Physician organizations' use of behavioral nudges to influence physician behavior.

OBJECTIVES: Because physicians' decisions drive health care costs and quality, there is growing interest in applying behavioral economics approaches, including behavioral nudges, to influence physicians' decisions. This paper investigates adoption of behavioral nudges by health system-affiliated physician organizations (POs), types of nudges being used, PO leader perceptions of nudge effectiveness, and implementation challenges. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-methods study design (PO leader survey followed by in-depth qualitative interviews). Purposive sample of 30 health system-affiliated POs in 4 states; POs varied in size and quality performance. METHODS: We collected data between October 2017 and June 2019. The survey asked PO leaders to report their organization's use of 5 categories of nudges to influence primary and specialty physicians' actions. We conducted semistructured phone interviews to confirm survey responses, elicit examples of the nudges that POs reported using, understand how nudges were structured, and identify implementation challenges. We present descriptive tabulations of nudge use and effectiveness ratings. We applied thematic analysis to the interview data. RESULTS: Almost all POs in this study reported nudge use. Clinical templates, patient action lists, and altered order entry were most commonly used. However, PO leaders reported that nudge use was limited to a narrow range of clinical applications, not widespread across the organization, and mostly structured as suggestions rather than default actions or hard stops. CONCLUSIONS: Nudge use remains limited in practice. Opportunities exist to expand use of nudges to influence physician behavior; however, expanding use of behavioral nudges will require PO investment of resources to support their construction and maintenance.

Physician Compensation Arrangements and Financial Performance Incentives in US Health Systems.

Importance: Public and private payers continue to expand use of alternative payment models, aiming to use value-based payment to affect the care delivery of their contracted health system partners. In parallel, health systems and their employment of physicians continue to grow. However, the degree to which health system physician compensation reflects an orientation toward value, rather than volume, is unknown. Objective: To characterize primary care physician (PCP) and specialist compensation arrangements among US health system-affiliated physician organizations (POs) and measure the portion of total physician compensation based on quality and cost performance. Design Setting and Participants: This study was a cross-sectional mixed-methods analysis of in-depth multimodal data (compensation document review, interviews with 40 PO leaders, and surveys conducted between November 2017 and July 2019) from 31 POs affiliated with 22 purposefully selected health systems in 4 states. Data were analyzed from June 2019 to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The frequency of PCP and specialist compensation types and the percentage of compensation when included, including base compensation incentives, quality and cost performance incentives, and other financial incentives. The top 3 actions physicians could take to increase their compensation. The association between POs' percentage of revenue from fee-for-service and their physicians' volume-based compensation percentage. Results: Volume-based compensation was the most common base compensation incentive component for PCPs (26 POs [83.9%]; mean, 68.2% of compensation; median, 81.4%; range, 5.0%-100.0% when included) and specialists (29 POs [93.3%]; mean, 73.7% of compensation; median, 90.5%; range, 2.5%-100.0% when included). While quality and cost performance incentives were common (included by 83.9%-56.7% of POs for PCPs and specialists, respectively), the percentage of compensation based on quality and cost performance was modest (mean, 9.0% [median, 8.3%; range, 1.0%-25.0%] for PCPs and 5.3% [median, 4.5%; range, 0.5%-16.0%] for specialists when included). Increasing the volume of services was the most commonly cited action for physicians to increase compensation, reported as the top action by 22 POs (70.0%) for PCPs and specialists. We observed a very weak, nonsignificant association between the percentage of revenue of POs from fee for service and the PCP and specialist volume-based compensation percentage (r = 0.08; P = .78 and r = -0.04; P = .89, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that PCPs and specialists despite receiving value-based reimbursement incentives from payers, the compensation of health system PCPs and specialists was dominated by volume-based incentives designed to maximize health systems revenue.

Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018.

