Mark S Bauer1, Deane Leader, Hyong Un, Zongshan Lai, Amy M Kilbourne. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School & Center for Organization, Leadership, & Management Research (COLMR), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA 02130, USA. mark.bauer@va.gov
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We investigated the size profile of US primary care and behavioral health physician practices since size may impact the ability to institute care management processes (CMPs) that can enhance care quality. METHOD: We utilized 2009 claims data from a nationwide commercial insurer to estimate practice size by linking providers by tax identification number. We determined the proportion of primary care physicians, psychiatrists, and behavioral health providers practicing in venues of >20 providers per practice (the lower bound for current CMP practice surveys). RESULTS: Among primary care physicians (n=350,350), only 2.1% of practices consisted of >20 providers. Among behavioral health practitioners (n=146,992) and psychiatrists (n=44,449), 1.3% and 1.0% of practices, respectively, had >20 providers. Sensitivity analysis excluding single-physician practices as "secondary" confirmed findings, with primary care and psychiatrist practices of >20 providers comprising, respectively, only 19.4% and 8.8% of practices (difference: P<0.0001). In secondary analyses, bipolar disorder was used as a tracer condition to estimate practice census for a high-complexity, high-cost behavioral health condition; only 1.3-18 patients per practice had claims for this condition. CONCLUSIONS: The tax identification number method for estimating practice size has strengths and limitations that complement those of survey methods. The proportion of practices below the lower bound of prior CMP studies is substantial, and care models and policies will need to address the needs of such practices and their patients. Achieving a critical mass of patients for disorder-specific CMPs will require coordination across multiple small practices.
INTRODUCTION: We investigated the size profile of US primary care and behavioral health physician practices since size may impact the ability to institute care management processes (CMPs) that can enhance care quality. METHOD: We utilized 2009 claims data from a nationwide commercial insurer to estimate practice size by linking providers by tax identification number. We determined the proportion of primary care physicians, psychiatrists, and behavioral health providers practicing in venues of >20 providers per practice (the lower bound for current CMP practice surveys). RESULTS: Among primary care physicians (n=350,350), only 2.1% of practices consisted of >20 providers. Among behavioral health practitioners (n=146,992) and psychiatrists (n=44,449), 1.3% and 1.0% of practices, respectively, had >20 providers. Sensitivity analysis excluding single-physician practices as "secondary" confirmed findings, with primary care and psychiatrist practices of >20 providers comprising, respectively, only 19.4% and 8.8% of practices (difference: P<0.0001). In secondary analyses, bipolar disorder was used as a tracer condition to estimate practice census for a high-complexity, high-cost behavioral health condition; only 1.3-18 patients per practice had claims for this condition. CONCLUSIONS: The tax identification number method for estimating practice size has strengths and limitations that complement those of survey methods. The proportion of practices below the lower bound of prior CMP studies is substantial, and care models and policies will need to address the needs of such practices and their patients. Achieving a critical mass of patients for disorder-specific CMPs will require coordination across multiple small practices.
Authors: Mark S Bauer; Lori Altshuler; Denise R Evans; Thomas Beresford; William O Williford; Richard Hauger Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Howard H Fenn; Mark S Bauer; Lori Altshuler; Lori Alshuler; Denise R Evans; William O Williford; Amy M Kilbourne; Thomas P Beresford; Gail Kirk; Margaret Stedman; Louis Fiore Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Lawrence Casalino; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell; Julie A Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; James C Robinson; Thomas Rundall; Nancy Oswald; Helen Schauffler; Margaret C Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003 Jan 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shawna N Smith; Daniel Almirall; Katherine Prenovost; Celeste Liebrecht; Julia Kyle; Daniel Eisenberg; Mark S Bauer; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David Meyers; Lisa LeRoy; Michael Bailit; Judith Schaefer; Edward Wagner; Chunliu Zhan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christopher J Miller; Andrew Grogan-Kaylor; Brian E Perron; Amy M Kilbourne; Emily Woltmann; Mark S Bauer Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Hillary Samples; Elizabeth A Stuart; Brendan Saloner; Colleen L Barry; Ramin Mojtabai Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kevin A Hallgren; Elizabeth Witwer; Imara West; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Dennis Donovan; Brenda Stuvek; Gina A Keppel; Brenda Mollis; Kari A Stephens Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-11-16
Authors: James E Aikens; Marcia Valenstein; Melissa A Plegue; Ananda Sen; Nicolle Marinec; Eric Achtyes; John D Piette Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.536