Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 440–445 | Cite as

The Impact of Health Plan Physician-Tiering on Access to Care

  • Sean Tackett
  • Chuck Stelzner
  • Elizabeth McGlynn
  • Ateev Mehrotra
Health Policy

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

In an attempt to improve quality and control costs, health plans are creating tiered products that encourage enrollees to seek care from “high-value” physicians. However, tiered products may limit access to care because patients may have to travel unreasonable distances to visit the nearest high-value physician.

OBJECTIVE

To assess geographic access to high-value physicians, particularly for disadvantaged populations.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Physicians and adult patients in Massachusetts.

MAIN MEASURES

Travel time from census block centroid to nearest physician address under two scenarios: patients can see (1) any physician or (2) only high-value physicians.

KEY RESULTS

Among the physicians, 768 (20.9%) primary care physicians (PCPs), 225 (26.6%) obstetricians/gynecologists, 69 (10.3%) cardiologists, and 31 (6.0%) general surgeons met the definition of high-value. Statewide mean travel times to the nearest PCP, obstetrician/gynecologist, cardiologist, or general surgeon under the two scenarios (any physician vs. only high-value physicians) were 2.8 vs. 4.8, 6.0 vs. 7.2, 7.0 vs. 12.4, and 6.6 vs. 14.8 minutes, respectively. Across the four specialties, between 89.4%–99.4% of the population lived within 30 minutes of the nearest high-value physician. Rural populations had considerably longer travel times to see high-value physicians, but other disadvantaged populations generally had shorter travel times than comparison groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients in Massachusetts are likely to have reasonable geographic access to high-value physicians in tiered health plans. However, local demographics, especially rural residence, should be taken into consideration when applying tiered health plans broadly. Future work should investigate whether patients can and will switch to receive care from high-value physicians.

KEY WORDS

access high value care disparities 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from RAND and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. We also are grateful for the critical advice provided by John Adams and for programming support from Supriya Munshaw.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Supplementary material

11606_2010_1607_MOESM1_ESM.doc (2.3 mb)
Online Appendix (DOC 2332 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    O’Kane M. Tiered networks: strategies of engagement for patients and physicians. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:96–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sinaiko AD, Rosenthal MB. Consumer experience with a tiered physician network: early evidence. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:123–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams JL, McGlynn EA, Thomas JW, et al. Incorporating statistical uncertainty in the use of physician cost profiles. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams JL, Mehrotra A, Thomas JW, et al. Physician cost profiling–reliability and risk of misclassification. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1014–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehrotra A, Adams JL, Thomas JW, McGlynn EA. The impact of different attribution rules on individual physician cost profiles. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:649–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scholle SH, Roski J, Adams JL, et al. Benchmarking physician performance: reliability of individual and composite measures. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14:833–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National Healthcare Disparities Report 2008. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bloche MG. Consumer-directed health care and the disadvantaged. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:1315–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casalino LP, Elster A, Eisenberg A, et al. Will pay-for-performance and quality reporting affect health care disparities? Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:w405–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chien AT, Chin MH, Davis AM, et al. Pay for performance, public reporting, and racial disparities in health care: how are programs being designed? Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64:283S–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adams JL, Thomas JW, McGlynn EA. Physician cost profiling—Reliability and risk of misclassification. Detailed methodology and sensitivity analyses. Santa Monica: RAND; 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Minnesota Medical Association. The Tiering of Minnesota Physicians; 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reid RO, Friedberg MW, Adams JL, et al. Associations between physician characteristics and quality of care. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1442–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brennan TA, Spettell CM, Fernandes J, et al. Do managed care plans’ tiered networks lead to inequities in care for minority patients? Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:1160–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Criteria for designation of areas having shortages of primary medical care professionals health resources and services administration; relevant excerpts from 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 41, Part 45, Appendix A October 41, 1993;1934-1948.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morse S. Converting addresses to/from latitude/longitude in one step. Available at: http://stevemorse.org/jcal/latlon.php. Accessed November 29,2010.
  17. 17.
    Council on Graduate Medical Education. Evaluation of Specialty Physician Workforce Methodologies. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodgers GP, Conti JB, Feinstein JA, et al. ACC 2009 survey results and recommendations: addressing the cardiology workforce crisis A report of the ACC board of trustees workforce task force. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1195–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Lewin Group Cardiology Workforce Assessment. Association of American Medical Colleges; 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cofer JB, Burns RP. The developing crisis in the national general surgery workforce. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:790–795. discussion 795-797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Massachusetts Division of Health Care. Finance and Policy Primary care in Massachusetts: An overview of trends and opportunities: Boston, MA, 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Massachusetts Medical Society. Massachusetts health reform: fact sheet: Boston, MA, 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merritt Hawkins & Associates. 2009 Survey of physician appointment wait times: Irving, TX; 2009.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinaiko A, Rosenthal M. Consumer experience with a tiered physician network: early evidence. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:123–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Center for Workforce Studies. 2009 State Physician Workforce Data Book. Association of American Medical Colleges; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean Tackett
    • 1
  • Chuck Stelzner
    • 2
  • Elizabeth McGlynn
    • 2
  • Ateev Mehrotra
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA
  2. 2.RAND HealthPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations