OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate an administrative data-based risk adjustment method for predicting physician utilization and the contribution of survey-derived indicators of health status. The results of this study will support the use of administrative data for planning, reimbursement, and assessing equity of physician utilization. METHODS: The Ontario portion of the 2000-2001 Canadian Community Health Survey was linked with administrative physician claims data from 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Explanatory models of family physician (FP) and specialist physician (SP) utilization were run using demographic information and The Johns Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) Case-mix System. Survey-based measures of health status were then added to the models. The coefficient of determination, R, indicated the models' explanatory power. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 25,558 individuals aged 20 to 79 years representing approximately 7.8 million people. Over the 2 years of study period, 82.5% of the study population had a FP visit with a median of 6 visits and 53.2% had a SP visit with a median of 1 visit. The R values based on administrative data alone were 33% and 21% for the frequency of FP and SP visits and 16% and 35% for having one or more visit to an FPs and SPs, respectively. The addition of the survey-based measures to the administrative data-based models produced less than a 2% increase in explanatory power for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Administrative data-based measures of morbidity burden are valid and useful indicators of future physician utilization. The survey-derived measures used in this study did not contribute significantly to models on the basis of administrative data-based measures. These findings support the future use of administrative data-based data and Adjusted Clinical Groups for planning, reimbursement, and research.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate an administrative data-based risk adjustment method for predicting physician utilization and the contribution of survey-derived indicators of health status. The results of this study will support the use of administrative data for planning, reimbursement, and assessing equity of physician utilization. METHODS: The Ontario portion of the 2000-2001 Canadian Community Health Survey was linked with administrative physician claims data from 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Explanatory models of family physician (FP) and specialist physician (SP) utilization were run using demographic information and The Johns Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) Case-mix System. Survey-based measures of health status were then added to the models. The coefficient of determination, R, indicated the models' explanatory power. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 25,558 individuals aged 20 to 79 years representing approximately 7.8 million people. Over the 2 years of study period, 82.5% of the study population had a FP visit with a median of 6 visits and 53.2% had a SP visit with a median of 1 visit. The R values based on administrative data alone were 33% and 21% for the frequency of FP and SP visits and 16% and 35% for having one or more visit to an FPs and SPs, respectively. The addition of the survey-based measures to the administrative data-based models produced less than a 2% increase in explanatory power for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Administrative data-based measures of morbidity burden are valid and useful indicators of future physician utilization. The survey-derived measures used in this study did not contribute significantly to models on the basis of administrative data-based measures. These findings support the future use of administrative data-based data and Adjusted Clinical Groups for planning, reimbursement, and research.
Authors: Elizabeth A Bayliss; Jennifer L Ellis; Jo Ann Shoup; Chan Zeng; Deanna B McQuillan; John F Steiner Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Amaia Calderón-Larrañaga; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Anselmo López-Cabañas; José Tomás Alcalá-Nalvaiz; José María Abad-Díez; Daniel Bordonaba-Bosque; Alexandra Prados-Torres Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Juan F Orueta; Roberto Nuño-Solinis; Maider Mateos; Itziar Vergara; Gonzalo Grandes; Santiago Esnaola Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Richard Birtwhistle; Rachael Morkem; George Peat; Tyler Williamson; Michael E Green; Shahriar Khan; Kelvin P Jordan Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2015-07-17
Authors: Shelley-Ann M Girwar; Robert Jabroer; Marta Fiocco; Stephen P Sutch; Mattijs E Numans; Marc A Bruijnzeels Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-23