Beyond patient-sharing: Comparing physician- and patient-induced networks.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kesternich E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9474566 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Beyond patient-sharing: Comparing physician- and patient-induced networks.
Health care management science 20220601 3
The sharing of patients reflects collaborative relationships between various healthcare providers. Patient-sharing in the outpatient sector is influenced by both physicians' activities and patients' preferences. Consequently, a patient-sharing network arises from two distinct mechanisms: the initiative of the physicians on the one hand, and that of the patients on the other. We draw upon medical claims data to study the structure of one patient-sharing network by differentiating between these tw ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC10480085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is substantial variation in the cost and intensity of care delivered by US hospitals. We assessed how the structure of patient-sharing networks of physicians affiliated with hospitals might contribute to this variation.We constructed hospital-based professional networks based on patient-sharing ties among 61,461 physicians affiliated with 528 hospitals in 51 hospital referral regions in the US using Medicare data on clinical encounters during 2006. We estimated linear regression models to assess the relationship between measures of hospital network structure and hospital measures of spending and care intensity in the last 2 years of life.The typical physician in an average-sized urban hospital was connected to 187 other doctors for every 100 Medicare patients shared with other doctors. For the average-sized urban hospital an increase of 1 standard deviation (SD) in the median number of connections per physician was associated with a 17.8% increase in total spending, in addition to 17.4% more hospital days, and 23.8% more physician visits (all P<0.001). In addition, higher "centrality" of primary care providers within these hospital networks was associated with 14.7% fewer medical specialist visits (P<0.001) and lower spending on imaging and tests (-9.2% and -12.9% for 1 SD increase in centrality, P<0.001).Hospital-based physician network structure has a significant relationship with an institution's care patterns for their patients. Hospitals with doctors who have higher numbers of connections have higher costs and more intensive care, and hospitals with primary care-centered networks have lower costs and care intensity.
| S-EPMC3260449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate the impact of sampling patients on descriptive characteristics of physician patient-sharing networks. Medicare claims data from 10 hospital referral regions (HRRs) in the United States in 2010. We form a sampling frame consisting of the full cohort of patients (Medicare enrollees) with claims in the 2010 calendar year from the selected HRRs. For each sampling fraction, we form samples of patients from which a physician ("patient-sharing") network is constructed in which an edge between two physicians depicts that at least one patient in the sample encountered both of those physicians. The network is summarized using 18 network measures. For each network measure and sampling fraction, we compare the values determined from the sample and the full cohort of patients. Finally, we assess the sampling fraction that is needed to measure each network measure to specified levels of accuracy. We utilized administrative claims from the traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare. We found that measures of physician degree (the number of ties to other physicians) in the network and physician centrality (importance or prominence in the network) are learned quickly in the sense that a small sampling fraction suffices to accurately compute the measure. At the network level, network density (the proportion of possible edges that are present) was learned quickly while measures based on more complex configurations (subnetworks involving multiple actors) are learned relatively slowly with relative rates of learning depending on network size (the number of nodes). The sampling fraction applied to Medicare patients has a highly heterogeneous effect across different network measures on the extent to which sample-based network measures resemble those evaluated using the full cohort. Even random sampling of patients may yield physician networks that distort descriptive features of the network based on the full cohort, potentially resulting in biased results.
| S-EPMC7968944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study explores the forces that drive the formation of physician patient sharing networks. In particular, I examine the degree to which hospital affiliation drives physicians' sharing of Medicare patients. Using a revealed preference framework where observed network links are taken to be pairwise stable, I estimate the physicians' pair-specific values using a tetrad maximum score estimator that is robust to the presence of unobserved physician specific characteristics. I also control for a number of potentially confounding patient sharing channels, such as (a) common physician group or hospital system affiliation, (b) physician homophily, (c) knowledge complementarity, (d) patient side considerations related to both geographic proximity and insurance network participation, and (e) spillover from other collaborations. Focusing on the Chicago hospital referral region, I find that shared hospital affiliation accounts for 36.5% of the average pair-specific utility from a link. Implications for reducing care fragmentation are discussed.
