Skip to main content
Log in

Laboratory Test Ordering at Physician Offices with and without On-Site Laboratories

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

Abstract

Background

Physician self-referral, ordering a test or procedure or referring to a facility in which a physician has a financial interest, has been associated with increased utilization of health care services.

Objective

To examine the association between on-site laboratories and laboratory test ordering among visits to group-practice physicians.

Design

Cross-sectional study using data from the 2005 and 2006 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys.

Study Population

Visits by adults to non-federally-funded, non-hospital-based group practices. Primary analyses focused on visits to physician owners; secondary analyses focused on visits to non-owners.

Main Measures

Ordering of five laboratory tests: complete blood count (CBC), electrolytes, glycoslyated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), cholesterol, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

Key Results

There were 19,163 visits to group-practice owners with 51.9% to a practice with an on-site laboratory. Visits to primary care physicians were more likely to be to a practice with an on-site laboratory when compared with visits to specialists (64.4% vs. 34.0%, p < 0.001). Among visits to specialist group owners, all five tests were ordered more often if there was an on-site laboratory, even after accounting for patient and practice characteristics: CBC: adjusted odds ratio[OR] = 8.01, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 5.00–12.82, p < 0.001; electrolytes: aOR = 3.51, 95% CI, 1.93–6.40, p < 0.001; HbA1c: aOR = 4.91, 95% CI, 1.75–13.78, p = 0.003; cholesterol: aOR = 3.32, 95% CI, 1.85–5.93, p < 0.001; and PSA: aOR = 3.84, 95% CI, 1.93–7.65, p < 0.001. This association was not found among visits to primary care physician owners and all practice non-owners (both primary care and specialists). The estimated excess spending on these five tests by specialist owners with on-site laboratories was $75 million per 100 million visits.

Conclusions

In a nationally representative sample of visits to physician-owned group practices, specialist owners with on-site laboratories were more likely to order five common laboratory tests, potentially resulting in millions in excess healthcare spending.

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. Hartman M, Martin A, McDonnell P, Catlin A. National health spending in 2007: slower drug spending contributes to lowest rate of overall growth since 1998. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(1):246–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Congressional Budget Office. The Long-term Outlook for Healthcare Spending 2007. Washington: Congressional Budget Office; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gabel JR, McDevitt R, Lore R, Pickreign J, Whitmore H, Ding T. Trends in underinsurance and the affordability of employer coverage, 2004–2007. Health Aff. 2009;28(4):W595–W606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111–148, (2010).

  5. Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act P.L. 111–152, (2010).

  6. Mongan JJ, Ferris TG, Lee TH. Options for slowing the growth of health care costs. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(14):1509–1514.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vedentam S. Doctors Reap Benefits by Doing Own Tests. The Washington Post. July 31, 2009.

  8. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(8):573–576.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scott E, Mitchell JM. Ownership of clinical laboratories by referring physicians: effects on utilization, charges, and profitability. Med Care. 1994;32(2):164–174.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. Social Security Act. Sec. 1877., 42 U.S.C. 1395.

  11. Levin DC, Intenzo CM, Rao VM, Frangos AJ, Parker L, Sunshine JH. Comparison of recent utilization trends in radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging among radiologists and cardiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2(10):821–824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Intenzo CM. Recent payment and utilization trends in radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging: comparison between self-referral and referral to radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6(6):437–441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. Ownership or leasing of CT scanners by nonradiologist physicians: a rapidly growing trend that raises concern about self-referral. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5(12):1206–1209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitchell JM. The prevalence of physician self-referral arrangements after Stark II: evidence from advanced diagnostic imaging. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(3):w415–w424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gazelle GS, Halpern EF, Ryan HS, Tramontano AC. Utilization of diagnostic medical imaging: comparison of radiologist referral versus same-specialty referral. Radiology. 2007;245(2):517–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hillman BJ, Joseph CA, Mabry MR, Sunshine JH, Kennedy SD, Noether M. Frequency and costs of diagnostic imaging in office practice–a comparison of self-referring and radiologist-referring physicians. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(23):1604–1608.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hillman BJ, Olson GT, Griffith PE, et al. Physicians' utilization and charges for outpatient diagnostic imaging in a Medicare population. JAMA. 1992;268(15):2050–2054.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Winter A, Stensland J. Impact of physician self-referral on use of imaging services within an episode. In: Medpac, ed. Washington, DC; 2009.

  19. U.S. Government Accountabiligy Office. HEHS-95-2: Medicare: Referrals to Physician-Owned Imaging Facilities Warrant HCFA's Scrutiny. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office; October 20, 1994.

  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NAMCS Scope and Design. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/ahcd_scope.htm#namcs_scope. Accessed May 10, 2010.

  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physician Induction Interview. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs1-2006.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2010.

  22. Katz MH. Multivariable Analysis: A Practical Guide for Clinicians. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2006 Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Fee Schedule. Available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ClinicalLabFeeSched/02_clinlab.asp#TopOfPage. Accessed May 10, 2010.

  24. Rice TK, Schork NJ, Rao DC. Methods for handling multiple testing. Adv Genet. 2008;60:293–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitchell JM, Sass TR. Physician ownership of ancillary services: indirect demand inducement or quality assurance? J Health Econ. 1995;14(3):263–289.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Clinical Laboratory Services Payment System. Washington: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was not directly supported with external funds. Drs. Ross and Federman are both currently supported by the National Institute on Aging (K08 AG032886 and K23 AG028955-01, respectively) and by the American Federation of Aging Research through the Paul B. Beeson Career Development Award Program.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tara F. Bishop MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bishop, T.F., Federman, A.D. & Ross, J.S. Laboratory Test Ordering at Physician Offices with and without On-Site Laboratories. J GEN INTERN MED 25, 1057–1063 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1409-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1409-7

KEY WORDS

Navigation