Riester Melissa R, Ryskina Kira L, White Elizabeth M, Hayes Kaleen N, Harris Daniel A, Zullo Andrew R
Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI.
Center for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI.
Med Care. 2025 Jul 1;63(7):520-528. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000002161. Epub 2025 Apr 28.
Physicians and advanced practice clinicians who practice in nursing homes (NHs) are becoming increasingly specialized. Studies have identified clinicians as NH specialists using multiple data sources; yet, researchers' access to several sources may be limited due to required data purchases.
Examine the concordance of 2 approaches to measure NH specialization versus a standard approach using clinician-level Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty (MD-PPAS). These alternative approaches leveraged: (1) publicly available clinician-level Medicare Part B data; and (2) patient-level Medicare Part D Event claims linked to publicly available clinician-level Medicare Part D prescribers data.
Yearly cross-sections from 2016 to 2020.
Physicians and advanced practice clinicians with at least one Medicare-paid service to NH residents and at least 100 total services in a given year.
Nursing home specialists were classified as clinicians with ≥90% of annual services provided to NH residents.
Between 2016 and 2020, NH specialists comprised 49,542 of 321,267 eligible clinician-years (15.4%) in MD-PPAS data; 35,983 of 189,992 eligible clinician-years (18.9%) in Part B data; and 31,148 of 1,101,484 eligible clinician-years (2.8%) in Part D data. Compared with the MD-PPAS approach, the concordance was greater for the Part B approach (sensitivity 71.8%, specificity 99.7%) than the Part D approach (39.4%, 97.6%).
There were large differences in the numbers of eligible clinicians and NH specialists identified by 3 approaches. The Part B approach was reasonably concordant with the MD-PPAS approach and could be considered by researchers without the financial resources required to purchase MD-PPAS data.
在疗养院(NHs)执业的医生和高级执业临床医生日益呈现专业化趋势。研究已通过多种数据来源将临床医生确定为NH专家;然而,由于需要购买数据,研究人员获取多种数据来源的途径可能有限。
使用临床医生层面的医疗保险提供者执业与专业数据(MD-PPAS),检验两种衡量NH专业化的方法与一种标准方法之间的一致性。这些替代方法利用了:(1)公开可用的临床医生层面医疗保险B部分数据;以及(2)与公开可用的临床医生层面医疗保险D部分开处方者数据相关联的患者层面医疗保险D部分事件索赔数据。
2016年至2020年的年度横断面研究。
为NH居民提供至少一项医疗保险付费服务且在给定年份提供至少100项服务的医生和高级执业临床医生。
疗养院专家被归类为每年为NH居民提供≥90%服务的临床医生。
在2016年至2020年期间,MD-PPAS数据中,NH专家占321,267个符合条件的临床医生年中的49,542个(15.4%);B部分数据中,占189,992个符合条件的临床医生年中的35,983个(18.9%);D部分数据中,占1,101,484个符合条件的临床医生年中的31,148个(2.8%)。与MD-PPAS方法相比,B部分方法的一致性(敏感性71.8%,特异性99.7%)高于D部分方法(39.4%,97.6%)。
三种方法确定的符合条件的临床医生和NH专家数量存在很大差异。B部分方法与MD-PPAS方法具有合理的一致性,没有购买MD-PPAS数据所需资金的研究人员可以考虑使用该方法。