Literature DB >> 33020920

Health system affiliation of physician organizations and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries who have high needs.

Ashley M Kranz1, Maria DeYoreo2, Blen Eshete-Roesler2, Cheryl L Damberg2, Mark Totten2, José J Escarce3,4, Justin W Timbie1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that health systems provide better care to patients with high needs by comparing differences in quality between system-affiliated and nonaffiliated physician organizations (POs) and to examine variability in quality across health systems. DATA SOURCES: 2015 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty linked physicians to POs. Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) and IRS Form 990 data identified health system affiliations. Fee-for-service Medicare enrollment and claims data were used to examine quality. STUDY
DESIGN: This cross-sectional analysis of beneficiaries with high needs, defined as having more than twice the expected spending of an average beneficiary, examined six quality measures: continuity of care, follow-up visits after hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, ED visits, all-cause readmissions, and ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations. Using a matched-pair design, we estimated beneficiary-level regression models with PO random effects to compare quality of care in system-affiliated and nonaffiliated POs. We then limited the sample to system-affiliated POs and estimated models with system random effects to examine variability in quality across systems. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Among 2 323 301 beneficiaries with high needs, 52.3% received care from system-affiliated POs. Rates of ED visits were statistically significantly different in system-affiliated POs (117.5 per 100) and nonaffiliated POs (106.8 per 100, P < .0001). Small differences in the other five quality measures were observed across a range of sensitivity analyses. Among systems, substantial variation was observed for rates of continuity of care (90% of systems had rates between 70.8% and 89.4%) and follow-up after ED visits (90% of systems had rates between 56.9% and 73.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Small differences in quality of care were observed among beneficiaries with high needs receiving care from system POs and nonsystem POs. Health systems may not confer hypothesized quality advantages to patients with high needs. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medicare; health care delivery; health care systems; quality of health care; vulnerable populations

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33020920      PMCID: PMC7720706          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13570

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


  23 in total

1.  Increased Use of Care Management Processes and Expanded Health Information Technology Functions by Practice Ownership and Medicaid Revenue.

Authors:  Hector P Rodriguez; Sean R McClellan; Salma Bibi; Lawrence P Casalino; Patricia P Ramsay; Stephen M Shortell
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 3.929

2.  Composite Measures of Health Care Provider Performance: A Description of Approaches.

Authors:  Michael Shwartz; Joseph D Restuccia; Amy K Rosen
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Independent practice associations and physician-hospital organizations can improve care management for smaller practices.

Authors:  Lawrence P Casalino; Frances M Wu; Andrew M Ryan; Kennon Copeland; Diane R Rittenhouse; Patricia P Ramsay; Stephen M Shortell
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  What Are the Determinants of Health System Performance? Findings from the Literature and a Technical Expert Panel.

Authors:  M Susan Ridgely; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Ashlyn Tom; Mary E Vaiana; Aneesa Motala; Marissa Silverman; Alice Kim; Cheryl L Damberg; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2019-12-16

6.  Health system affiliation of physician organizations and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries who have high needs.

Authors:  Ashley M Kranz; Maria DeYoreo; Blen Eshete-Roesler; Cheryl L Damberg; Mark Totten; José J Escarce; Justin W Timbie
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 7.  Vertical Integration of Hospitals and Physicians: Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence on Spending and Quality.

Authors:  Brady Post; Tom Buchmueller; Andrew M Ryan
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  A systematic review of vertical integration and quality of care, efficiency, and patient-centered outcomes.

Authors:  Rachel M Machta; Kristin A Maurer; David J Jones; Michael F Furukawa; Eugene C Rich
Journal:  Health Care Manage Rev       Date:  2019 Apr/Jun

9.  Health information technology for ambulatory care in health systems.

Authors:  Yunfeng Shi; Alejandro Amill-Rosario; Robert S Rudin; Shira H Fischer; Paul Shekelle; Dennis Scanlon; Cheryl L Damberg
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.229

10.  Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.894

View more
  4 in total

1.  Health system affiliation of physician organizations and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries who have high needs.

Authors:  Ashley M Kranz; Maria DeYoreo; Blen Eshete-Roesler; Cheryl L Damberg; Mark Totten; José J Escarce; Justin W Timbie
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Hospital-cardiologist integration often occurs without a practice acquisition.

Authors:  Brady Post; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Brent Hollenbeck
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Quality Indicators for High-Need Patients: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Todd Schneberk; Maria Bolshakova; Kylie Sloan; Evelyn Chang; Julia Stal; Jennifer Dinalo; Elvira Jimenez; Aneesa Motala; Susanne Hempel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 6.473

4.  Making integration work.

Authors:  David Blumenthal
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 3.402

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.