Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Physician Service Attribution Methods for Examining Provision of Low-Value Care.
Chang, Eva; Buist, Diana Sm; Handley, Matthew; Pardee, Roy; Gundersen, Gabrielle; Reid, Robert J.
Affiliation
  • Chang E; RTI International.
  • Buist DS; Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative.
  • Handley M; Group Health Physicians.
  • Pardee R; Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative.
  • Gundersen G; RTI International.
  • Reid RJ; Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative; Trillium Health Partners - Institute for Better Health.
EGEMS (Wash DC) ; 4(1): 1276, 2016.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28203612
ABSTRACT

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.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Language: En Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Year: 2016 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Language: En Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Year: 2016 Document type: Article