| S-EPMC6899902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is used for primary prevention of death among people with heart failure, and new evidence in 2005 on its effectiveness changed practice guidelines in the United States. OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study is to examine how the connectedness of physicians and hospitals, measured using network analysis, relates to guideline-consistent ICD implantation. RESEARCH DESIGN:We constructed physician and hospital networks for cardiovascular disease. Physicians were linked if they shared cardiovascular disease patients; these links were aggregated by hospital affiliation to construct a hospital network. SUBJECTS:Medicare beneficiaries who underwent ICD therapy for primary prevention from 2007 to 2011. MEASURES:The clinical outcome of interest was guideline-consistent ICD implantation, calculated using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. The exposure variables of interest were the network measures of the ICD surgeon, the referring hospital, and the hospital where the ICD surgery occurred. RESULTS:We focused on patients who were referred between hospitals for ICD implantation because they were more likely influenced by the hospital network (n=28,179). Patients were less likely to meet guidelines if their referring hospital had more connections to other hospitals (OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.96) and more likely to meet guidelines if their ICD surgery hospital had more connections (OR, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-2.64). The ICD surgeon's network measures were not associated with guideline-consistent implantation. CONCLUSIONS:Associations between the hospital network measures and guideline adherence suggests new approaches to better disseminate clinical guidelines across health systems.
| S-EPMC5851832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite no proven benefit in clinical outcomes, perioperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was rapidly adopted into breast cancer care in the 2000's, offering a prime opportunity for assessing factors influencing overutilization of unproven technology.ObjectivesTo examine variation among physician patient-sharing networks in their trajectory of adopting perioperative MRI for breast cancer surgery and compare the characteristics of patients, providers, and mastectomy use in physician networks that had different adoption trajectories.Methods and findingsUsing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database in 2004-2009, we identified 147 physician patient-sharing networks (caring for 26,886 patients with stage I-III breast cancer). After adjusting for patient clinical risk factors, we calculated risk-adjusted rate of perioperative MRI use for each physician network in 2004-2005, 2006-2007, and 2008-2009, respectively. Based on the risk-adjusted rate, we identified three distinct trajectories of adopting perioperative MRI among physician networks: 1) low adoption (risk-adjusted rate of perioperative MRI increased from 2.8% in 2004-2005 to 14.8% in 2008-2009), 2) medium adoption (8.8% to 45.1%), and 3) high adoption (33.0% to 71.7%). Physician networks in the higher adoption trajectory tended to have a larger proportion of cancer specialists, more patients with high income, and fewer patients who were Black. After adjusting for patients' clinical risk factors, the proportion of patients undergoing mastectomy decreased from 41.1% in 2004-2005 to 38.5% in 2008-2009 among those in physician networks with low MRI adoption, but increased from 27.0% to 31.4% among those in physician networks with high MRI adoption (p = 0.03 for the interaction term between trajectory group and time).ConclusionsPhysician patient-sharing networks varied in their trajectory of adopting perioperative MRI. These distinct trajectories were associated with the composition of patients and providers in the networks, and had important implications for patterns of mastectomy use.