Importance: Low-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown. Objective: To assess national trends in low-value care use and spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-value care use and spending from 2014 to 2018 were conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service enrollment and claims data. Included individuals were aged 65 years or older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D during each measurement year and the previous year. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through December 2020. Exposure: Being enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator was used to assess 32 claims-based measures of low-value care associated with Choosing Wisely recommendations and other professional guidelines. The calculator designates services as wasteful, likely wasteful, or not wasteful based on an absence of indication of appropriate use in the claims history; calculator-designated wasteful services were defined as low-value care. Spending was calculated as claim-line level (ie, spending on the low-value service) and claim level (ie, spending on the low-value service plus associated services), adjusting for inflation. Results: Among 21 045 759 individuals with fee-for-service Medicare (mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.9] years; 12 515 915 [59.5%] women), the percentage receiving any of 32 low-value services decreased from 36.3% (95% CI, 36.3%-36.4%) to 33.6% (95% CI, 33.6%-33.6%) from 2014 to 2018. Uses of low-value services per 1000 individuals decreased from 677.8 (95% CI, 676.2-679.5) to 632.7 (95% CI, 632.6-632.8) from 2014 to 2018. Three services comprised approximately two-thirds of uses among 32 low-value services per 1000 individuals: preoperative laboratory testing decreased from 213.8 (95% CI, 213.4-214.2) to 166.2 (95% CI, 166.2-166.2), while opioids for back pain increased from 154.4 (95% CI, 153.6-155.2) to 182.1 (95% CI, 182.1-182.1) and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections increased from 75.0 (95% CI, 75.0-75.1) to 82 (95% CI, 82.0-82.0). Spending per 1000 individuals on low-value care also decreased, from $52 765.5 (95% CI, $51 952.3-$53 578.6) to $46 921.7 (95% CI, $46 593.7-$47 249.7) at the claim-line level and from $160 070.4 (95% CI, $158 999.8-$161 141.0) to $144 741.1 (95% CI, $144 287.5-$145 194.7) at the claim level. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that among individuals with fee-for-service Medicare receiving any of 32 measured services, low-value care use and spending decreased marginally from 2014 to 2018, despite a national education campaign in collaboration with clinician specialty societies and increased attention on low-value care. While most use of low-value care came from 3 services, 1 of these was opioid prescriptions, which increased over time despite the harms associated with their use. These findings may represent several opportunities to prevent patient harm and lower spending.

Identification of Alternative Physician Assistant Recertification Models: An Analysis of the Landscape and Evidence Surrounding Approaches to Recertification in the Health Professions.

Health professional recertification is intended to be a mechanism for demonstration and fostering of professional knowledge and competence. Recertification requirements vary among health professions and are evolving over time. RAND Corporation researchers assessed the landscape of recertification requirements for physician assistants (PAs), advanced practice nurses (APNs), and physicians in the United States and other countries through an environmental scan, reviewed the literature regarding the impact of recertification requirements on patients and health professionals, and conducted semi-structured interviews with certifying organization representatives. Recertification requirements vary, including continuing education, exams or assessments, and other activities. Closed-book exams are most common in the United States. PA recertification currently requires a high-stakes closed-book exam; a pilot of a longitudinal assessment with smaller, regularly spaced batches of questions is planned. Many allopathic physician specialty boards are transitioning from recertification exams to longitudinal assessments; most osteopathic specialty boards require recertification exams. An exam is required for certified registered nurse anesthetist recertification, but not for other APNs. Evidence regarding the effects of recertification requirements on health professionals and patients for PAs, APNs, and professionals outside the United States is limited. The evidence mainly focuses on U.S. allopathic physicians. Physicians have mixed opinions about trade-offs between burden and professional benefit, and some, but not all, studies find associations between recertification and indicators of better care. Major themes reflected in interviews with certifying organizations included a desire to balance evaluative and educational goals, the tension felt between public responsibility and health professional preferences, and burden and applicability to practice.

Impact of consumer-directed health plans on low-value healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) enrollment on low-value healthcare spending. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a quasi-experimental analysis using insurance claims data from 376,091 patients aged 18 to 63 years continuously enrolled in a plan from a large national commercial insurer from 2011 to 2013. We measured spending on 26 low-value healthcare services that offer unclear or no clinical benefit. METHODS: Employing a difference-in-differences approach, we compared the change in spending on low-value services for patients switching from a traditional health plan to a CDHP with the change in spending on low-value services for matched patients remaining in a traditional plan. RESULTS: Switching to a CDHP was associated with a $231.60 reduction in annual outpatient spending (95% CI, -$341.65 to -$121.53); however, no significant reductions were observed in annual spending on the 26 low-value services (--$3.64; 95% CI, -$9.60 to $2.31) or on these low-value services relative to overall outpatient spending (-$7.86 per $10,000 in outpatient spending; 95% CI, -$18.43 to $2.72). Similarly, a small reduction was noted for low-value spending on imaging (-$1.76; 95% CI, -$3.39 to -$0.14), but not relative to overall imaging spending, and no significant reductions were noted in low-value laboratory spending. CONCLUSIONS: CDHPs in their current form may represent too blunt an instrument to specifically curtail low-value healthcare spending.

Evaluation of Policy Options for Increasing the Availability of Primary Care Services in Rural Washington State.

The Washington State legislature has recently considered several policy options to address a perceived shortage of primary care physicians in rural Washington. These policy options include opening the new Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University in 2017; increasing the number of primary care residency positions in the state; expanding educational loan-repayment incentives to encourage primary care physicians to practice in rural Washington; increasing Medicaid payment rates for primary care physicians in rural Washington; and encouraging the adoption of alternative models of primary care, such as medical homes and nurse-managed health centers, that reallocate work from physicians to nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). RAND Corporation researchers projected the effects that these and other policy options could have on the state's rural primary care workforce through 2025. They project a 7-percent decrease in the number of rural primary care physicians and a 5-percent decrease in the number of urban ones. None of the policy options modeled in this study, on its own, will offset this expected decrease by relying on physicians alone. However, combinations of these strategies or partial reallocation of rural primary care services to NPs and PAs via such new practice models as medical homes and nurse-managed health centers are plausible options for preserving the overall availability of primary care services in rural Washington through 2025.

Federally Qualified Health Center Clinicians And Staff Increasingly Dissatisfied With Workplace Conditions.

Better working conditions for clinicians and staff could help primary care practices implement delivery system innovations and help sustain the US primary care workforce. Using longitudinal surveys, we assessed the experience of clinicians and staff in 296 clinical sites that participated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration. Participating FQHCs were expected to achieve, within three years, patient-centered medical home recognition at level 3-the highest level possible. During 2013-14, clinicians and staff in these FQHCs reported statistically significant declines in multiple measures of professional satisfaction, work environment, and practice culture. There were no significant improvements on any surveyed measure. These findings suggest that working conditions in FQHCs have deteriorated recently. Whether findings would be similar in other primary care practices is unknown. Although we did not identify the causes of these declines, possible stressors include the adoption of health information technology, practice transformation, and increased demand for services.

Encouraging Medicare Advantage Enrollees to Switch to Higher Quality Plans: Assessing the Effectiveness of a "Nudge" Letter.

There are considerable quality differences across private Medicare Advantage insurance plans, so it is important that beneficiaries make informed choices. During open enrollment for the 2013 coverage year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent letters to beneficiaries enrolled in low-quality Medicare Advantage plans (i.e., plans rated less than 3 stars for at least 3 consecutive years by Medicare) explaining the stars and encouraging them to reexamine their choices. To understand the effectiveness of these low-cost, behavioral "nudge" letters, we used a beneficiary-level national retrospective cohort and performed multivariate regression analysis of plan selection during the 2013 open enrollment period among those enrolled in plans rated less than 3 stars. Our analysis controls for beneficiary demographic characteristics, health and health care spending risks, the availability of alternative higher rated plan options in their local market, and historical disenrollment rates from the plans. We compared the behaviors of those beneficiaries who received the nudge letters with those who enrolled in similar poorly rated plans but did not receive such letters. We found that beneficiaries who received the nudge letter were almost twice as likely (28.0% [95% confidence interval = 27.7%, 28.2%] vs. 15.3% [95% confidence interval = 15.1%, 15.5%]) to switch to a higher rated plan compared with those who did not receive the letter. White beneficiaries, healthier beneficiaries, and those residing in areas with more high-performing plan choices were more likely to switch plans in response to the nudge. Our findings highlight both the importance and efficacy of providing timely and actionable information to beneficiaries about quality in the insurance marketplace to facilitate informed and value-based coverage decisions.

Retail Clinic Visits For Low-Acuity Conditions Increase Utilization And Spending.

Retail clinics have been viewed by policy makers and insurers as a mechanism to decrease health care spending, by substituting less expensive clinic visits for more expensive emergency department or physician office visits. However, retail clinics may actually increase spending if they drive new health care utilization. To assess whether retail clinic visits represent new utilization or a substitute for more expensive care, we used insurance claims data from Aetna for the period 2010-12 to track utilization and spending for eleven low-acuity conditions. We found that 58 percent of retail clinic visits for low-acuity conditions represented new utilization and that retail clinic use was associated with a modest increase in spending, of $14 per person per year. These findings do not support the idea that retail clinics decrease health care spending.

The Roles of Cost and Quality Information in Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment Decisions: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate informed decision-making in the Medicare Advantage marketplace, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes plan information on the Medicare Plan Finder website, including costs, benefits, and star ratings reflecting quality. Little is known about how beneficiaries weigh costs versus quality in enrollment decisions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess associations between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan attributes (i.e., costs, quality, and benefits) and brand market share and beneficiaries' enrollment decisions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We performed a nationwide, beneficiary-level cross-sectional analysis of 847,069 beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage for the first time in 2011. MAIN MEASURES: Matching beneficiaries with their plan choice sets, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate associations between plan attributes and enrollment to assess the proportion of enrollment variation explained by plan attributes and willingness to pay for quality. KEY RESULTS: Relative to the total variation explained by the model, the variation in plan choice explained by premiums (25.7 %) and out-of-pocket costs (11.6 %) together explained nearly three times as much as quality ratings (13.6 %), but brand market share explained the most variation (35.3 %). Further, while beneficiaries were willing to pay more in total annual combined premiums and out-of-pocket costs for higher-rated plans (from $4,154.93 for 2.5-star plans to $5,698.66 for 5-star plans), increases in willingness to pay diminished at higher ratings, from $549.27 (95 %CI: $541.10, $557.44) for a rating increase from 2.5 to 3 stars to $68.22 (95 %CI: $61.44, $75.01) for an increase from 4.5 to 5 stars. Willingness to pay varied among subgroups: beneficiaries aged 64-65 years were more willing to pay for higher-rated plans, while black and rural beneficiaries were less willing to pay for higher-rated plans. CONCLUSIONS: While beneficiaries prefer higher-quality and lower-cost Medicare Advantage plans, marginal utility for quality diminishes at higher star ratings, and their decisions are strongly associated with plans' brand market share.

Association between Medicare Advantage plan star ratings and enrollment.

IMPORTANCE: The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes star ratings reflecting Medicare Advantage plan quality to inform enrollment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan quality ratings and enrollment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study of 2011 Medicare Advantage enrollments among 952,352 first-time enrollees and 322,699 enrollees switching plans. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Association between star ratings and enrollment was modeled using conditional logit regression, controlling for beneficiary and plan characteristics. RESULTS: Among the 952,352 included first-time enrollees, a 1-star higher rating was associated with a 9.5 (95% CI, 9.3-9.6) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. The highest rating available to a beneficiary was associated with a 1.9 (95% CI, 1.8-2.1) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. Among the 322,699 enrollees switching plans, a 1-star higher rating was associated with a 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.7) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. A rating at least as high as a beneficiary's prior plan was associated with a 6.3 (95% CI, 6.0-6.6) percentage-point increase in likelihood to enroll. Star ratings were less strongly associated with enrollment for black, rural, low-income, and the youngest beneficiaries. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Medicare's 5-star rating program for Medicare Advantage is associated with beneficiaries' enrollment decisions.

Retail clinic visits and receipt of primary care.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients are visiting retail clinics for simple acute conditions. Physicians worry that visits to retail clinics will interfere with primary care relationships. No prior study has evaluated the impact of retail clinics on receipt of primary care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between retail clinic use and receipt of key primary care functions. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis using commercial insurance claims from 2007 to 2009. PATIENTS: We identified patients who had a visit for a simple acute condition in 2008, the "index visit". We divided these 127,358 patients into two cohorts according to the location of that index visit: primary care provider (PCP) versus retail clinic. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated three functions of primary care: (1) where patients first sought care for subsequent simple acute conditions; (2) continuity of care using the Bice-Boxerman index; and (3) preventive care and diabetes management. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared care received in the 365 days following the index visit to care received in the 365 days prior, using propensity score weights to account for selection bias. KEY RESULTS: Visiting a retail clinic instead of a PCP for the index visit was associated with a 27.7 visits per 100 patients differential reduction (p < 0 .001) in subsequent PCP visits for new simple acute conditions. Visiting a retail clinic instead of a PCP was also associated with decreased subsequent continuity of care (10.9 percentage-point differential reduction in Bice-Boxerman index, p < 0 .001). There was no differential change between the cohorts in receipt of preventive care or diabetes management. CONCLUSIONS: Retail clinics may disrupt two aspects of primary care: whether patients go to a PCP first for new conditions and continuity of care. However, they do not negatively impact preventive care or diabetes management.

