An empiric approach to identifying physician peer groups from claims data: An example from breast cancer care

Jeph Herrin, Pamela R. Soulos, Xiao Xu, Cary P. Gross, Craig Pollack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To develop an empiric approach for evaluating the performance of physician peer groups based on patient-sharing in administrative claims data. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. Study Design: Applying social network theory, we constructed physician peer groups for patients with breast cancer. Under different assumptions of key parameter values—minimum patient volume for physician inclusion and minimum number of patients shared between physicians for a connection—we compared agreement in group membership between split samples during 2004-2006 (T1) (reliability) and agreement in group membership between T1 and 2007-2009 (T2) (stability). We also compared the results with those derived from randomly generated groups and to hospital affiliation-based groups. Principal Findings: The sample included 142 098 patients treated by 43 174 physicians in T1 and 136 680 patients treated by 51 515 physicians in T2. We identified parameter values that resulted in a median peer group reliability of 85.2 percent (Interquartile range (IQR) [0 percent, 96.2 percent]) and median stability of 73.7 percent (IQR [0 percent, 91.0 percent]). In contrast, stability of randomly assigned peer groups was 6.2 percent (IQR [0 percent, 21.0 percent]). Median overlap of empirical groups with hospital groups was 32.2 percent (IQR [12.1 percent, 59.2 percent]). Conclusions: It is feasible to construct physician peer groups that are reliable, stable, and distinct from both randomly generated and hospital-based groups.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages44-51
Number of pages8
JournalHealth services research
Volume54
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Peer Group
Breast Neoplasms
Physicians
Information Storage and Retrieval
Medicare
Social Support
Epidemiology

Keywords

  • methods
  • patient-sharing
  • physician networks

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

An empiric approach to identifying physician peer groups from claims data : An example from breast cancer care. / Herrin, Jeph; Soulos, Pamela R.; Xu, Xiao; Gross, Cary P.; Pollack, Craig.

In: Health services research, Vol. 54, No. 1, 01.02.2019, p. 44-51.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Herrin, Jeph ; Soulos, Pamela R. ; Xu, Xiao ; Gross, Cary P. ; Pollack, Craig. / An empiric approach to identifying physician peer groups from claims data : An example from breast cancer care. In: Health services research. 2019 ; Vol. 54, No. 1. pp. 44-51.
@article{0d4c6d7e48b94d80a4a33801159e4dc8,
title = "An empiric approach to identifying physician peer groups from claims data: An example from breast cancer care",
abstract = "Objective: To develop an empiric approach for evaluating the performance of physician peer groups based on patient-sharing in administrative claims data. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. Study Design: Applying social network theory, we constructed physician peer groups for patients with breast cancer. Under different assumptions of key parameter values—minimum patient volume for physician inclusion and minimum number of patients shared between physicians for a connection—we compared agreement in group membership between split samples during 2004-2006 (T1) (reliability) and agreement in group membership between T1 and 2007-2009 (T2) (stability). We also compared the results with those derived from randomly generated groups and to hospital affiliation-based groups. Principal Findings: The sample included 142 098 patients treated by 43 174 physicians in T1 and 136 680 patients treated by 51 515 physicians in T2. We identified parameter values that resulted in a median peer group reliability of 85.2 percent (Interquartile range (IQR) [0 percent, 96.2 percent]) and median stability of 73.7 percent (IQR [0 percent, 91.0 percent]). In contrast, stability of randomly assigned peer groups was 6.2 percent (IQR [0 percent, 21.0 percent]). Median overlap of empirical groups with hospital groups was 32.2 percent (IQR [12.1 percent, 59.2 percent]). Conclusions: It is feasible to construct physician peer groups that are reliable, stable, and distinct from both randomly generated and hospital-based groups.",
keywords = "methods, patient-sharing, physician networks",
author = "Jeph Herrin and Soulos, {Pamela R.} and Xiao Xu and Gross, {Cary P.} and Craig Pollack",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1475-6773.13095",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "54",
pages = "44--51",
journal = "Health Services Research",
issn = "0017-9124",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An empiric approach to identifying physician peer groups from claims data

T2 - Health Services Research

AU - Herrin, Jeph

AU - Soulos, Pamela R.

AU - Xu, Xiao

AU - Gross, Cary P.

AU - Pollack, Craig

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Objective: To develop an empiric approach for evaluating the performance of physician peer groups based on patient-sharing in administrative claims data. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. Study Design: Applying social network theory, we constructed physician peer groups for patients with breast cancer. Under different assumptions of key parameter values—minimum patient volume for physician inclusion and minimum number of patients shared between physicians for a connection—we compared agreement in group membership between split samples during 2004-2006 (T1) (reliability) and agreement in group membership between T1 and 2007-2009 (T2) (stability). We also compared the results with those derived from randomly generated groups and to hospital affiliation-based groups. Principal Findings: The sample included 142 098 patients treated by 43 174 physicians in T1 and 136 680 patients treated by 51 515 physicians in T2. We identified parameter values that resulted in a median peer group reliability of 85.2 percent (Interquartile range (IQR) [0 percent, 96.2 percent]) and median stability of 73.7 percent (IQR [0 percent, 91.0 percent]). In contrast, stability of randomly assigned peer groups was 6.2 percent (IQR [0 percent, 21.0 percent]). Median overlap of empirical groups with hospital groups was 32.2 percent (IQR [12.1 percent, 59.2 percent]). Conclusions: It is feasible to construct physician peer groups that are reliable, stable, and distinct from both randomly generated and hospital-based groups.

AB - Objective: To develop an empiric approach for evaluating the performance of physician peer groups based on patient-sharing in administrative claims data. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. Study Design: Applying social network theory, we constructed physician peer groups for patients with breast cancer. Under different assumptions of key parameter values—minimum patient volume for physician inclusion and minimum number of patients shared between physicians for a connection—we compared agreement in group membership between split samples during 2004-2006 (T1) (reliability) and agreement in group membership between T1 and 2007-2009 (T2) (stability). We also compared the results with those derived from randomly generated groups and to hospital affiliation-based groups. Principal Findings: The sample included 142 098 patients treated by 43 174 physicians in T1 and 136 680 patients treated by 51 515 physicians in T2. We identified parameter values that resulted in a median peer group reliability of 85.2 percent (Interquartile range (IQR) [0 percent, 96.2 percent]) and median stability of 73.7 percent (IQR [0 percent, 91.0 percent]). In contrast, stability of randomly assigned peer groups was 6.2 percent (IQR [0 percent, 21.0 percent]). Median overlap of empirical groups with hospital groups was 32.2 percent (IQR [12.1 percent, 59.2 percent]). Conclusions: It is feasible to construct physician peer groups that are reliable, stable, and distinct from both randomly generated and hospital-based groups.

KW - methods

KW - patient-sharing

KW - physician networks

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057446806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057446806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1475-6773.13095

DO - 10.1111/1475-6773.13095

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 44

EP - 51

JO - Health Services Research

JF - Health Services Research

SN - 0017-9124

IS - 1

ER -