| S-EPMC8923453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer centers rapidly adopted telehealth to deliver care remotely. Telehealth will likely remain a model of care for years to come and may not only affect the way oncologists deliver care to their own patients but also the physicians with whom they share patients.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine oncologist characteristics associated with telehealth use and compare patient-sharing networks before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in a rural catchment area with a particular focus on the ties between physicians at the comprehensive cancer center and regional facilities.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, we obtained deidentified electronic health record data for individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer at Dartmouth Health in New Hampshire from 2018-2020. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify physician factors associated with telehealth encounters post COVID-19. Patient-sharing networks for each cancer type before and post COVID-19 were characterized with global network measures. Exponential-family random graph models were performed to estimate homophily terms for the likelihood of ties existing between physicians colocated at the hub comprehensive cancer center.ResultsOf the 12,559 encounters between patients and oncologists post COVID-19, 1228 (9.8%) were via telehealth. Patient encounters with breast oncologists who practiced at the hub hospital were over twice as likely to occur via telehealth compared to encounters with oncologists who practiced in regional facilities (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.17-4.15; P=.01). Patient encounters with oncologists who practiced in multiple locations were less likely to occur via telehealth, and this association was statistically significant for lung cancer care (odds ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.76; P=.01). We observed an increase in ties between oncologists at the hub hospital and oncologists at regional facilities in the lung cancer network post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 (93/318, 29.3%, vs 79/370, 21.6%, respectively), which was also reflected in the lower homophily coefficients post COVID-19 compared to before COVID-19 for physicians being colocated at the hub hospital (estimate: 1.92, 95% CI 1.46-2.51, vs 2.45, 95% CI 1.98-3.02). There were no significant differences observed in breast cancer or colorectal cancer networks.ConclusionsTelehealth use and associated changes to patient-sharing patterns associated with telehealth varied by cancer type, suggesting disparate approaches for integrating telehealth across clinical groups within this health system. The limited changes to the patient-sharing patterns between oncologists at the hub hospital and regional facilities suggest that telehealth was less likely to create new referral patterns between these types of facilities and rather replace care that would otherwise have been delivered in person. However, this study was limited to the 2 years immediately following the initial outbreak of COVID-19, and longer-term follow-up may uncover delayed effects that were not observed in this study period.
| S-EPMC9848440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasuring care coordination in administrative data facilitates important research to improve care quality.ObjectiveTo compare shared patient networks constructed from administrative claims data across multiple payers.DesignSocial network analysis of pooled cross sections of physicians treating prevalent colorectal cancer patients between 2003 and 2013.ParticipantsSurgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists identified from North Carolina Central Cancer Registry data linked to Medicare claims (N = 1735) and private insurance claims (N = 1321).Main measuresProvider-level measures included the number of patients treated, the number of providers with whom they share patients (by specialty), the extent of patient sharing with each specialty, and network centrality. Network-level measures included the number of providers and shared patients, the density of shared-patient relationships among providers, and the size and composition of clusters of providers with a high level of patient sharing.ResultsFor 24.5% of providers, total patient volume rank differed by at least one quintile group between payers. Medicare claims missed 14.6% of all shared patient relationships between providers, but captured a greater number of patient-sharing relationships per provider compared with the private insurance database, even after controlling for the total number of patients (27.242 vs 26.044, p < 0.001). Providers in the private network shared a higher fraction of patients with other providers (0.226 vs 0.127, p < 0.001) compared to the Medicare network. Clustering coefficients for providers, weighted betweenness, and eigenvector centrality varied greatly across payers. Network differences led to some clusters of providers that existed in the combined network not being detected in Medicare alone.ConclusionMany features of shared patient networks constructed from a single-payer database differed from similar networks constructed from other payers' data. Depending on a study's goals, shortcomings of single-payer networks should be considered when using claims data to draw conclusions about provider behavior.
| S-EPMC6816773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Professional and social connections among physicians impact patient outcomes, but little is known about how characteristics of insurance plans are associated with physician patient-sharing network structure. We use information from commercially insured enrollees in the 2011 Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database to construct and examine the structure of the physician patient-sharing network using standard and novel social network measures. Using regression analysis, we examine the association of physician patient-sharing network measures with an indicator of whether a patient is enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) or preferred provider organization (PPO), controlling for patient and insurer characteristics and observed health status. We find patients enrolled in HMOs see physicians who are more central and densely embedded in the patient-sharing network. We find HMO patients see PCPs who refer to specialists who are less globally central, even as these specialists are more locally central. Our analysis shows there are small but significant differences in physician patient-sharing network as experienced by patients with HMO versus PPO insurance. Understanding connections between physicians is essential and, similar to previous findings, our results suggest policy choices in the insurance and delivery system that change physician connectivity may have important implications for healthcare delivery, utilization and costs.
| S-EPMC8192486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether patient choice of physician or health plan was affected by physician tier-rankings.Data sourcesAdministrative 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 designWe 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 findingsPhysicians 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC4239853 | biostudies-literature