback from the participants. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: This paper did not require novel data collection; the authors collected the data from the existing evidence base. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The paper outlines root causes of health inequity and corresponding potential reforms in five domains: (1) the differential distribution of resources between healthcare providers serving different communities, (2) scarcity of financing for populations most in need, (3) lack of integration/accountability, (4) patient cost barriers to care, and (5) bias in provider behavior and diagnostic tools. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is necessary to determine whether the proposed reforms are effective in promoting health equity.

Spending patterns among commercially insured individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in US health care spending in a large, national, and commercially insured population during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of commercially insured members enrolled between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. METHODS: The study utilized a population-based sample of continuously enrolled members in a geographically diverse federation of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans across the United States. Our sample excluded Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The COVID-19 exposure period was defined as 2020-2021; 2018-2019 were pre-COVID-19 years. We defined 4 post-COVID-19 periods: March 1 to April 30, 2020; May 1 to December 31, 2020; January 1 to March 31, 2021; and April 1 to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was inflation-adjusted overall per-member per-month (PMPM) medical spending adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidities, area-level racial composition, income, and education. RESULTS: Our sample included 97,319,130 individuals. Mean PMPM medical spending decreased from $370.92 in January-February 2020 to $281.00 in March-April 2020. Between May and December 2020, mean PMPM medical spending recovered to-but did not exceed-prepandemic levels. Mean PMPM medical spending stayed below prepandemic levels between January and March 2021, rose above prepandemic baselines between April and June 2021, and decreased below baseline between July and December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic induced a spending shock in 2020, and health care spending did not recover to near baseline until mid-2021, with some emerging evidence of pent-up demand. The observed spending below baseline through the end of 2021 will pose challenges to setting spending benchmarks for alternative payment and shared savings models.

Pneumonia is not just pneumonia: Differences in utilization and costs with common comorbidities.

We sought to explore the heterogeneity among patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a condition targeted in payment reform. In a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for pneumonia, we compared postacute care utilization and costs of 90-day episodes of care among patients with and without comorbidities of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and/or heart failure. Of the 1,926,674 discharges, 28.1% had COPD, 14.3% had heart failure, and 14.6% carried both diagnoses. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to be discharged to a facility than those with pneumonia and COPD with or without heart failure, though less likely than those with pneumonia and heart failure only. Compared to patients with pneumonia only, patients with COPD and/or heart failure had higher episode payments. Acute conditions such as pneumonia may hold promise for episode-based care payment reform; however, the heterogeneity within this diagnosis indicates the need to consider other patient characteristics in interventions to improve value-based care.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plans With Health Care Use and Costs for Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.

Background By increasing cost sharing, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) aim to reduce low-value health care use. The association of HDHPs with health care use and costs in patients with chronic cardiovascular disease is unknown. Methods and Results This longitudinal cohort study analyzed 57 690 privately insured patients, aged 18 to 64 years, from a large commercial claims database with chronic cardiovascular disease from 2011 to 2019. Health care entities in which all or most beneficiaries switched from being in a traditional plan to an HDHP were identified. A difference-in-differences design was used to account for differences between individuals who remained in traditional plans and those who switched to HDHPs and to assess changes in health care use and costs. Among the 934 individuals in the HDHP group and the 56 756 in the traditional plan group, switching to an HDHP was not associated with statistically significant changes in annual outpatient visits, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits (-8.3% [95% CI, -16.8 to 1.1], -28.5% [95% CI, -62.1 to 34.6], and 11.2% [95% CI, -20.9 to 56.5], respectively). Switching to an HDHP was associated with an increase of $921 (95% CI, $743-$1099) in out-of-pocket costs but no statistically significant difference in total health care costs. Conclusions Among commercially insured patients with chronic cardiovascular disease, switching to an HDHP was not associated with a change in health care use but was associated with an increase in out-of-pocket costs. Although health care use by individuals with chronic cardiovascular disease may not be sensitive to higher cost sharing associated with HDHP enrollment, there may be a significant increase in patients' financial burden.

Principles to Inform Risk Adjustment Policy: Reflection From the Front Lines.

This Viewpoint discusses the benefits and drawbacks of current risk adjustment tools, outlines the pressures clinicians may face to use these tools, and proposes principles and policy solutions to ensure that risk adjustment is clinically meaningful and to minimize gaming and waste.

Growth of Medicare Advantage After Plan Payment Reductions.

Importance: Various policy proposals would reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. However, it is unclear whether payment reductions would compromise beneficiary access to the MA program. Objective: To quantify the association between MA payment reductions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and MA enrollment growth. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study examined the MA market before and after the ACA, which mandated cuts to MA benchmark payment rates. Using 2008 to 2019 county-level enrollment and payment data, a difference-in-differences analysis was conducted comparing MA enrollment changes between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark reductions, before vs after the ACA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the MA enrollment rate, defined as the proportion of a county's Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA. A secondary analysis examined MA plan payments per member per month. Results: Among 3138 counties with 37 639 county-year observations, ACA-induced benchmark cuts were sizeable and varied, ranging from 0% to 42.9% (mean [SD], 5.9% [6.6%]). Counties with benchmark cuts above the 75th percentile had population-weighted average benchmark cuts of 14.9% compared with 4.4% in other counties. In the 8 years following the ACA, there was no differential change in MA enrollment between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark cuts (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.02 [95% CI, -1.18 to 1.21] percentage points; P = .98). Plan payments differentially fell in counties with larger benchmark cuts by $78.35 (95% CI, $62.21-$94.48) per member per month (P < .001). Conclusion and Relevance: This cohort study found no evidence that the MA benchmark and ensuing payment cuts imposed by the ACA were associated with reduced MA enrollment, compromising access to MA. This evidence can inform ongoing policy debates regarding the growth of MA, concerns about excess payments to MA plans, and proposed Medicare reforms, including further reductions in MA payments.

Association Between a Bundled Payment Program for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement and Patient Outcomes Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Importance: Much of the evidence for bundled payments has been drawn from models in the traditional Medicare program. Although private insurers are increasingly offering bundled payment programs, it is not known whether they are associated with changes in episode spending and quality. Objective: To evaluate whether a voluntary bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer was associated with changes in episode spending or quality of care for beneficiaries receiving lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 23 034 LEJR surgical episodes that emulated a stepped-wedge design by using the time-varying, geographically staggered rollout of the bundled payment program from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Episode-level multivariable regression models were estimated within practice to compare changes before and after program participation, using episodes at physician practices that had not yet begun participating in the program during a given time period (but would go on to do so) as the control. Data analyses were performed from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Exposures: Physician practice participation in the bundled payment program. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was episode spending (plan and beneficiary). Secondary outcomes included postacute care use (skilled nursing facility and home health care), surgical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), and quality (90-day complications [including deep vein thrombosis, wound infection, fracture, or dislocation] and readmissions). Results: The final analytic sample included 23 034 LEJR episodes (6355 bundled episodes and 16 679 control episodes) from 109 physician practices participating in the program. Of the beneficiaries, 7730 were male and 15 304 were female, 3057 were Black, 19 351 were White, 447 were of other race or ethnicity (assessed according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiary race and ethnicity code, which reflects data reported to the Social Security Administration), and 179 were of unknown race and ethnicity. The mean (SD) age was 70.9 (7.2) years. Participation in the bundled payment program was associated with a 2.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.1%) decrease in spending per episode (mean episodic spending, $21 964 [95% CI, $21 636-$22 296] vs $22 562 [95% CI, $22 346-$22 779]), as well as reductions in skilled nursing facility use after discharge (21.3% for bundled episodes vs 25.0% for control episodes; odds ratio [OR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]) and increased use of the outpatient surgical setting (14.1% for bundled episodes vs 8.4% for control episodes; OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.53-2.09]). The program was not associated with changes in quality outcomes, including 90-day complications (8.8% for bundled episodes vs 8.6% for control episodes; OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]) and readmissions (4.3% for bundled episodes vs 4.6% for control episodes; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.75-1.13]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of an LEJR bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer, findings suggest that physician practice participation in the program was associated with a decrease in episode spending without changes in quality. Bundled payments offered by private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, are an alternate payment option to fee for service that may reduce spending for LEJR episodes while maintaining quality of care.

Hospital Consolidation: The Rise of Geographically Distant Mergers.

This Viewpoint discusses how and why cross-market hospital mergers are different than prototypical within-market mergers in their effects on patients and communities, why the trend may be accelerating, and future policy and research directions.

How Physician Self-Perceptions Affect the Impact of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing.

Peer comparison feedback is a promising strategy for reducing opioid prescribing and opioid-related harms. Such comparisons may be particularly impactful among underestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as high prescribers relative to their peers. But peer comparisons could also unintentionally increase prescribing among overestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as lower prescribers than peers. The objective of this study was to assess if the impact of peer comparisons varied by clinicians' preexisting opioid prescribing self-perceptions. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial of peer comparison interventions among emergency department and urgent care clinicians was used. Generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess whether the impact of peer comparisons, alone or combined with individual feedback, varied by underestimating or overestimating prescriber status. Underestimating and overestimating prescribers were defined as those who self-reported relative prescribing amounts that were lower and higher, respectively, than actual relative baseline amounts. The primary outcome was pills per opioid prescription. Among 438 clinicians, 54% (n = 236) provided baseline prescribing self-perceptions and were included in this analysis. Overall, 17% (n = 40) were underestimating prescribers whereas 5% (n = 11) were overestimating prescribers. Underestimating prescribers exhibited a differentially greater decrease in pills per prescription compared to nonunderestimating clinicians when receiving peer comparison feedback (1.7 pills, 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (2.8 pills, 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.8 pills). In contrast, there were no differential changes in pills per prescription for overestimating versus nonoverestimating prescribers after receiving peer comparison (1.5 pills, 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.9 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (3.0 pills, 95% CI, -0.3 to 6.2 pills). Peer comparisons were more impactful among clinicians who underestimated their prescribing compared to peers. By correcting inaccurate self-perceptions, peer comparison feedback can be an effective strategy for influencing opioid prescribing.