Helen M Parsons1, Lindsey R Enewold, Robert Banks, Michael J Barrett, Joan L Warren. 1. *Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX †Healthcare Delivery Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda ‡Information Management Services Inc., Calverton, MD.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many health services researchers are interested in assessing long term, individual physician treatment patterns, particularly for cancer care. In 2007, Medicare changed the physician identifier used on billed services from the Unique Physician Identification Number (UPIN) to the National Provider Identifier (NPI), precluding the ability to use Medicare claims data to evaluate individual physician treatment patterns across this transition period. METHODS: Using the 2007-2008 carrier (physician) claims from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry-Medicare data and Medicare's NPI and UPIN Directories, we created a crosswalk that paired physician NPIs included in SEER-Medicare data with UPINs. We evaluated the ability to identify an NPI-UPIN match by physician sex and specialty. RESULTS: We identified 470,313 unique NPIs in the 2007-2008 SEER-Medicare carrier claims and found a UPIN match for 90.1% of these NPIs (n=423,842) based on 3 approaches: (1) NPI and UPIN coreported on the SEER-Medicare claims; (2) UPINs reported on the NPI Directory; or (3) a name match between the NPI and UPIN Directories. A total of 46.6% (n=219,315) of NPIs matched to the same UPIN across all 3 approaches, 34.1% (n=160,277) agreed across 2 approaches, and 9.4% (n=44,250) had a match identified by 1 approach only. NPIs were paired to UPINs less frequently for women and primary care physicians compared with other specialists. DISCUSSION: National Cancer Institute has created a crosswalk resource available to researchers that links NPIs and UPINs based on the SEER-Medicare data. In addition, the documented process could be used to create other NPI-UPIN crosswalks using data beyond SEER-Medicare.
INTRODUCTION: Many health services researchers are interested in assessing long term, individual physician treatment patterns, particularly for cancer care. In 2007, Medicare changed the physician identifier used on billed services from the Unique Physician Identification Number (UPIN) to the National Provider Identifier (NPI), precluding the ability to use Medicare claims data to evaluate individual physician treatment patterns across this transition period. METHODS: Using the 2007-2008 carrier (physician) claims from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry-Medicare data and Medicare's NPI and UPIN Directories, we created a crosswalk that paired physician NPIs included in SEER-Medicare data with UPINs. We evaluated the ability to identify an NPI-UPIN match by physician sex and specialty. RESULTS: We identified 470,313 unique NPIs in the 2007-2008 SEER-Medicare carrier claims and found a UPIN match for 90.1% of these NPIs (n=423,842) based on 3 approaches: (1) NPI and UPIN coreported on the SEER-Medicare claims; (2) UPINs reported on the NPI Directory; or (3) a name match between the NPI and UPIN Directories. A total of 46.6% (n=219,315) of NPIs matched to the same UPIN across all 3 approaches, 34.1% (n=160,277) agreed across 2 approaches, and 9.4% (n=44,250) had a match identified by 1 approach only. NPIs were paired to UPINs less frequently for women and primary care physicians compared with other specialists. DISCUSSION: National Cancer Institute has created a crosswalk resource available to researchers that links NPIs and UPINs based on the SEER-Medicare data. In addition, the documented process could be used to create other NPI-UPIN crosswalks using data beyond SEER-Medicare.
Authors: Shi-Yi Wang; Rong Wang; James B Yu; Xiaomei Ma; Xiao Xu; Simon P Kim; Pamela R Soulos; Avantika Saraf; Cary P Gross Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kathleen T Unroe; Melissa A Greiner; Adrian F Hernandez; David J Whellan; Padma Kaul; Kevin A Schulman; Eric D Peterson; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-10-11
Authors: Eva H DuGoff; Justin E Bekelman; Elizabeth A Stuart; Katrina Armstrong; Craig Evan Pollack Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Gabriel A Brooks; Ling Li; Hajime Uno; Michael J Hassett; Bruce E Landon; Deborah Schrag Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jennifer M Weiss; Deborah Schrag; Katie Ronk; Jeffrey Havlena; Noelle K LoConte; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Yun Zhang; Alon Z Weizer; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Scott M Gilbert; Seth A Strope; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Paweł Krawczyk; Rodryg Ramlau; Joanna Chorostowska-Wynimko; Tomasz Powrózek; Marzena Anna Lewandowska; Janusz Limon; Bartosz Wasąg; Juliusz Pankowski; Jerzy Kozielski; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Aleksandra Szczęsna; Kamila Wojas-Krawczyk; Michał Skroński; Rafał Dziadziuszko; Paulina Jaguś; Ewelina Antoszewska; Justyna Szumiło; Bożena Jarosz; Aldona Woźniak; Wojciech Jóźwicki; Wojciech Dyszkiewicz; Monika Pasieka-Lis; Dariusz M Kowalski; Maciej Krzakowski; Jacek Jassem; Janusz Milanowski Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Lisa C Lindley; Jessica Keim-Malpass; Melanie J Cozad; Jennifer W Mack; Radion Svynarenko; Mary Lou Clark Fornehed; Whitney Stone; Kerri Qualls; Pamela S Hinds Journal: J Hosp Palliat Nurs Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.918
Authors: Lisa M Kern; Joanna B Ringel; Mangala Rajan; Lisandro D Colantonio; Lawrence P Casalino; Laura C Pinheiro; Evgeniya Reshetnyak; Monika M Safford Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.178