CONTEXT: Managed care, increased disease severity, and more complex treatment options may be reasons for the recent enthusiasm for "hospitalists"--physicians who specialize in the care of inpatients. It is not clear, however, whether hospitalism is a new model for caring for inpatients or merely a new description for previously existing practice patterns. PRACTICE PATTERNS EXAMINED: The proportion of physician visits occurring in the hospital before the introduction of the term hospitalists. Five specialties were examined: family/general practice, general internal medicine, cardiology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology. DATA SOURCE: 1994 Medicare Part B claims data for beneficiaries 65 years of age and older who received all of their care in Washington State. RESULTS: For the average family/general practitioner, 10% of all Medicare visits occurred in the hospital. Corresponding figures for the other specialties were 20% for general internists, 36% for cardiologists, 38% for gastroenterologists, and 45% for pulmonologists. A substantial number of physicians devoted most of their Medicare effort to inpatient care (i.e., hospital visits > 50% of total visits). If this definition were used as a proxy for hospitalism, 4% of family/general practitioners, 10% of general internists, 20% of gastroenterologists, 29% of cardiologists, and 37% of pulmonologists would have been considered hospitalists in Washington State during 1994. On the other hand, 35% of family/general practitioners, 18% of general internists, 7% of both gastroenterologists and pulmonologists, and 4% of cardiologists did not bill Medicare for any inpatient visits and could reasonably be categorized as "officists." CONCLUSION: Physicians vary considerably in the proportion of their workload that occurs in the hospital or outpatient setting. Even before the term was coined, a considerable number of physicians were de facto "hospitalists."
CONTEXT: Managed care, increased disease severity, and more complex treatment options may be reasons for the recent enthusiasm for "hospitalists"--physicians who specialize in the care of inpatients. It is not clear, however, whether hospitalism is a new model for caring for inpatients or merely a new description for previously existing practice patterns. PRACTICE PATTERNS EXAMINED: The proportion of physician visits occurring in the hospital before the introduction of the term hospitalists. Five specialties were examined: family/general practice, general internal medicine, cardiology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology. DATA SOURCE: 1994 Medicare Part B claims data for beneficiaries 65 years of age and older who received all of their care in Washington State. RESULTS: For the average family/general practitioner, 10% of all Medicare visits occurred in the hospital. Corresponding figures for the other specialties were 20% for general internists, 36% for cardiologists, 38% for gastroenterologists, and 45% for pulmonologists. A substantial number of physicians devoted most of their Medicare effort to inpatient care (i.e., hospital visits > 50% of total visits). If this definition were used as a proxy for hospitalism, 4% of family/general practitioners, 10% of general internists, 20% of gastroenterologists, 29% of cardiologists, and 37% of pulmonologists would have been considered hospitalists in Washington State during 1994. On the other hand, 35% of family/general practitioners, 18% of general internists, 7% of both gastroenterologists and pulmonologists, and 4% of cardiologists did not bill Medicare for any inpatient visits and could reasonably be categorized as "officists." CONCLUSION: Physicians vary considerably in the proportion of their workload that occurs in the hospital or outpatient setting. Even before the term was coined, a considerable number of physicians were de facto "hospitalists."
Authors: Rajiv Thakkar; Scott M Wright; Patrick Alguire; Robert S Wigton; Romsai T Boonyasai Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 5.128