Michael I Ellenbogen1,2, Laura Prichett3, Daniel J Brotman4. 1. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. mellenb6@jhmi.edu. 2. Hopkins Business of Health Initiative, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. mellenb6@jhmi.edu. 3. Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Data Management (BEAD) Core, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overuse of diagnostic testing in the hospital setting contributes to high healthcare costs, yet the drivers of diagnostic overuse in this setting are not well-understood. If financial incentives play an important role in perpetuating hospital-level diagnostic overuse, then hospitals with favorable payer mixes might be more likely to exhibit high levels of diagnostic intensity. OBJECTIVES: To apply a previously developed hospital-level diagnostic intensity index to characterize the relationship between payer mix and diagnostic intensity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis SUBJECTS: Acute care hospitals in seven states MAIN MEASURES: We utilized a diagnostic intensity index to characterize the level of diagnostic intensity at a given hospital (with higher index values and tertiles signifying higher levels of diagnostic intensity). We used two measures of payer mix: (1) a hospital's ratio of discharges with Medicare and Medicaid as the primary payer to those with a commercial insurer as the primary payer, (2) a hospital's disproportionate share hospital ratio. KEY RESULTS: A 5-fold increase in the Medicare or Medicaid to commercial insurance ratio was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.24 (95% CI 0.16-0.36) of being in a higher tertile of the intensity index. A ten percentage point increase in the disproportionate share hospital ratio was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.56 (95% CI 0.42-0.74) of being in a higher intensity index tertile. CONCLUSIONS: At the hospital level, a favorable payer mix is associated with higher diagnostic intensity. This suggests that financial incentives may be a driver of diagnostic overuse.
BACKGROUND: Overuse of diagnostic testing in the hospital setting contributes to high healthcare costs, yet the drivers of diagnostic overuse in this setting are not well-understood. If financial incentives play an important role in perpetuating hospital-level diagnostic overuse, then hospitals with favorable payer mixes might be more likely to exhibit high levels of diagnostic intensity. OBJECTIVES: To apply a previously developed hospital-level diagnostic intensity index to characterize the relationship between payer mix and diagnostic intensity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis SUBJECTS: Acute care hospitals in seven states MAIN MEASURES: We utilized a diagnostic intensity index to characterize the level of diagnostic intensity at a given hospital (with higher index values and tertiles signifying higher levels of diagnostic intensity). We used two measures of payer mix: (1) a hospital's ratio of discharges with Medicare and Medicaid as the primary payer to those with a commercial insurer as the primary payer, (2) a hospital's disproportionate share hospital ratio. KEY RESULTS: A 5-fold increase in the Medicare or Medicaid to commercial insurance ratio was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.24 (95% CI 0.16-0.36) of being in a higher tertile of the intensity index. A ten percentage point increase in the disproportionate share hospital ratio was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.56 (95% CI 0.42-0.74) of being in a higher intensity index tertile. CONCLUSIONS: At the hospital level, a favorable payer mix is associated with higher diagnostic intensity. This suggests that financial incentives may be a driver of diagnostic overuse.
Authors: John M Hollingsworth; Zaojun Ye; Seth A Strope; Sarah L Krein; Ann T Hollenbeck; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Carrie H Colla; Nancy E Morden; Thomas D Sequist; William L Schpero; Meredith B Rosenthal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Mary A M Rogers; Michael E Chernew; Harlan M Krumholz; Kim A Eagle; John D Birkmeyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-03-07 Impact factor: 56.272