Physicians with the least experience have higher cost profiles than do physicians with the most experience.

Health plans and Medicare are using cost profiles to identify which physicians account for more health care spending than others. By identifying the costliest physicians, health plans and Medicare hope to craft policy interventions to reduce total health care spending. To identify which physician types, if any, might be costlier than others, we analyzed cost profiles created from health plan claims for physicians in Massachusetts. We found that physicians with fewer than ten years of experience had 13.2 percent higher overall costs than physicians with forty or more years of experience. We found no association between costs and other physician characteristics, such as having had malpractice claims or disciplinary actions, board certification status, and the size of the group in which the physician practices. Although winners and losers are inevitable in any cost-profiling effort, physicians with less experience are more likely to be negatively affected by policies that use cost profiles, unless they change their practice patterns. For example, these physicians could be excluded from high-value networks or receive lower payments under Medicare's planned value-based payment program. We cannot fully explain the mechanism by which more-experienced physicians have lower costs, but our results suggest that the more costly practice style of newly trained physicians may be a driver of rising health care costs overall.

Trends in retail clinic use among the commercially insured.

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in retail clinic use among commercially insured patients and to identify which patient characteristics predict retail clinic use. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of commercial insurance claims sampled from a population of 13.3 million patients in 22 markets in 2007 to 2009. METHODS: We identified 11 simple acute conditions that can be managed at a retail clinic and described trends in retail clinic utilization for these conditions. We used multiple logistic regressions to identify predictors of retail clinic versus another care site for these conditions and assessed whether those predictors changed over time. RESULTS: Retail clinic use increased 10-fold from 2007 to 2009. By 2009, 6.9% of all visits for the 11 conditions were to a retail clinic. Proximity to a retail clinic was the strongest predictor of use. Patients living within 1 mile of a retail clinic were 7.5% more likely to use one than those living 10 to 20 miles away (P <.001). Women (+0.9%, P <.001), young adults (+1.6%, P <.001), patients without a chronic condition (+0.9%, P <.001), and patients with high incomes (+2.6%, P <.001) were more likely to use retail clinics. All these associations became stronger over time. There was no association between primary care physician availability and retail clinic use. CONCLUSIONS: If these trends continue, health plans will see a dramatic increase in retail clinic utilization. While use is increasing on average, it is particularly increasing among young, healthy, and higher income patients living close to retail clinics.

Associations between physician characteristics and quality of care.

BACKGROUND: Information on physicians' performance on measures of clinical quality is rarely available to patients. Instead, patients are encouraged to select physicians on the basis of characteristics such as education, board certification, and malpractice history. In a large sample of Massachusetts physicians, we examined the relationship between physician characteristics and performance on a broad range of quality measures. METHODS: We calculated overall performance scores on 124 quality measures from RAND's Quality Assessment Tools for each of 10,408 Massachusetts physicians using claims generated by 1.13 million adult patients. The patients were continuously enrolled in 1 of 4 Massachusetts commercial health plans from 2004 to 2005. Physician characteristics were obtained from the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine. Associations between physician characteristics and overall performance scores were assessed using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: The mean overall performance score was 62.5% (5th to 95th percentile range, 48.2%-74.9%). Three physician characteristics were independently associated with significantly higher overall performance: female sex (1.6 percentage points higher than male sex; P < .001), board certification (3.3 percentage points higher than noncertified; P < .001), and graduation from a domestic medical school (1.0 percentage points higher than international; P < .001). There was no significant association between performance and malpractice claims (P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: Few characteristics of individual physicians were associated with higher performance on measures of quality, and observed associations were small in magnitude. Publicly available characteristics of individual physicians are poor proxies for performance on clinical quality measures.