Formal Professional Relationships Between General Practitioners and Specialists in Shared Care: Possible Associations with Patient Health and Pharmacy Costs
- 125 Downloads
Shared care in chronic disease management aims at improving service delivery and patient outcomes, and reducing healthcare costs. The introduction of shared-care models is coupled with mixed evidence in relation to both patient health status and cost of care. Professional interactions among health providers are critical to a successful and efficient shared-care model.
This article investigates whether the strength of formal professional relationships between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists (SPs) in shared care affects either the health status of patients or their pharmacy costs. In strong GP–SP relationships, the patient health status is expected to be high, due to efficient care coordination, and the pharmacy costs low, due to effective use of resources.
This article measures the strength of formal professional relationships between GPs and SPs through the number of shared patients and proxies the patient health status by the number of comorbidities diagnosed and treated. To test the hypotheses and compare the characteristics of the strongest GP–SP connections with those of the weakest, this article concentrates on diabetes—a chronic condition where patient care coordination is likely important. Diabetes generates the largest shared patient cohort in Hungary, with the highest frequency of specialist medication prescriptions.
This article finds that stronger ties result in lower pharmacy costs, but not in higher patient health status.
Overall drug expenditure may be reduced by lowering patient care fragmentation through channelling a GP’s patients to a small number of SPs.
KeywordsGeneral Practitioner Charlson Comorbidity Index Shared Care Oral Antidiabetic Agent Pharmacy Cost
The authors are grateful to DoktorInfo Ltd, for waiving the subscription charge in the interest of scientific research; Petra Baji, Edina Berlinger, László Gulyás, and three anonymous reviewers, for valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft; participants at the 2014 Joint International Health Economics Association (iHEA) and European Conference on Health Economics (ECHE) Congress and participants at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute (DSI), for helpful discussions; Anamaria M. Cristescu-Martin, for editorial assistance; and AXA Research Fund (http://www.axa-research.org), for awarding Ágnes Lublóy the post-doctoral research grant that enabled this research.
Ágnes Lublóy conceived and designed the study, developed the methodology, analysed and interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, revised it critically, and gave final approval. Judit Lilla Keresztúri designed the study, developed the methodology, analysed and interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, revised it critically, and gave final approval. Gábor Benedek conceived and designed the study, acquired the data, supervised the data analysis, revised the manuscript critically, and gave final approval.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The prescription data used in this article were collected by a reputable government-endorsed organisation in agreement with the relevant Hungarian and international legislation—they are available for market research by subscription. This article used the prescription data in an aggregate format, in no way detrimental to individual or collective patients and doctors—patients and doctors cannot be identified either individually or collectively on the basis of this article. The use of prescription data in this article was in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments and as such was approved by the Ethics Committee of Corvinus University of Budapest.
Funding and conflicts of interest
DoktorInfo Ltd has played no role in study design; in the analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of this article; or in the decision to submit it for publication. Ágnes Lublóy is the beneficiary of a post-doctoral grant from the AXA Research Fund. AXA Research Fund has played no role in the preparation of this manuscript. Gábor Benedek is a partner at Lynx Analytics and Thesys SEA Pte Ltd; neither company has been involved in study design; in the analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of this article; or in the decision to submit it for publication. Judit Lilla Keresztúri has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 4.WHO. Classifying health workers: mapping occupation to the international standard classification. In: Health workforce—data and statistics. WHO [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://www.who.int/hrh/statistics/Health_workers_classification.pdf. Cited 4 Jul 2013.
- 5.Hill RD. Shared care for diabetics. Update. 1978;16:1339–45.Google Scholar
- 7.NHIFH. Tasks of the National Health Insurance Fund of Hungary. In The National Health Insurance Fund mission, core activities and powers. NHIFH [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.oep.hu/felso_menu/rolunk/kozerdeku_adatok/tevekenysegre_mukodesre_vonatkozo_adatok/a_szerv_feladata_alaptevekenysege_es_hatarkore/en_a_szerv_alaptevekenyege_feladata_es_hatarkore. Cited 16 Feb 2015.
- 8.WHO. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010: description of the global burden of NCDs, their risk factors and determinants. In: Publications. WHO [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report2010/en. Cited 15 May 2014.
- 14.Greenhalgh PM. Shared care for diabetes. A systematic review. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 1994;(67):i–viii,1–35.Google Scholar
- 17.Smith SM, Allwright S, O’Dowd T. Effectiveness of shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in chronic disease management. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD004910.Google Scholar
- 21.Lublóy Á, Váradi K. General practitioner–specialist relationships in shared care systems: insights from a review of the literature. Pannon Manag Rev. 2013;2(3):79–111.Google Scholar
- 22.WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision. In: Classifications. WHO [Internet]. 2015. Available from: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en. Cited 31 Jan 2015.
- 26.WHO. Constitution. In basic documents. Geneva: WHO; 1948.Google Scholar
- 27.Blackwood R. Measures of health status, quality of life and health care. HealthKnowledge [Internet]. 2009. Available from: http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1c-health-care-evaluation-health-care-assessment/measures-health-status. Cited 1 Jun 2015.
- 28.OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD StatExtracts Health Status. OECD [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT. Cited 2 Jun 2015.
- 29.WHO Statistical Information System (WHOSIS). Indicator definitions and metadata. WHO [Internet]. 2015. Available from: http://www.who.int/whosis/indicatordefinitions/en/. Cited 2 Jun 2015.
- 39.Rochon PA, Katz JN, Morrow LA, McGlinchey-Berroth R, Ahlquist MM, Sarkarati M, et al. Comorbid illness is associated with survival and length of hospital stay in patients with chronic disability. A prospective comparison of three comorbidity indices. Med Care. 1996;34(11):1093–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.WHO. Introduction to drug utilization research. In: Essential medicines and health products information portal: a World Health Organization resource. WHO [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4876e/s4876e.pdf. Cited 9 Feb 2015.