Search

Objective: To 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 Sources: Secondary 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 Design: Cross-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 Extraction: We 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 Findings: Networks 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)., Conclusions: Given 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., (© 2023 Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objective: Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) are a type of Medicare Advantage (MA) plan for individuals who have both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The authors compared the breadths of psychiatrist and nonpsychiatrist provider networks in D-SNPs and other MA plans., Methods: MA plan provider network data were merged with plan service areas and a nationwide provider database to form a data set with 843 observations on networks subclassified by state and network type (D-SNP or other MA) covering 42 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. Network breadth measured the in-network fraction of clinically active Medicare-accepting psychiatrists and other physician providers in the plans' service areas in each state. Regression analyses were used to compare psychiatrist and nonpsychiatrist network breadth and psychiatrist-nonpsychiatrist breadth differences between D-SNPs and other MA plans, after adjustment for state-level differences., Results: Mean psychiatrist network breadth was 0.319 in D-SNPs and 0.299 in other MA plans, and nonpsychiatrist network breadth was 0.346 in D-SNPs and 0.358 in other MA plans. Psychiatrist networks were narrower than nonpsychiatrist networks (0.303 vs. 0.355, p<0.001), but mean psychiatrist network breadth did not differ between D-SNPs and other MA plans. In regression analyses, the psychiatrist-nonpsychiatrist breadth difference was smaller in D-SNPs (-0.031) than in other MA plans (-0.060) (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: Psychiatrist provider networks in a nationwide sample of D-SNPs had similar breadth as psychiatrist networks used in other MA plans. Special provider network adequacy requirements for psychiatrists in D-SNP networks may be worthy of further consideration given D-SNPs' disproportionate enrollment of adults with serious mental illness who have dual Medicare-Medicaid insurance coverage.

Despite growth in private equity (PE) acquisitions of physician practices in the US, little is known about how changes in ownership influence workforce composition. Using clinician-level data linked to practice acquisition information, we estimated changes in clinician workforce composition in PE-acquired practice sites relative to non-PE-acquired independent practice sites for dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology specialties. We calculated a clinician replacement ratio (cumulative number of entering clinicians during 2014-19 divided by the cumulative number of exiting clinicians) across 213 PE-acquired practices and 995 matched non-PE-acquired practices. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we also examined practice-level changes in yearly clinician counts at PE-acquired practices before and after acquisition compared with non-PE-acquired controls. In aggregate and across the study period, the clinician replacement ratio was higher for PE-acquired practices compared with non-PE-acquired controls (1.75 versus 1.37), as well as within each specialty and clinician type (physician versus advanced practice provider). Relative to non-PE-acquired control practices, we also found significant yearly increases in the number of advanced practice providers at PE-acquired practices after acquisition. Taken together, these findings suggest differential changes in workforce composition at PE-acquired practices, especially a shift toward advanced practice providers for care delivery.

Importance: Private equity acquisitions of physician practices in the US have been increasing rapidly; however, the implications for health care delivery and spending are unclear., Objective: To examine changes in prices and utilization associated with private equity acquisitions of physician practices across multiple specialties., Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a difference-in-differences event study of US physician practices specialized in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology that were acquired by private equity firms from 2016 to 2020. Within each specialty, each private equity-acquired (PE-acquired) practice was matched with as many as 5 control practices based on the preacquisition number of unique patients, encounters, risk score, share of services billed out-of-network, and spending. The PE-acquired practices were compared with matched controls through year 2 after acquisition, using a difference-in-differences event study. Data analyses were performed from March 2021 to February 2022., Exposures: Private equity acquisition of physician practices., Main Outcomes and Measures: Measures of spending and utilization, including the charge and price (amount paid) per claim, new and unique patients, and total encounters., Results: Compared with the 2874 control practices, the 578 PE-acquired physician practices exhibited an average increase of $71 (+20.2%) charged per claim (95% CI, 13.1%-27.3%; P < .001) and $23 (+11.0%) in the allowed amount per claim (95% CI, 5.6%-16.5%; P < .001). The PE-acquired practices increased their numbers of unique patients seen by 25.8% (95% CI, 15.8%-35.6%; P < .001) compared with control practices, driven by a 37.9% increase in visits by new patients (95% CI, 25.6%-50.2%; P < .001). In aggregate, their volume of encounters increased by 16.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-32.0%; P = .04) compared with the control group, with a 9.4% increase in the share of office visits for established patients that were billed as longer than 30 minutes (95% CI, 1.7%-17.0%; P = .02). No statistically significant changes in patient risk scores were found between PE-acquired practices and controls. Within specialties, we found modest differences along selected outcomes., Conclusions and Relevance: In this difference-in-differences study, private equity acquisition of physician practices in dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology were associated with differential increases in allowed amount and charges per claim, volume of encounters, and new patients seen, as well as some changes in billing and coding.

This cross-sectional study examines geographic variations in private equity firm acquisitions of US physician practices across 6 specialties., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Zhu reported receiving grants from the National Institute for Health Care Management during the conduct of the study and receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) outside the submitted work. Dr Polsky reported receiving personal fees from Extend Health outside the submitted work. Dr Song reported receiving grants from the NIH, Office of the Director, NIH Director’s Early Independence Award, during the conduct of the study; receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation outside the submitted work; receiving personal fees from the Research Triangle Institute, Google Ventures, Value-Based Insurance Design Health, and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans outside of this work; and providing consultation in legal cases. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright 2022 Singh Y et al. JAMA Health Forum.)

This cross-sectional study examines the extent of narrow networks across Medicare Advantage, types of counties where they are common, enrollment in narrow network plans, and how networks are associated with star ratings., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sen reported grants from Arnold Ventures outside the submitted work. Dr Anderson reported being a former employee of the Lewin Group outside the submitted work. Dr Miller reported being a member of the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage advisory committee as well as personal fees from the US Federal Trade Commission, US Health Resources and Services Administration, Oxidien Pharmaceuticals, Heritage Foundation, and Raydus Research outside the submitted work. Dr Polsky reported personal fees from Extend Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright 2021 Sen AP et al. JAMA Health Forum.)

While early evidence suggests that accountable care organizations (ACOs) are associated with higher quality and lower costs, there have been simultaneous concerns that ACOs may incentivize consolidation of physician groups. This is particularly concerning as previous research has shown that consolidation is associated with lower quality and higher prices. Using a difference-in-differences strategy and data from the Medicare Shared Savings Program, which began in 2012, we examined whether physician practices consolidated after ACOs entered health care markets. We observed a 4.0-percentage-point increase in large practices (those with fifty or more physicians) in counties with the greatest ACO penetration, compared to counties with zero ACO penetration, and a 2.7-percentage-point decline in the percentage of small practices (ten or fewer physicians) from 2010 to 2015. The growth of large practices was concentrated in specialty and hospital-owned practices. These findings suggest that ACOs may contribute to the concentration of physician practices.

Objective: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) enable prescribers to review patient prescription histories, and their use is mandatory in many states. We estimated the cost of physicians retrieving PDMP patient reports compared with a model where a delegate (i.e., administrative staff) retrieves reports., Methods: We performed a cost analysis with a one-year time horizon, from the perspective of physicians' employers. We obtained specialty-specific estimates of controlled substance prescribing frequency from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2012-2014. We defined three PDMP usage cases based on the frequency of queries: comprehensive (before every Schedule II-IV controlled substance prescription), selective (before new Schedule II-IV prescriptions and every six months for continuing medications), and minimal (before new Schedule II or III prescriptions and annually for continuing medications)., Results: The delegate model was less costly for all specialties in the comprehensive usage case and most specialties in the selective usage case, and it was similar to physician model costs in the minimal usage case. Estimated annual costs of the physician model to a large health care system (1,000 full-time equivalent physicians) were $1.6 million for comprehensive usage, $1.1 million for selective usage, and $645,313 for minimal usage. The delegate model was less costly in the comprehensive (savings of $907,283) and selective usage cases (savings of $156,216)., Conclusions: Relying on delegates vs physicians to retrieve reports is less costly in most cases. Automation and integration of PDMP data into electronic health records may reduce costs further. Physicians, health care systems, and states should collaborate to streamline access to PDMPs.

Objectives: To describe and compare pediatric and adult specialty physician networks in marketplace plans., Methods: Data on physician networks, including physician specialty and address, in all 2014 individual marketplace silver plans were aggregated. Networks were quantified as the fraction of providers in the underlying rating area within a state that participated in the network. Narrow networks included none available networks (ie, no providers available in the underlying area) and limited networks (ie, included <10% of the available providers in the underlying area). Proportions of narrow networks between pediatric and adult specialty providers were compared., Results: Among the 1836 unique silver plan networks, the proportions of narrow networks were greater for pediatric (65.9%) than adult specialty (34.9%) networks ( P < .001 for all specialties). Specialties with the highest proportion of narrow networks for children were infectious disease (77.4%) and nephrology (74.0%), and they were highest for adults in psychiatry (49.8%) and endocrinology (40.8%). A larger proportion of pediatric networks (43.8%) had no available specialists in the underlying area when compared with adult networks (10.4%) ( P < .001 for all specialties). Among networks with available specialists in the underlying area, a higher proportion of pediatric (39.3%) than adult (27.3%) specialist networks were limited ( P < .001 except psychiatry)., Conclusions: Narrow networks were more prevalent among pediatric than adult specialists, because of both the sparseness of pediatric specialists and their exclusion from networks. Understanding narrow networks and marketplace network adequacy standards is a necessary beginning to monitor access to care for children and families., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The introduction of health insurance Marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act has been associated with growth of restricted provider networks. The value of this plan design strategy, including its association with lower premiums, is uncertain. We used data from all silver plans offered in the 2014 health insurance exchanges in the fifty states and the District of Columbia to estimate the association between the breadth of a provider network and plan premiums. We found that within a market, for plans of otherwise equivalent design and controlling for issuer-specific pricing strategy, a plan with an extra-small network had a monthly premium that was 6.7 percent less expensive than that of a plan with a large network. Because narrow networks remain an important strategy available to insurance companies to offer lower-cost plans on health insurance Marketplaces, the success of health insurance coverage expansions may be tied to the successful implementation of narrow networks., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Background: Although public release of quality information through report cards is intended to improve health care, there may be unintended consequences of report cards, such as physicians avoiding high-risk patients to improve their ratings. If physicians believe that racial and ethnic minorities are at higher risk for poor outcomes, report cards could worsen existing racial and ethnic disparities in health care., Methods and Results: To investigate the impact of New York's CABG report card on racial and ethnic disparities in cardiac care, we estimated differences in the use of CABG, PTCA, and cardiac catheterization between white versus black and Hispanic patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction in New York before and after New York's first CABG report card was released, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and national changes in racial and ethnic disparities in cardiac care. The racial and ethnic disparity in CABG use significantly increased in New York immediately after New York's CABG report card was released, whereas disparities did not change significantly in the comparison states. There was no differential change in racial and ethnic disparities between New York and the comparison states in the use of cardiac catheterization or PTCA after the CABG report card was released. Over time, this increase in racial and ethnic disparities decreased to levels similar to those before the release of report cards., Conclusions: The release of CABG report cards in New York was associated with a widening of the disparity in CABG use between white versus black and Hispanic patients.

