Ceara Tess Cunningham1, Nathalie Jetté1, Bing Li1, Ravneet Robyn Dhanoa1, Brenda Hemmelgarn1, Tom Noseworthy1, Cynthia A Beck1, Elijah Dixon1, Susan Samuel1, William A Ghali1, Carolyn DeCoster1, Hude Quan1. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences (Cunningham, Noseworthy, Quan), University of Calgary; Departments of Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and Community Health Sciences and Institute for Public Health (Jetté), University of Calgary; Data Integration, Measurement and Reporting (Li, DeCoster), Alberta Health Services; Faculty of Nursing (Dhanoa), University of Calgary; Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences (Hemmelgarn, Dixon, Ghali), University of Calgary; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Psychiatry (Beck), University of Calgary; Department of Pediatric Nephrology (Samuel), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are concerns that alternate payment plans for physicians may be associated with erosion of data quality, given that physicians are paid regardless of whether claims are submitted. Our objective was to determine the proportion of claims submitted by physician specialists using fee-for-service and alternative payment plans, and to identify and compare the validity of information coded in physician billing claims submitted by these specialists in Calgary. METHODS: We conducted a survey of physician specialists to determine their plan status and obtained consent to use physicians' claims data from 4 acute care hospitals in Calgary. Inpatient and emergency department services were identified from the Discharge Abstract Database for Alberta (Canadian Institute for Health Information) and the Alberta Ambulatory Care Classification System database. We linked services to claims by Alberta physicians from 2002 to 2009 by using unique patient and physician identifiers. After identifying the proportion of claims submitted, we reviewed inpatient charts to determine the completeness of submissions as defined by positive predictive value. RESULTS: Of 182 physicians who responded to the survey, 94 (51.6%) used fee-for-service plans exclusively and 51 (28.0%) used alternative payment plans exclusively. Overall completeness of physician submissions for claims was 91.8% for physicians using fee-for-service plans and 90.0% for physicians using alternative payment plans. Submission rate varied by medical specialty (surgery: 92.4% for fee for service v. 88.6% for alternative payment; internal medicine: 94.1% v. 91.3%; neurology: 95.1% v. 91.0%; and pediatrics: 95.1% v. 89.3%). Among claims submitted, the physician accuracies for billing of medical conditions were 87.8% for fee-for-service and 85.0% for alternative payment. INTERPRETATION: Overall submission rates and accuracy in recording diagnoses by physicians who used both plans were high. These findings show that the implementation of alternative payment plan programs in Alberta may not have an impact on the quality of physician claims data.
BACKGROUND: There are concerns that alternate payment plans for physicians may be associated with erosion of data quality, given that physicians are paid regardless of whether claims are submitted. Our objective was to determine the proportion of claims submitted by physician specialists using fee-for-service and alternative payment plans, and to identify and compare the validity of information coded in physician billing claims submitted by these specialists in Calgary. METHODS: We conducted a survey of physician specialists to determine their plan status and obtained consent to use physicians' claims data from 4 acute care hospitals in Calgary. Inpatient and emergency department services were identified from the Discharge Abstract Database for Alberta (Canadian Institute for Health Information) and the Alberta Ambulatory Care Classification System database. We linked services to claims by Alberta physicians from 2002 to 2009 by using unique patient and physician identifiers. After identifying the proportion of claims submitted, we reviewed inpatient charts to determine the completeness of submissions as defined by positive predictive value. RESULTS: Of 182 physicians who responded to the survey, 94 (51.6%) used fee-for-service plans exclusively and 51 (28.0%) used alternative payment plans exclusively. Overall completeness of physician submissions for claims was 91.8% for physicians using fee-for-service plans and 90.0% for physicians using alternative payment plans. Submission rate varied by medical specialty (surgery: 92.4% for fee for service v. 88.6% for alternative payment; internal medicine: 94.1% v. 91.3%; neurology: 95.1% v. 91.0%; and pediatrics: 95.1% v. 89.3%). Among claims submitted, the physician accuracies for billing of medical conditions were 87.8% for fee-for-service and 85.0% for alternative payment. INTERPRETATION: Overall submission rates and accuracy in recording diagnoses by physicians who used both plans were high. These findings show that the implementation of alternative payment plan programs in Alberta may not have an impact on the quality of physician claims data.
Authors: Helen-Maria Vasiliadis; Fatoumata Binta Diallo; Louis Rochette; Mark Smith; Donald Langille; Elizabeth Lin; Steve Kisely; Eric Fombonne; Angus H Thompson; Johanne Renaud; Alain Lesage Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Sumana Fathima; Kimberley A Simmonds; Steven J Drews; Lawrence W Svenson; Jeffrey C Kwong; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Susan Quach; Caitlin Johnson; Kevin L Schwartz; Natasha S Crowcroft; Margaret L Russell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Amity E Quinn; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Marcello Tonelli; Kerry A McBrien; Alun Edwards; Peter Senior; Peter Faris; Flora Au; Zhihai Ma; Robert G Weaver; Braden J Manns Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-11-01
Authors: Zamir Merali; Armaan K Malhotra; Michael Balas; Gianni R Lorello; Alana Flexman; Tara Kiran; Christopher D Witiw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 8.262