This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Studying Effects of Primary Care Physicians and Patients on the Trade-Off Between Charges for Primary Care and Specialty Care Using a Hierarchical Multivariate Two-Part Model

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
John Robinson (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics)
Scott Zeger (The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)
Christopher Forrest (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy & Management)
Abstract

Objective. To examine effects of primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients on the association between charges for primary care and specialty care in a point-of-service (POS) health plan.Data Source. Claims from 1996 for 3,308 adult male POS plan members, each of whom was assigned to one of the 50 family practitioner-PCPs with the largest POS plan member-loads.Study Design. A hierarchical multivariate two-part model was fitted using a Gibbs sampler to estimate PCPs' effects on patients' annual charges for two types of services, primary care and specialty care, the associations among PCPs' effects, and within-patient associations between charges for the two services. Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs) were used to adjust for case-mix. Principal Findings. PCPs with higher case-mix adjusted rates of specialist use were less likely to see their patients at least once during the year (estimated correlation: .40; 95% CI: .71, .008) and provided fewer services to patients that they saw (estimated correlation: .53; 95% CI: .77, .21). Ten of 11 PCPs whose case-mix adjusted effects on primary care charges were significantly less than or greater than zero (p < .05) had estimated, case-mix adjusted effects on specialty care charges that were of opposite sign (but not significantly different than zero). After adjustment for ACG and PCP effects, the within-patient, estimated odds ratio for any use of primary care given any use of specialty care was .57 (95% CI: .45, .73).Conclusions. PCPs and patients contributed independently to a trade-off between utilization of primary care and specialty care. The trade-off appeared to partially offset significant differences in the amount of care provided by PCPs. These findings were possible because we employed a hierarchical multivariate model rather than separate univariate models.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=jhubiostat
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Berkeley Electronic Press in its series Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Biostatistics Working Paper Series with number 1051.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 26 Aug 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bep:jhubio:1051

Note: oai:bepress.com:jhubiostat-1051
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.bepress.com

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: Provider profiling; Referral to specialists; Point-of-service health plan; Gibbs sampling;

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Burgess Jr., James F. & Christiansen, Cindy L. & Michalak, Sarah E. & Morris, Carl N., 2000. "Medical profiling: improving standards and risk adjustments using hierarchical models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 291-309, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Duan, Naihua, et al, 1983. "A Comparison of Alternative Models for the Demand for Medical Care," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-26, April.
  3. Landrum M.B. & Normand S-L.T. & Rosenheck R.A., 2003. "Selection of Related Multivariate Means: Monitoring Psychiatric Care in the Department of Veterans Affairs," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 7-16, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS also covers the most complete directory of Economics departments and institutes, EDIRC.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-15.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.