Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27705, USA.
JAMA. 2011 Nov 9;306(18):1993-2000. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1604.
The degree to which financial factors may influence use of cardiac stress imaging procedures is unknown.
To examine the association of physician billing and nuclear stress and stress echocardiography testing following coronary revascularization.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Using data from a national health insurance carrier, 17,847 patients were identified between November 1, 2004, and June 30, 2007, who had coronary revascularization and an index cardiac outpatient visit more than 90 days following the procedure. Based on overall billings, physicians were classified as billing for both technical (practice/equipment) and professional (supervision/interpretation) fees, professional fees only, or not billing for either. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between physician billing and use of stress testing, after adjusting for patient and other physician factors.
Incidence of nuclear and echocardiographic stress tests within 30 days of an index cardiac-related outpatient visit.
The overall cumulative incidence of nuclear or echocardiography stress testing within 30 days of the index cardiac-related outpatient visit following revascularization was 12.2% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.7%). The cumulative incidence of nuclear stress testing was 12.6% (95% CI, 12.0%-13.2%), 8.8% (95% CI, 7.5%-10.2%), and 5.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-5.7%) among physicians who billed for technical and professional fees, professional fees only, or neither, respectively. For stress echocardiography, the cumulative incidence of testing was 2.8% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.2%), 1.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.9%), and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.6%) among physicians who billed for the technical and professional fees, professional fees only, or neither, respectively. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of nuclear stress testing among patients treated by physicians who billed for technical and professional fees and professional fees only were 2.3 (95% CI, 1.8-2.9) and 1.6 (95% CI, 1.2-2.1), respectively, compared with those patients treated by physicians who did not bill for testing (P < .001). The adjusted OR of stress echocardiography testing among patients treated by physicians billing for both or professional fees only were 12.8 (95% CI, 7.6-21.6) and 7.1 (95% CI, 4.0-12.9), respectively, compared with patients treated by physicians who did not bill for testing (P < .001).
Nuclear stress testing and stress echocardiography testing following revascularization were more frequent among patients treated by physicians who billed for technical fees, professional fees, or both compared with those treated by physicians who did not bill for these services.
目前尚不清楚财务因素在多大程度上可能影响心脏应激成像程序的使用。
研究冠状动脉血运重建后与医师计费相关的核素应激和应激超声心动图检测的关系。
设计、地点和患者:利用全国健康保险商的数据,2004 年 11 月 1 日至 2007 年 6 月 30 日期间,在冠状动脉血运重建术后 90 天以上,对 17847 名患者进行了识别。根据总计费情况,医师分为同时计费技术(实践/设备)和专业(监督/解释)费用、仅计费专业费用或两者都不计费。采用 logistic 回归模型,在调整了患者和其他医师因素后,评估了医师计费与应激检测使用之间的关联。
索引心脏相关门诊就诊后 30 天内进行核素和超声心动图应激检测的发生率。
血管重建后索引心脏相关门诊就诊后 30 天内进行核素或超声心动图应激检测的总累积发生率为 12.2%(95% CI,11.8%-12.7%)。核素应激检测的累积发生率分别为 12.6%(95% CI,12.0%-13.2%)、8.8%(95% CI,7.5%-10.2%)和 5.0%(95% CI,4.4%-5.7%),分别为同时计费技术和专业费用、仅计费专业费用或均不计费的医师。对于应激超声心动图,检测的累积发生率分别为 2.8%(95% CI,2.5%-3.2%)、1.4%(95% CI,1.0%-1.9%)和 0.4%(95% CI,0.3%-0.6%),分别为同时计费技术和专业费用、仅计费专业费用或均不计费的医师。与未计费检测的患者相比,由计费技术和专业费用的医师治疗的患者进行核素应激检测的调整后比值比(OR)为 2.3(95% CI,1.8-2.9)和 1.6(95% CI,1.2-2.1),而由仅计费专业费用的医师治疗的患者进行核素应激检测的调整后 OR 为 1.6(95% CI,1.2-2.1)(P <.001)。与未计费检测的患者相比,由计费技术和专业费用或仅计费专业费用的医师治疗的患者进行应激超声心动图检测的调整后 OR 分别为 12.8(95% CI,7.6-21.6)和 7.1(95% CI,4.0-12.9)(P <.001)。
与未计费检测的患者相比,由计费技术、专业费用或两者兼而有之的医师治疗的患者进行核素应激检测和应激超声心动图检测的频率更高。