Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual CareWomen's College Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada.
Peter Munk Cardiac Centre University Health Network Toronto Ontario Canada.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Nov 2;10(21):e020708. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020708. Epub 2021 Oct 20.
Background The relationship between health care utilization and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation is unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate whether cardiologists' billing amounts in a fee-for-service environment are associated with better patient-level clinical outcomes. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data of cardiologists in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016. The cardiologists were stratified into quintiles based on their median billing patterns per patient over the observation period. The primary outcomes were patient-level receipt of repeat visits, cardiac diagnostic tests, and medications ≤1 year of index date. The secondary clinical outcomes were death, emergency department visits, and all-cause hospitalization 1-year post-index visit. The patient cohort comprised 182 572 patients with atrial fibrillation (median age 74 years, 58% male) from 467 cardiologists. Patients with atrial fibrillation seen by higher-billing cardiologists were 26% more likely to have an echocardiogram (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.26 [95% CI, 1.10-1.43] for quintile 5 versus 2), 28% a stress test (aOR, 1.28 [1.12-1.46] for quintile 5 versus 2), 25% continuous electrocardiographic monitoring (aOR, 1.25 [1.08-1.46] for quintile 4 versus 2), and 79% more likely to get a stress echocardiogram (aOR, 1.79 [1.32-2.42] for quintile 5 versus 2). They also had a higher rate of all-cause hospitalization (aOR, 1.13 [1.07-1.20]). Mortality rates were similar across cardiologists billing quintiles (eg, aOR, 0.98 [0.87-1.11] for quintile 4 versus 2). Conclusions Higher-billing cardiologists ordered more diagnostic tests per patient with atrial fibrillation but these are not associated with improvements in outcomes.
目前尚不清楚医疗保健的利用与房颤患者的结局之间的关系。本研究的目的是调查在按服务项目付费的环境中,心脏病专家的计费金额是否与更好的患者临床结局相关。
这是一项使用加拿大安大略省的心脏病专家在 2011 年 4 月 1 日至 2016 年 3 月 31 日期间的行政索赔数据进行的回顾性队列研究。根据观察期内每位患者的中位数计费模式,将心脏病专家分为五分位数。主要结局为患者在索引日期后 1 年内重复就诊、心脏诊断检查和药物治疗的情况。次要临床结局为 1 年后死亡、急诊就诊和全因住院。患者队列包括 182572 例房颤患者(中位年龄 74 岁,58%为男性),来自 467 位心脏病专家。与低计费心脏病专家相比,高计费心脏病专家的房颤患者接受超声心动图检查的可能性高 26%(五分位数 5 与 2 相比,调整后的优势比 [aOR],1.26 [95%可信区间,1.10-1.43]),进行压力测试的可能性高 28%(aOR,1.28 [1.12-1.46],五分位数 5 与 2 相比),持续心电图监测的可能性高 25%(aOR,1.25 [1.08-1.46],四分位数 4 与 2 相比),接受压力超声心动图检查的可能性高 79%(五分位数 5 与 2 相比,aOR,1.79 [1.32-2.42])。他们的全因住院率也更高(aOR,1.13 [1.07-1.20])。在按计费五分位数分层的心脏病专家中,死亡率相似(例如,四分位数 4 与 2 相比,aOR,0.98 [0.87-1.11])。
计费较高的心脏病专家为每位房颤患者开出的诊断检查更多,但这些检查与结局改善无关。