Thomas J William, Grazier Kyle L, Ward Kathleen
Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 1):985-1003. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00268.x.
To investigate whether different risk-adjustment methodologies and economic profiling or "practice efficiency" metrics produce differences in practice efficiency rankings for a set of primary care physicians (PCPs).
Twelve months of claims records (inpatient, outpatient, professional, and pharmacy) for an independent practice association HMO.
Patient risk scores obtained with six profiling risk-adjustment methodologies were used in conjunction with claims cost tabulations to measure practice efficiency of all primary care physicians who managed 25 or more members of an HMO.
For each of the risk-adjustment methodologies, two measures of "efficiency" were constructed: the standardized cost difference between total observed (standardized actual) and total expected costs for patients managed by each PCP, and the ratio of the PCP's total observed to total expected costs (O/E ratio). Primary care physicians were ranked from most to least efficient according to each risk-adjusted measure, and level of agreement among measures was tested using weighted kappa. Separate rankings were constructed for pediatricians and for other primary care physicians.
Moderate to high levels of agreement were observed among the six risk-adjusted measures of practice efficiency. Agreement was greater among pediatrician rankings than among adult primary care physician rankings, and, with the standardized difference measure, greater for identifying the least efficient than the most efficient physicians. The O/E ratio was shown to be a biased measure of physician practice efficiency, disproportionately targeting smaller sized panels as outliers.
Although we observed moderate consistency among different risk-adjusted PCP rankings, consistency of measures does not prove that practice efficiency rankings are valid, and health plans should be careful in how they use practice efficiency information. Indicators of practice efficiency should be based on the standardized cost difference, which controls for number of patients in a panel, instead of O/E ratio, which does not.
探讨不同的风险调整方法、经济概况分析或“执业效率”指标是否会导致一组初级保健医生(PCP)的执业效率排名产生差异。
一家独立执业协会健康维护组织(HMO)的十二个月理赔记录(住院、门诊、专业服务和药房)。
使用六种概况分析风险调整方法获得的患者风险评分,结合理赔成本列表,来衡量管理25名或更多HMO成员的所有初级保健医生的执业效率。
针对每种风险调整方法,构建了两种“效率”衡量指标:每位初级保健医生管理的患者实际观察到的总费用(标准化实际费用)与总预期费用之间的标准化成本差异,以及初级保健医生的实际观察总费用与总预期费用之比(O/E比)。根据每种风险调整后的衡量指标,将初级保健医生从效率最高到最低进行排名,并使用加权kappa检验各指标之间的一致性水平。分别为儿科医生和其他初级保健医生构建排名。
在六种风险调整后的执业效率衡量指标中,观察到中度到高度的一致性。儿科医生排名之间的一致性高于成人初级保健医生排名之间的一致性,并且,使用标准化差异衡量指标时,识别效率最低的医生比识别效率最高的医生的一致性更高。结果表明,O/E比是医生执业效率的一个有偏差的衡量指标,不成比例地将规模较小的医疗小组视为异常值。
尽管我们观察到不同风险调整后的初级保健医生排名之间存在中度一致性,但指标的一致性并不能证明执业效率排名是有效的,健康计划在使用执业效率信息时应谨慎。执业效率指标应基于标准化成本差异,该指标控制了医疗小组中的患者数量,而不是不控制患者数量的O/E比。