Objective: To examine the effect of HMO penetration on physician retirement., Study Design: We linked together historical data from the Physician Masterfile of the American Medical Association for successive years to track changes in physicians' activity status between 1980 and 1997. We used a multivariate discrete-time survival model to examine how the probability of physician retirement was affected by the level of HMO penetration in the physician's market area, controlling for other physician and market characteristics. The study population included all active allopathic patient-care physicians in the United States who reached age 55 between the years of 1980 and 1996. The main outcome measure was physician retirements as reported on the Physician Masterfile., Principal Findings: HMO penetration had a statistically significant positive effect on the retirement probabilities of generalists and medical/surgical specialists, but it s effect on hospital-based specialists and psychiatrists was not significant . For generalists regression-adjusted retirement probabilities were roughly 13 percent greater in high-penetration markets (HMO penetration of 45 percent ) than in low-penetration markets (HMO penetration of 5 percent ). For medical/surgical specialist s regression-adjusted retirement probabilities were roughly 17 percent greater in high-penetration markets than in low-penetration markets., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that many older physicians have found it preferable to retire rather than adapt their practices to an environment with a high degree of managed care penetration . Because the number of physicians entering the older age categories will increase rapidly over the next 20 years, the growth of managed care and other influences on physician retirement will play an increasingly important role in determining the size of the physician workforce.

In this study, we assessed the influence of changes in health maintenance organization (HMO) penetration on the probability that established patient care physicians relocated their practices or left patient care altogether. For physicians who relocated their practices, we also assessed the impact of HMO penetration on their destination choices. We found that larger increases in HMO penetration decreased the probability that medical/surgical specialists in early career stayed in patient care in the same market, but had no impact on generalists, hospital-based specialists, or mid career medical/surgical specialists. We also found that physicians who relocated their practices were much more likely to choose destination markets with the same level of HMO penetration or lower HMO penetration compared with their origin markets than they were to choose destination markets with higher HMO penetration. The largely negligible impact of changes in HMO penetration on established physicians' decisions to relocate their practices or leave patient care is consistent with high relocation and switching costs. Relocating physicians' attraction to destination markets with the same level of HMO penetration as their origin markets suggests that, while physicians' styles of medical practice may adapt to changes in market conditions, learning new practice styles is costly.

Background: Many internal medicine physicians report both primary and secondary specialties in the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. Usually, those represent combinations of general internal medicine and medical subspecialty practice. Whether reported specialty combinations can be used to assess the contribution of specialists to primary care is unknown., Objectives: To examine whether internists' primary and secondary specialties reported in the Masterfile reflect the amount of primary care that they provide, and whether changes over time in internists' reported specialties reflect changes in primary care provision., Design: The Masterfile was used to identify internists' reported specialties in 1992 and in 1996. A mail questionnaire was used to assess the primary care content of physicians' practices. The association between reported specialties and the amount of primary care provided was evaluated using analysis of variance., Subjects: A stratified random sample of internists in active clinical practice., Measures: The percentage of visits which were for the general medical care of patients for whom the physicians maintained ongoing responsibility. In addition, how often the physicians initiated the provision of preventive care for their regular patients, provided general medical care to these patients, and organized and coordinated the care received by these patients from other providers., Results: There was a strong association between the internists' primary and secondary specialties reported in the Masterfile and measures of the primary care content of physicians' practices (P < 0.0001). In contrast, changes over time in internists' reported specialties were not associated with physicians' assessments of changes in the primary care content of their practices., Conclusions: Aggregate estimates of the availability of primary care in the US could be adjusted by taking into account the primary and secondary specialties reported by internal medicine physicians in the AMA Physician Masterfile.