This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Huang, I-C. Articles by Wu, A. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Huang, I-C. Articles by Wu, A. W. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Asthma Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Is Risk-Adjustor Selection More Important Than Statistical Approach for Provider Profiling? Asthma as an Example

Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Francesca Dominici, PhD

Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Constantine Frangakis, PhD

Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Gregory B. Diette, MD, MHS

Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland and Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Cheryl L. Damberg, PhD

Pacific Business Group on Health, San Francisco, California

Albert W. Wu, MD, MPH

Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Objectives. To examine how the selections of different risk adjustors and statistical approaches affect the profiles of physician groups on patient satisfaction. Data sources. Mailed patient surveys. Patients with asthma were selected randomly from each of 20 California physician groups between July 1998 and February 1999. A total of 2515 patients responded. Research design. A cross-sectional study. Patient satisfaction with asthma care was the performance indicator for physician group profiling. Candidate variables for risk-adjustment model development included sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and self-reported health status. Statistical strategies were the ratio of observed-to-expected rate (OE), fixed effects (FE), and the random effects (RE) approaches. Model performance was evaluated using indicators of discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow ²). Ranking impact of using different risk adjustors and statistical approaches was based on the changes in absolute ranking (AR) and quintile ranking (QR) of physician group performance and the weighted kappa for quintile ranking. Results. Variables that added significantly to the discriminative power of risk-adjustment models included sociodemographic (age, sex, prescription drug coverage), clinical (asthma severity), and health status (SF-36 PCS and MCS). Based on an acceptable goodness-of-fit (P > 0.1)and higher C-statistics, models adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and health status variables (Model S-C-H) using either the FE or RE approach were more favorable. However, the C-statistic (=0.68) was only fair for both models. The influence of risk-adjustor selection on change of performance ranking was more salient than choice of statistical strategy (AR: 50%-80% v. 20%-55%; QR: 10%-30% v. 0%-10%). Compared to the model adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical variables only and using OE approach, the Model S-C-H using RE approach resulted in 70% of groups changing in AR and 25% changing in QR (weighted kappa: 0.88). Compared to the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans model, the Model S-C-H using RE approach resulted in 65% of groups changing in AR and 20% changing in QR (weighted kappa: 0.88). Conclusions. In comparing the performance of physician groups on patient satisfaction with asthma care, the use of sociodemographic, clinical, and health status variables maximized risk-adjustment model performance. Selection of risk adjustors had more influence on ranking profiles than choice of statistical strategies. Stakeholders employing provider profiling should pay careful attention to the selection of both variables and statistical approach used in risk-adjustment.

Key Words: fixed effects model • physician group • random effects model • report cards • risk adjustment

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 25, No. 1, 20-34 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04273138


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. L. Maciejewski, C.-F. Liu, and S. D. Fihn Performance of Comorbidity, Risk Adjustment, and Functional Status Measures in Expenditure Prediction for Patients With Diabetes Diabetes Care, January 1, 2009; 32(1): 75 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]