BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Geographic and other variations in medical practices lead to differences in medical costs, often without a clear link to health outcomes. This work examined variation in the frequency of physician visits to patients receiving hemodialysis to measure the relative importance of provider practice patterns (including those patterns linked to geographic region) and patient health in determining visit frequency. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This work analyzed a nationally representative 2006 database of patients receiving hemodialysis in the United States. A variation decomposition analysis of the relative importance of facility, geographic region, and patient characteristics--including demographics, socioeconomic status, and indicators of health status--in explaining physician visit frequency variation was conducted. Finally, the associations between facility, geographic and patient characteristics, and provider visit frequency were measured using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Patient characteristics accounted for only 0.9% of the total visit frequency variation. Accounting for case-mix differences, patients' hemodialysis facilities explained about 24.9% of visit frequency variation, of which 9.3% was explained by geographic region. Visit frequency was more closely associated with many facility and geographic characteristics than indicators of health status. More recent dialysis initiation and recent hospitalization were associated with decreased visit frequency. CONCLUSIONS: In hemodialysis, provider visit frequency depends more on geography and facility location and characteristics than patients' health status or acuity of illness. The magnitude of variation unrelated to patient health suggests that provider visit frequency practices do not reflect optimal management of patients on dialysis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Geographic and other variations in medical practices lead to differences in medical costs, often without a clear link to health outcomes. This work examined variation in the frequency of physician visits to patients receiving hemodialysis to measure the relative importance of provider practice patterns (including those patterns linked to geographic region) and patient health in determining visit frequency. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This work analyzed a nationally representative 2006 database of patients receiving hemodialysis in the United States. A variation decomposition analysis of the relative importance of facility, geographic region, and patient characteristics--including demographics, socioeconomic status, and indicators of health status--in explaining physician visit frequency variation was conducted. Finally, the associations between facility, geographic and patient characteristics, and provider visit frequency were measured using multivariable regression. RESULTS:Patient characteristics accounted for only 0.9% of the total visit frequency variation. Accounting for case-mix differences, patients' hemodialysis facilities explained about 24.9% of visit frequency variation, of which 9.3% was explained by geographic region. Visit frequency was more closely associated with many facility and geographic characteristics than indicators of health status. More recent dialysis initiation and recent hospitalization were associated with decreased visit frequency. CONCLUSIONS: In hemodialysis, provider visit frequency depends more on geography and facility location and characteristics than patients' health status or acuity of illness. The magnitude of variation unrelated to patient health suggests that provider visit frequency practices do not reflect optimal management of patients on dialysis.
Authors: Laura C Plantinga; Bernard G Jaar; Nancy E Fink; John H Sadler; Nathan W Levin; Josef Coresh; Michael J Klag; Neil R Powe Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-02-21 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Laura C Plantinga; Nancy E Fink; John H Sadler; Andrew S Levey; Nathan W Levin; Haya R Rubin; Josef Coresh; Michael J Klag; Neil R Powe Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Kevin F Erickson; Matthew Mell; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Jay Bhattacharya Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Kevin F Erickson; Matthew W Mell; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Jay Bhattacharya Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jenny I Shen; Anjali B Saxena; Maria E Montez-Rath; Lynn Leng; Tara I Chang; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: Manjula Kurella Tamura; Ann M O'Hare; Eugene Lin; Laura M Holdsworth; Elizabeth Malcolm; Alvin H Moss Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-03-03 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Ziv Harel; Ron Wald; Eric McArthur; Glenn M Chertow; Shai Harel; Andrea Gruneir; Hadas D Fischer; Amit X Garg; Jeffrey Perl; Danielle M Nash; Samuel Silver; Chaim M Bell Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 10.121