Using claims data to attribute patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer to prescribing oncologists.
alternative payment model
pay for performance
plurality rule
specialty care
Journal
Pragmatic and observational research
ISSN: 1179-7266
Titre abrégé: Pragmat Obs Res
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101688693
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
entrez:
25
4
2019
pubmed:
25
4
2019
medline:
25
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Alternative payment models frequently require attribution of patients to individual physicians to assign cost and quality outcomes. Our objective was to examine the performance of three methods for attributing a patient with cancer to the likeliest physician prescriber of anticancer drugs for that patient using administrative claims data. We used the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment to identify patients who had claims for anticancer medication along with diagnosis codes for breast, lung, or colorectal lung cancer between July 2013 and September 2017. The index date was the first date with a record for anticancer medication and cancer diagnosis code. Included patients had continuous medical coverage from 6 months before index to at least 7 days after index. Patients who received anticancer drugs during the 6 months prior to index were excluded. The three methods attributed each patient to the physician with whom the patient had the most evaluation and management (E&M) visits within a 90-day window around the index date (Method 1); the most E&M visits with no time window (Method 2); or the E&M visit nearest in time to the index date (Method 3). We assessed the performance of the methods using the percentage of the study cohort successfully attributed to a physician, and the positive predictive value (PPV) relative to available physician-reported data on patient(s) they treat. In total, 70,641 patients were available for attribution to physicians. Percentages of the study cohort attributed to a physician were: Method 1, 92.6%; Method 2, 96.9%; and Method 3, 96.9%. PPVs for each method were 84.4%, 80.6%, and 75.8%, respectively. We found that a claims-based algorithm - specifically, a plurality method with a 90-day time window - correctly attributed nearly 85% of patients to a prescribing physician. Claims data can reliably identify prescribing physicians in oncology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Alternative payment models frequently require attribution of patients to individual physicians to assign cost and quality outcomes. Our objective was to examine the performance of three methods for attributing a patient with cancer to the likeliest physician prescriber of anticancer drugs for that patient using administrative claims data.
METHODS
METHODS
We used the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment to identify patients who had claims for anticancer medication along with diagnosis codes for breast, lung, or colorectal lung cancer between July 2013 and September 2017. The index date was the first date with a record for anticancer medication and cancer diagnosis code. Included patients had continuous medical coverage from 6 months before index to at least 7 days after index. Patients who received anticancer drugs during the 6 months prior to index were excluded. The three methods attributed each patient to the physician with whom the patient had the most evaluation and management (E&M) visits within a 90-day window around the index date (Method 1); the most E&M visits with no time window (Method 2); or the E&M visit nearest in time to the index date (Method 3). We assessed the performance of the methods using the percentage of the study cohort successfully attributed to a physician, and the positive predictive value (PPV) relative to available physician-reported data on patient(s) they treat.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 70,641 patients were available for attribution to physicians. Percentages of the study cohort attributed to a physician were: Method 1, 92.6%; Method 2, 96.9%; and Method 3, 96.9%. PPVs for each method were 84.4%, 80.6%, and 75.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We found that a claims-based algorithm - specifically, a plurality method with a 90-day time window - correctly attributed nearly 85% of patients to a prescribing physician. Claims data can reliably identify prescribing physicians in oncology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31015772
doi: 10.2147/POR.S197252
pii: por-10-015
pmc: PMC6446985
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
15-22Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure Ezra Fishman, John Barron, Ying Liu, and Gosia Sylwestrzak are employees of HealthCore, Inc., a wholly owned, independently operated subsidiary of Anthem, Inc. Santosh Gautam at the time of this study was employed by HealthCore, Inc. Michael J Fisch is an employee of AIM Specialty Health, a wholly owned subsidiary of Anthem, Inc. Ann Nguyen is an employee of Anthem, Inc. Amol S Navathe reported grants from Hawaii Medical Service Association, Anthem Public Policy Institute, Cigna, and Oscar Health; personal fees from Navvis and Company, Navigant Inc., Lynx Medical, Indegene Inc., Sutherland Global Services, and Agathos, Inc.; personal fees and equity from NavaHealth; speaking fees from the Cleveland Clinic; serving as a board member of Integrated Services Inc. without compensation, and an honorarium from Elsevier Press, none of which are related to this manuscript. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Jan-Feb;13(1):74-9
pubmed: 16221940
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Sep;21(9):973-8
pubmed: 16918744
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 10;25(2):187-90
pubmed: 17210938
N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 15;356(11):1130-9
pubmed: 17360991
Ann Intern Med. 2010 May 18;152(10):649-54
pubmed: 20479030
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):673-81
pubmed: 21471488
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1010-6
pubmed: 25539366
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Oct 1;176(10):1541-1548
pubmed: 27533635
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;34(32):3872-3879
pubmed: 27646945
Rand Health Q. 2015 Jul 15;5(1):11
pubmed: 28083364
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2017 Jan 13;4(1):1276
pubmed: 28203612
Milbank Q. 2017 Mar;95(1):184-203
pubmed: 28266072
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 May 1;177(5):675-682
pubmed: 28288254
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;4(4):580-581
pubmed: 29470578
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Oct 15;:JOP1800157
pubmed: 30321101