Abstract

While variations in quality of care have been described between US regions, physician-level practice pattern variations within regions remain poorly understood, notably among specialists. To examine within-area physician-level variations in decision-making in common clinical scenarios where guidelines specifying appropriateness or quality of care exist. This cross-sectional study used 2016 through 2019 data from a large nationwide network of commercial insurers, provided by Health Intelligence Company, LLC, within 5 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Physician-level variations in appropriateness and quality of care were measured using 14 common clinical scenarios involving 7 specialties. The measures were constructed using public quality measure definitions, clinical guidelines, and appropriateness criteria from the clinical literature. Physician performance was calculated using a multilevel model adjusted for patient age, sex, risk score, and socioeconomic status with physician random effects. Measure reliability for each physician was calculated using the signal-to-noise approach. Within-MSA variation was calculated between physician quintiles adjusted for patient attributes, with the first quintile denoting highest quality or appropriateness and the fifth quintile reflecting the opposite. Data were analyzed March through October 2021. Fourteen measures of quality or appropriateness of care, with 2 measures each in the domains of cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, pulmonology, obstetrics, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. A total of 8788 physicians were included across the 5 MSAs, and about 2.5 million unique patient-physician pairs were included in the measures. Within the 5 MSAs, on average, patients in the measures were 34.7 to 40.7 years old, 49.1% to 52.3% female, had a mean risk score of 0.8 to 1.0, and more likely to have an employer-sponsored insurance plan that was either self-insured or fully insured (59.8% to 97.6%). Within MSAs, physician-level variations were qualitatively similar across measures. For example, statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease ranged from 54.3% to 70.9% in the first quintile of cardiologists to 30.5% to 42.6% in the fifth quintile. Upper endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease without alarm symptoms spanned 14.6% to 16.9% in the first quintile of gastroenterologists to 28.2% to 33.8% in the fifth quintile. Among patients with new knee or hip osteoarthritis, 2.1% to 3.4% received arthroscopy in the first quintile of orthopedic surgeons, whereas 25.5% to 30.7% did in the fifth quintile. Appropriate prenatal screening among pregnant patients ranged from 82.6% to 93.6% in the first quintile of obstetricians to 30.9% to 65.7% in the fifth quintile. Within MSAs, adjusted differences between quintiles approximated unadjusted differences. Measure reliability, which can reflect consistency and reproducibility, exceeded 70.0% across nearly all measures in all MSAs. In this cross-sectional study of 5 US metropolitan areas, sizeable physician-level practice variations were found across common clinical scenarios and specialties. Understanding the sources of these variations may inform efforts to improve the value of care.

Highlights

  • While efforts to improve the value of health care have adopted a national scope, most health care decisions remain local

  • A total of 8788 physicians were included across the 5 metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and about 2.5 million unique patient-physician pairs were included in the measures

  • Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 03/02/2022. In this cross-sectional study of 5 US metropolitan areas, sizeable physician-level practice variations were found across common clinical scenarios and specialties

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While efforts to improve the value of health care have adopted a national scope, most health care decisions remain local. Variations in quality and spending have been largely described between regions, notably by the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care.[1] Following this seminal work, the Institute of Medicine noted substantial variation within regions and recommended that efforts to improve the value of care focus on differences in clinical decision-making rather than geographic variation.[2,3] Early surveys using clinical vignettes focused on primary care physicians revealed varying clinical preferences among physicians between high- and low-spending regions.[4,5,6] Direct measurement of low-value care, focused on primary care physicians, has found large variations between physicians, including within regions.[7,8,9,10] the evidence on within-region physician-level variations in appropriateness or quality remains scant—especially for specialists whose services play an important role in determining health care spending and patient outcomes

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.