Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Episode-Based Physician Profiling: A Guide to the Perplexing

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most current strategies to improve quality and efficiency in health-care delivery focus on measuring and improving physician practice. A new “second generation” of physician profiling—episode-based profiling—is moving beyond legacy “first-generation” physician profiles based on population health and preventive services measures. Episode-based profiling measures physician practice at the “episode of care” level with sophisticated analytic methods and tools using data from claim and other administrative data sets, and it has an underlying “theory of change” consistent with the evolution of the US health-care marketplace. While offering potential advantages in informing consumer choice and enabling practice improvement, episode-based profiling also has limitations and challenges, both analytically and in the process of physician engagement and improvement. Nonetheless, episode-based profiling is likely to continue to spread and have growing influence, and it has significant implications for research, policy, and clinical stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Committee for Quality Assurance. The State of Health Care Quality 2006: Trends and Analysis. 2006 Sept [cited 2006 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/447/Default.aspx accessed May 15, 2008.

  3. McGynn EA, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45, Jun 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning incentives in Medicare (Pathways to Quality Healthcare Series). National Academy of Sciences. 2006.

  5. Hornbrook MC, Hurtado AV, Johnson RE. Health care episodes: definition, measurement, and use. Med Care Rev. 1985;42(2):163–218.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chassin MR. Achieving and sustaining improved quality: lessons from New York State and cardiac surgery. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21(4):40–51, Jul-Aug.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Connor GT, et al. A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. JAMA. 1996;275(11):841–6, Mar 20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Khoury SF. The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery. 2005;138(5):837–43, Nov.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Audet AM, et al. Measure, learn, and improve: physicians’ involvement in quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(3):843–53, May-Jun.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Advancing Physician Performance Measurement: Using Administrative Data to Assess Physician Quality and Efficiency Pacific Business Group of Health available from: http://www.pbgh.org/programs/PhysicianPerformance.asp accessed May 15, 2008.

  11. AQA Alliance [homepage on the internet]. Washington, DC: AQA; c2005 [updated 2006 Nov 15; cited 2006 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.aqaalliance.org/ accessed May 15, 2008.

  12. RAND Health [homepage on the internet]. Santa Monica: RAND Health; c1994–2006 [updated 2006 April 03; cited 2006 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/qatools/index.html accessed May 15, 2008.

  13. The National Quality Forum National Voluntary Consensus Standards for Ambulatory Care December 2007. available at: http://www.qualityforum.org/projects/ongoing/ambulatory/index.asp accessed May 15, 2008.

  14. Hofer TP et al. The unreliability of individual physician “Report Cards” for assessing the cost and quality of care of a chronic disease. JAMA. 281(22):2098–2105

  15. Hayward RA. Performance measurement in search of a path. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(9):951–3, Mar 1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Draper DA, Liebhaber A, Ginsburg PB. High-Performance Health Plan Networks: Early Experiences Issue Brief No. 111 May 2007 available from http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/929/#ib2 accessed May 1, 2008.

  17. Greene RA, Beckman H, Chamberlain J, Partridge G, Miller M, Burden D, et al. Increasing adherence to a community-based guideline for acute sinusitis through education, physician profiling, and financial incentives. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(10):670–8, Oct.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beckman H, Suchman AL, Curtin K, Greene RA. Physician reactions to quantitative individual performance reports. Am J Med Qual. 2006;21(3):192–9, May-Jun.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ostrom CM. “Regence sued over ratings that cut 500 doctors” Seattle Times Sept 21, 2006. available at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003268477_regence21m.htmlv accessed May 15, 2008.

  20. Nakashima E. “Doctors Rated but Can’t Get a Second Opinion” Washington Post July 25, 2007 A1 available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402545.html accessed May 15, 2008.

  21. Lee TH, Meyer GS, Brennan TA. A middle ground on public accountability. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2409–12, Jun 3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. American Board of Internal Medicine [homepage on the internet]. Philadelphia: ABIM; c2004–2006 [updated 2006 Dec 12; cited 2006 Dec 21]. Available from: http://www.abim.org/moc/healthcare/default.aspx accessed May 15, 2008.

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Care Financing and Organization Grant no. 60517 (Dr. Thomas). We are indebted to Steven A. Schroeder, MD, for his comments on a prior version of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

Lewis G. Sandy MD: Employee/stock ownership/stock options: UnitedHealth Group; Mark C. Rattray MD: Employee: Booz Hamilton. Stock holdings: (<100 shares) T, ALU, AV, CMCSA, LST, NCR UNH (200 shares), WM (400 shares).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lewis G. Sandy MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sandy, L.G., Rattray, M.C. & Thomas, J.W. Episode-Based Physician Profiling: A Guide to the Perplexing. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 1521–1524 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0684-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0684-z

KEY WORDS

Navigation