Brett Pinsky1, James Harnett2, Ryne Paulose-Ram3, Jack Mardekian4, Navendu Samant5, Kavita V Nair6. 1. Senior Researcher, OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN. 2. Senior Director, US Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer, NY. 3. Director, US Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer, NY. 4. Outcomes Research Statistical Scientist, Pfizer, NY. 5. Research Analyst (at the time this study was conducted), OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN. 6. Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Studies, Pharmaceutical and Outcomes Research, University of Colorado Denver.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Committee for Quality Assurance supports high-quality care for patients through the Diabetes Recognition Program (DRP). The DRP recognizes physicians and practices that are providing high-quality diabetes care as determined by 10 key measures. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of treatment by DRP-certified physicians compared with non-DRP-certified physicians on patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis was conducted from January 1, 2007, through November 30, 2007, using a large US database of approximately 14 million commercially insured members. Physicians with DRP certification (N = 1188) were identified and matched 1:1 to physicians without DRP certification based on physician specialty, location (state) of practice, size of potential patient population, and number of patients with type 2 diabetes treated by the physician. Patients were included if they had type 2 diabetes and had been treated by a physician in the DRP group (N = 3836) or in the comparison group (N = 4175). Primary outcomes were medication use, medical resource utilization, and expenditures. Per-patient per-year (PPPY) medical and pharmacy utilization measures were analyzed using Poisson regression; PPPY expenditures were estimated using a generalized linear model with gamma distribution. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated by DRP-certified physicians had more postindex diabetes-related office visits (mean PPPY, 4.69 vs 4.44, respectively; P <.001) and outpatient visits (mean PPPY, 0.93 vs 0.85, respectively; P <.001) than patients treated by non-DRP-certified physicians, but fewer emergency department visits (mean PPPY, 0.04 vs 0.07, respectively; P <.001) and inpatient visits (mean PPPY, 0.08 vs 0.10, respectively; P = .02). Prescribing rates for oral antihyperglycemic drugs and statins were higher among DRP-certified physicians than non-DRP-certified physicians. Total diabetes-related healthcare expenditures were lower for patients with type 2 diabetes managed by DRP-certified physicians compared with those managed by non-DRP-certified physicians (mean PPPY, $3424 vs $4097, respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in oral antihyperglycemic and statin drug use, and diabetes-related emergency department and inpatient visits and expenditures, were observed in this study between DRP-certified and non-DRP-certified physicians, showing overall improved outcomes for patients managed by DRP-certified physicians.
BACKGROUND: The National Committee for Quality Assurance supports high-quality care for patients through the Diabetes Recognition Program (DRP). The DRP recognizes physicians and practices that are providing high-quality diabetes care as determined by 10 key measures. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of treatment by DRP-certified physicians compared with non-DRP-certified physicians on patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis was conducted from January 1, 2007, through November 30, 2007, using a large US database of approximately 14 million commercially insured members. Physicians with DRP certification (N = 1188) were identified and matched 1:1 to physicians without DRP certification based on physician specialty, location (state) of practice, size of potential patient population, and number of patients with type 2 diabetes treated by the physician. Patients were included if they had type 2 diabetes and had been treated by a physician in the DRP group (N = 3836) or in the comparison group (N = 4175). Primary outcomes were medication use, medical resource utilization, and expenditures. Per-patient per-year (PPPY) medical and pharmacy utilization measures were analyzed using Poisson regression; PPPY expenditures were estimated using a generalized linear model with gamma distribution. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated by DRP-certified physicians had more postindex diabetes-related office visits (mean PPPY, 4.69 vs 4.44, respectively; P <.001) and outpatient visits (mean PPPY, 0.93 vs 0.85, respectively; P <.001) than patients treated by non-DRP-certified physicians, but fewer emergency department visits (mean PPPY, 0.04 vs 0.07, respectively; P <.001) and inpatient visits (mean PPPY, 0.08 vs 0.10, respectively; P = .02). Prescribing rates for oral antihyperglycemic drugs and statins were higher among DRP-certified physicians than non-DRP-certified physicians. Total diabetes-related healthcare expenditures were lower for patients with type 2 diabetes managed by DRP-certified physicians compared with those managed by non-DRP-certified physicians (mean PPPY, $3424 vs $4097, respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in oral antihyperglycemic and statin drug use, and diabetes-related emergency department and inpatient visits and expenditures, were observed in this study between DRP-certified and non-DRP-certified physicians, showing overall improved outcomes for patients managed by DRP-certified physicians.
Authors: Clemens S Hong; Steven J Atlas; Yuchiao Chang; S V Subramanian; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Michael J Barry; Richard W Grant Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Suan Ee Ong; Joel Jun Kai Koh; Sue-Anne Ee Shiow Toh; Kee Seng Chia; Dina Balabanova; Martin McKee; Pablo Perel; Helena Legido-Quigley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240