Literature DB >> 27714791

Misclassification Risk of Tier-Based Physician Quality Performance Systems.

John L Adams1, Susan M Paddock2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing interest in identifying high-quality physicians, such as whether physicians perform above or below a threshold level. To evaluate whether current methods accurately distinguish above- versus below-threshold physicians, we estimate misclassification rates for two-category identification systems. DATA SOURCES: Claims data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries residing in Florida or New York in 2010. STUDY
DESIGN: Estimate colorectal cancer, glaucoma, and diabetes quality scores for 23,085 physicians. Use a beta-binomial model to estimate physician score reliabilities. Compute the proportion of physicians whose performance tier would be misclassified under three scoring systems. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: In the three scoring systems, misclassification ranges were 8.6-25.7 percent, 6.4-22.8 percent, and 4.5-21.7%. True positive rate ranges were 72.9-97.0 percent, 83.4-100.0 percent, and 34.7-88.2 percent. True negative rate ranges were 68.5-91.6 percent, 10.5-92.4 percent, and 81.1-99.9 percent. Positive predictive value ranges were 70.5-91.6 percent, 77.0-97.3 percent, and 55.2-99.1 percent.
CONCLUSIONS: Current methods for profiling physicians on quality may produce misleading results, as the number of eligible events is typically small. Misclassification is a policy-relevant measure of the potential impact of tiering on providers, payers, and patients. Quantifying misclassification rates should inform the construction of high-performance networks and quality improvement initiatives. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  High-performance networks; misclassification; provider profiling; quality of care; reliability

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27714791      PMCID: PMC5517673          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12561

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  18 in total

1.  Assessing the accuracy of hospital clinical performance measures.

Authors:  Sharon-Lise T Normand; Robert E Wolf; John Z Ayanian; Barbara J McNeil
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  High-performance health plan networks: early experiences.

Authors:  Debra A Draper; Allison Liebhaber; Paul B Ginsburg
Journal:  Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change       Date:  2007-05

3.  Consumer experience with a tiered physician network: early evidence.

Authors:  Anna D Sinaiko; Meredith B Rosenthal
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Better-than-average and worse-than-average hospitals may not significantly differ from average hospitals: an analysis of Medicare Hospital Compare ratings.

Authors:  Susan M Paddock; John L Adams; Fernando Hoces de la Guardia
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 7.035

5.  The use and abuse of practice profiles.

Authors:  J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-03-03       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Percentile-based Empirical Distribution Function Estimates for Performance Evaluation of Healthcare Providers.

Authors:  Susan M Paddock; Thomas A Louis
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.864

7.  The unreliability of individual physician "report cards" for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease.

Authors:  T P Hofer; R A Hayward; S Greenfield; E H Wagner; S H Kaplan; W G Manning
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information.

Authors:  Rachel M Werner; David A Asch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Benchmarking physician performance: reliability of individual and composite measures.

Authors:  Sarah Hudson Scholle; Joachim Roski; John L Adams; Daniel L Dunn; Eve A Kerr; Donna Pillittere Dugan; Roxanne E Jensen
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.229

10.  Reliability of patient responses in pay for performance schemes: analysis of national General Practitioner Patient Survey data in England.

Authors:  Martin Roland; Marc Elliott; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Josephine Barbiere; Richard A Parker; Patten Smith; Peter Bower; John Campbell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-09-29
View more
  1 in total

1.  Relative contribution of pharmacists and primary care providers to shared quality measures.

Authors:  Benjamin Y Urick; Shweta Pathak; Seth D Cook; Valerie A Smith; Patrick J Campbell; Mel L Nelson; Lee Holland; Matthew K Pickering
Journal:  Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm       Date:  2022-07-31
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.