Skip to main content
Log in

Physician-Level Variation in Practice Patterns in the VA Healthcare System

  • Published:
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether there is enough variation in utilization of medical services which can be reliably attributed to primary care providers to justify practice profiling. A total of 221 primary care providers caring for 81,775 patients with a variety of medical conditions in eight Veterans Affairs medical centers and their associated clinics during calendar year 1999 were used for the study. After controlling for case-mix variation, the physician-level variation in utilization among providers who had at least 75 patients was evaluated. Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs) were used for case-mix adjustment. Physician effect was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Patient-level utilization outcomes were total hospital bed days of care, laboratory costs, radiology costs, and pharmacy costs for each patient during calendar year 1999. The physician effect (ICC) ranged from .04 for bed days to .12 for laboratory costs. The reliabilities of the physician effect estimates computed using the Spearman-Brown prediction formula ranged from .75 for bed days to .91 for laboratory costs for providers with 75 or more patients. The profiling methodology reliably detected practice differences among providers in all utilization outcomes studied. However, the value of profiling as a means of improving quality of care or efficiency is yet untested.

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. Aguilar, O. and West, M. “Analysis of hospital quality monitors using hierarchical time series models,” in Case studies in Bayesian Statistics (C. Gatsonis, R.E. Kass, and C. Carlin, eds.), Springer, New York, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bindman, A. “Can physician's profiles be trusted (editorial)?” JAMA 281(22): 2142-2143, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Borowski, S.J. and Cowper, D.C. “Dual use of VA and non-VA primary care,” J. Gen. Intern. Med. 14, 274-280, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bravo, C. and Potvin, L. “Estimating the reliability of continuous measures with Cronbach's alpha or the intraclass correlation coefficient: Toward the integration of two traditions,” J. Clinical Epidemiology 44, 381-390, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Christiansen, C.L. and Morris, C.N. “Fitting and checking a two-level Poisson model: Modeling patient mortality rates in heart transplant patients,” in Bayesian biostatistics (D.A. Berry and D.K. Stangl, eds.), Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Christiansen, C.L. and Morris, C.N. “Improving the statistical approach to health care provider profiling,” Ann. Int. Med. 127, 764-768, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Crocker, L. and Algina, J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory, Harcourt Brace Janovitch College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Daniels, M.J. and Gatsonis, C. “Hierarchical polytomous regression models with applications to health services research,” Stat. in Med. 16, 2311-2326, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Draper, N.R. and Smith, H. Applied regression analysis, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gatsonis, C.A., Epstein, A.M., Newhouse, J.P., Normand, S.-L., and McNeil, B.J. “Variations in the utilization of coronary angiography for elderly patients with an acute myocardial infarction:Ananalysis using hierarchical logistic regression,” Med. Care 33, 625-642, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goldstein, H. Multilevel statistical models, 2nd ed., Edward Arnold, London, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldstein, H. and Spiegelhalter, D. “League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance,” J. Roy. Stat. Soc., Series A. 159, 385-444, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hofer, T.P., Hayward, R.A., Greenfield, S., Wagner, E.H. Kaplan, S.H., and Manning, W.G. “The unreliability of individual physician 'report cards' for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease,” JAMA 281(22), 2098-2105, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The Johns Hopkins University ACG Case Mix Adjustment System, Version 4.1, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1998.

  15. Iezzoni, L.I., Daley, J., Schwartz, M., Hughes, J.S., and Ash, A.S. Risk adjustment for measuring healthcare outcomes, 2nd ed. Health Administration Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kackar, R.N. and Harville, D.A. “Approximations for standard errors of estimators of fixed and random effects in mixed linear models,” J. Am. Stat. Assn. 79(388), 853-862, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kass, R.A. and Steffey, D. “Approximate Bayesian inference in conditionally independent hierarchical models (parametric empirical Bayes model),” J. Am. Stat. Assn. 84(407), 717-726, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kassirer, J.P. “The use and abuse of medical profiles,” N. Engl. J. Med. 330, 634-636, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Khuri, S.F., Daley, J., Henderson, W., Hur, K., Gibbs, J.O., Barbour, G., Demakis, J., Irvin, G., Stremple, J.F., Grover, F., McDonald, G., Passaro, E., Fabri, P.J., Spencer, J., Hammermeister, K., and Aust, J.B. “Risk adjustment of the postoperative mortality rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: Results of the national Veterans Affairs surgical risk study,” J. Am. Coll. Surg. 185(4), 315-327, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kiefe, C.I., Weissman, N.W., Allison, J.J., Farmer, F., Weaver, M., and Williams, O.D. “Identifying achievable benchmarks of care: Concepts and methodology,” Int. J. Qual. Health Care 10(5), 443-447, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McCulloch, C.E. and Searle, S.R. Generalized, linear, and mixed models, Wiley, New York, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Normand, S.-L., Glickman, M.E., and Gatsonis, C. “Statistical models for profiling providers of medical care: Issues and applications,” J. Am. Stat. Assn. 92, 803-814, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Normand, S.-L., Glickman, M.E., and Ryan, T. “Modeling mortality rates for elderly heart attack patients: Pro-filing hospitals in the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project,” in Case studies in bayesian statistics (C. Gatsonis, J. Hodger, R. Kass, and N. Singpurwalla, eds.), Springer, pp. 155-236, 1997.

  24. Nunnaly, J.C. Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Oxman, A.D., Thomson, M.A., Davis, D.A., and Haynes, R.B. “No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice,” JAMA 153, 1423-1431, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Parente, S.T., Weiner, J.P., Garnick, D.W., Fowles, J., Lawthers, G., and Palmer, R.H. “Profiling resource use by primary-care practices: Managed Medicare implications,” Health Care Financing Review 17(4), 23-42, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Prasad, N.G.N. and Rao, J.N.K. “The estimation of the mean squared error of small-area estimators,” J. Am. Stat. Assn. 85(409), 163-171, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Randall, M., Kilpatrick, K.E., Pendergast, J.F., Jones, K.R., and Vogel, W.B. “Differences in patient characteristics between Veterans Administration and community hospitals,” Med. Care 25(11), 1099-1110, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Salem-Schatz, S., Moore, G., Rucker, M., and Pearson, S.D. “The case for case-mix adjustment in practice profiling. When good apples look bad,” JAMA 272(11), 871-874, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  30. SAS User's Guide, Version 8, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 2000.

  31. Starfield, B., Weiner, J., Mumford, L., and Steinwachs, D. “Ambulatory Care Groups: A categorization of diagnoses for research and management,” Health Care Financing Review 26(1), 53-74, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Verbeke, G. and Molenberghs, G. eds. Linear mixed models in practice, 2nd ed. Springer, New York, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Weiner, J., Dobson, A., Maxwell, S., Coleman, K., Starfield, B., and Anderson, J. “Risk-adjusted Medicare capitation rates using ambulatory and inpatient diagnoses,” Health Care Financing Review 17(3) 77-99, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Pietz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pietz, K., O'Malley, K.J., Byrne, M. et al. Physician-Level Variation in Practice Patterns in the VA Healthcare System. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology 3, 95–106 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024257107013

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024257107013

Navigation