Dataset Information

The impact of tiered physician networks on patient choices.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess whether patient choice of physician or health plan was affected by physician tier-rankings.

Data sources

Administrative claims and enrollment data on 171,581 nonelderly beneficiaries enrolled in Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission health plans that include a tiered physician network and who had an office visit with a tiered physician.

Study design

We estimate the impact of tier-rankings on physician market share within a plan of new patients and on the percent of a physician's patients who switch to other physicians with fixed effects regression models. The effect of tiering on consumer plan choice is estimated using logistic regression and a pre-post study design.

Principal findings

Physicians in the bottom (least-preferred) tier, particularly certain specialist physicians, had lower market share of new patient visits than physicians with higher tier-rankings. Patients whose physician was in the bottom tier were more likely to switch health plans. There was no effect of tier-ranking on patients switching away from physicians whom they have seen previously.

Conclusions

The effect of tiering appears to be among patients who choose new physicians and at the lower end of the distribution of tiered physicians, rather than moving patients to the "best" performers. These findings suggest strong loyalty of patients to physicians more likely to be considered their personal doctor.

SUBMITTER: Sinaiko AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4239853 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of tiered physician networks on patient choices.

Sinaiko Anna D AD Rosenthal Meredith B MB

Health services research 20140311 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether patient choice of physician or health plan was affected by physician tier-rankings.<h4>Data sources</h4>Administrative claims and enrollment data on 171,581 nonelderly beneficiaries enrolled in Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission health plans that include a tiered physician network and who had an office visit with a tiered physician.<h4>Study design</h4>We estimate the impact of tier-rankings on physician market share within a plan of new patients and on ...[more]

PMID: 24611599

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTiered physician network (TPN) health plans sort physicians into tiers based on their cost and quality, and patients pay lower copays for visits with physicians in the lower-cost and better-quality tiers. When the plans are first introduced, they lead patients to seek care from higher-value physicians.ObjectivesTo examine whether TPNs are associated with patient choice of physician when the plans have been in place for 8 to 12 years and whether there are inequities in patient out-of-pocket costs associated with inequities in access to physicians in lower-copay tiers.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study comprising 46 645 physicians and 585 399 patients in TPNs, including 54 683 patients who had a new patient visit with a physician in a TPN, used health insurance claims data from a large employer purchaser from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2020 to August 2023.ExposureEvaluation and management visit with a physician in a TPN.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes were new patient market share per physician-carrier-zip code-year, distance from centroid of patient zip code to centroid of zip code of nearest low- or medium-copay physician, and mean TPN physician office visit copay per patient. A regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the association of a physician's tier ranking, and a difference-in-differences analysis was used to estimate the association of copayment differences across tiers with market share among new patients. Equity in access was measured by comparing travel distance to the nearest physician in a low-copay or medium-copay tier and mean copayments across patient incomes.ResultsThe main analysis sample included 46 645 physician-carrier-zip code-year observations, 9506 (20.4%) of which were in the low-copay tier, 31 798 (68.2%) in the medium-copay tier, and 5341 (11.5%) in the high-copay tier. The 54 683 new patients in the sample had a mean (SD) age of 46.4 (16.7) years and included 33 542 women (61.3%). There was no association of having a worse tier ranking (0.045 percentage points [95% CI, -0.058 to 0.148 percentage points]) or of copayment differences between tiers (0.001 percentage points [95% CI, -0.002 to 0.004 percentage points]) with physician market share among new patients. The patients with the lowest income paid slightly lower mean (SD) copayments for office visits to a TPN physician than the patients with high income ($48.08 [$16.42] vs $51.59 [$16.79], a 6.8% difference).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of TPN health plans, there was no association between physician tier ranking and physician market share among any group of patients. These findings suggest there are limitations in TPNs' steering of patients toward high-value physicians. These plans were not associated with exacerbated health inequity in this setting.

Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify shared patient relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists and oncologists and the degree to which those relationships were captured within insurance networks.Data sourcesSecondary analysis of Vericred data on physician networks, CareSet data on physicians' shared Medicare patients, and insurance plan attributes from Health Insurance Compare. Data validation exercises used data from Physician Compare and IQVIA.Study designCross-sectional study of the PCP-to-specialist in-network shared patient percentage (primary outcome). We also categorized networks by insurance market segment (Medicare Advantage [MA], Medicaid managed care, small-group or individually purchased), insurance plan type, and network breadth.Data extractionWe analyzed data on 219,982 PCPs, 29,400 cardiologists, and 22,745 oncologists who, in 2021, accepted MA (n = 941 networks), Medicaid managed care (n = 293), and individually-purchased (n = 332) and small-group (n = 501) plans.Principal findingsNetworks captured, on average, 64.6% of PCP-cardiology shared patient ties, and 61.8% of PCP-oncologist ties. Less than half of in-network ties (44.5% and 38.9%, respectively) were among physicians with a common organizational affiliation. After adjustment for network breadth, we found no evidence of differences in the shared patient percentage across insurance market segments or networks of different types (p-value >0.05 for all comparisons). An exception was among national versus local and regional networks, where we found that national plans captured fewer shared patient ties, particularly among the narrowest networks (58.4% for national networksvs. 64.7% for local and regional networks for PCP-cardiology).ConclusionsGiven recent trends toward narrower networks, our findings underscore the importance of incorporating additional and nuanced measures of network composition to aid plan selection (for patients) and to guide regulatory oversight.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether physicians in tiered physician networks where tier assignments are based on "intensity" of care, which is the quantity of resources used per-episode of care, change their intensity after learning detailed information about how their intensity compares to their peers.Data sourcesAdministrative data on intensity and quality at the physician-episode level for all physicians included in a tiered physician network offered through the Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission (GIC) in 2010-2015. Data on physicians' share of revenue from GIC patients from the 2012 Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database.Study designFor 21,086 physicians in seven specialties, we estimate the impact of the dissemination of detailed intensity performance information in 2014 on physician intensity per episode of care overall and decomposed into physician services, facility, and pharmaceutical subcomponents. Intensity outcomes were measured using a standardized price schedule. Using a difference-in-differences regression, we compared physicians with high exposure to the tiered network via a large share of their revenue coming from GIC patients ("GIC share") to physicians who were less exposed. Measures of intensity of care and GIC share were log-transformed, and models controlled for physician-episode type fixed effects.Data extraction methodsWe linked GIC share to administrative data using National Provider Identifier.Principal findingsThere were no statistically significant differences in total intensity of care with the informational intervention for physicians in procedure-based specialties (-0.12 elasticity of intensity per episode with respect to GIC patient share, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.06) or in relationship-based specialties (0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.33). There were also no differences in intensity of subcomponents of care following the intervention.ConclusionsTiered network incentives had no detectable impact on intensity of care that physicians provided to patients.

Project description:BackgroundRecently, there have been concerted efforts to improve racial and ethnic diversity in the physician-scientist workforce. Identifying factors associated with career choices among those underrepresented in medicine and science is a necessary first step to advance this objective. The aim of the present study was to assess the attitudes and factors associated with academic and research career interests among underrepresented predoctoral physician-scientists.MethodsA cross-sectional 70-question survey was distributed to all predoctoral single degree (MD or DO) and dual degree (MD/PhD or DO/PhD) trainees at 32 medical schools in the United States from 2012 to 2014. Main outcomes included factors important to advancement in academic medicine, intended medical specialty, and future career plans. To test the post-hoc hypothesis of whether trainees from underrepresented groups have differing perceptions of career trajectories and obstacles than their counterparts, we evaluated responses according to self-identified race/ethnic status using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. All tests were two-sided and significance level of < 0.05 was used.ResultsThere were a total of 4433 responses representing all predoctoral training stages. The response rate was 27%. Most respondents were single degree trainees (MD/DO 79% vs MD/DO-PhD 21%). Most respondents self-identified as White (67%), followed by Multi-racial or Other (14.3%), Asian or Pacific Islander (10.4%), Hispanic (6%), and Black or African American (4.1%). Desired career sector, career intention, and clinical specialty interest differed across race/ethnic groups. With respect to career selection factors, anticipated non-work related responsibilities during residency were also significantly different between these groups. By multivariable regression analysis, Black or African American trainees were significantly less likely than White trainees to indicate a career in academia (OR 0.496, 95% CI 0.322-0.764) and basic research (OR 0.314, 95% CI 0.115-0.857), while Multi-racial or Other trainees were also less likely than White trainees to indicate a career in academia (OR 0.763, 95% CI 0.594-0.980).ConclusionsThese data represent the first in-depth survey of career aspirations, perceptions, and interests between demographically underrepresented and non-underrepresented predoctoral physician-scientist trainees. Our results identify key differences between these cohorts, which may guide efforts to improve diversity within the physician-scientist workforce.

Dataset Information

The impact of tiered physician networks on patient choices.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

The impact of tiered physician networks on patient choices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets