Trends in Integration Between Physician Organizations and Pharmacies for Self-Administered Drugs

Pragya Kakani,David M. Cutler,Meredith B. Rosenthal,Nancy L. Keating

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.56592

2024-02-20

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study examines changes in the use of specialty-relevant in-house pharmacies and cost of drugs associated with physician organizations.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Trends in Medically Integrated Dispensing Among Oncology Practices

Genevieve P Kanter,Ravi B Parikh,Michael J Fisch,David Debono,Justin Bekelman,Yao Xu,Stephanie Schauder,Gosia Sylwestrzak,John J Barron,Rebecca Cobb,Dima M Qato,Mireille Jacobson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.22.00136

Abstract:Purpose: The integration of pharmacies with oncology practices-known as medically integrated dispensing or in-office dispensing-could improve care coordination but may incentivize overprescribing or inappropriate prescribing. Because little is known about this emerging phenomenon, we analyzed historical trends in medically integrated dispensing. Methods: Annual IQVIA data on oncologists were linked to 2010-2019 National Council for Prescription Drug Programs pharmacy data; data on commercially insured patients diagnosed with any of six common cancer types; and summary data on providers' Medicare billing. We calculated the national prevalence of medically integrated dispensing among community and hospital-based oncologists. We also analyzed the characteristics of the oncologists and patients affected by this care model. Results: Between 2010 and 2019, the percentage of oncologists in practices with medically integrated dispensing increased from 12.8% to 32.1%. The share of community oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 7.6% to 28.3%, whereas the share of hospital-based oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 18.3% to 33.4%. Rates of medically integrated dispensing varied considerably across states. Oncologists who dispensed had higher patient volumes (P < .001) and a smaller share of Medicare beneficiaries (P < .001) than physicians who did not dispense. Patients treated by dispensing oncologists had higher risk and comorbidity scores (P < .001) and lived in areas with a higher % Black population (P < .001) than patients treated by nondispensing oncologists. Conclusion: Medically integrated dispensing has increased significantly among oncology practices over the past 10 years. The reach, clinical impact, and economic implications of medically integrated dispensing should be evaluated on an ongoing basis.
Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration

Genevieve P. Kanter,Pelin Ozluk,Winnie Chi,Michael J. Fisch,David Debono,Ravi B. Parikh,Mireille Jacobson,Justin E. Bekelman,Andrea DeVries

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12998

2024-05-24

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation. Objective To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site. Main Outcomes and Measures Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator. Results Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ( 41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (– 8293 to –$80; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

medicine, general & internal
Trends in acquisitions of physician practices and subsequent clinical integration: A mixed methods study

Jacob West,Garret Johnson,Ashish K Jha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12820

Abstract:Rationale, aims, and objectives: The US health care system is marked by a high degree of fragmentation in both delivery and financing. Some evidence suggests that attempts to reduce fragmentation have led to significant provider consolidation, including hospital acquisitions of physician groups, or "vertical integration." The objective was to use time-series data to quantify trends in and characteristics of hospital acquisitions of physician practices. A secondary objective was to use case studies to determine the motivations for these acquisitions and to identify what integration results from these transactions. Methods: Data on annual hospital acquisition of physician practices was used to quantify trends and characteristics of acquiring hospitals between 2006 and 2013. Four in-depth case studies, including structured interviews with hospital leadership, were then conducted of recent hospital acquisitions of primary care practices. Results: Acquisitions of physician practices have been increasing over the last decade and peaked in 2011. Most acquisitions were of small primary care, multi-specialty, or cardiology practices. The case studies revealed that the primary motivation for hospital acquisitions was to increase referrals and negotiate higher payment rates. These transactions resulted in very limited clinical integration, while all acquiring hospitals sought to integrate health information systems. Conclusions: Among 4 case-studies of hospital acquisition of physician practices, the primary motivation was financial and competitive motivations. This suggests that policymakers should be mindful of the potential negative effects of these acquisitions on health care costs, as well as the uncertainty of clinical benefits. Policymakers may need supplementary strategies to deliver the goals of reduced costs and improved quality of care.
Impact of hospital‐physician vertical integration on physician‐administered drug spending and utilization

Jonathan S. Levin,Xiaoxi Zhao,Christopher Whaley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4909

IF: 2.395

2024-11-16

Health Economics

Abstract:We estimate the effects of hospital‐physician vertical integration on spending and utilization of physician‐administered drugs for hematology‐oncology, ophthalmology, and rheumatology. Using a 100% sample of Medicare fee‐for‐service medical claims from 2013 to 2017, we find that vertical integration shifts treatments away from physician offices and toward hospital outpatient departments. These shifts are accompanied by increases in physician‐administered drug administration spending per procedure for all three specialties. Spending on Part B drugs also increases for hematologist‐oncologists. At the same time, physician treatment intensity, as measured by the number of beneficiaries who receive drug infusions/injections and the number of drug infusions, decreases across all three specialties. These results suggest that the incentives of the Medicare reimbursement system, particularly site‐of‐care payment differentials and outpatient drug reimbursement rates, interact with vertical integration to lead to higher overall spending. Policies and merger guidelines should attempt to restrain spending increases attributed to vertical integration.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
Factors Influencing Physician Practices' Adoption of Behavioral Health Integration in the United States: A Qualitative Study

Angèle Malâtre-Lansac,Charles C Engel,Lea Xenakis,Lindsey Carlasare,Kathleen Blake,Carol Vargo,Christopher Botts,Peggy G Chen,Mark W Friedberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-0132

2020-07-21

Abstract:Background: Behavioral health integration is uncommon among U.S. physician practices despite recent policy changes that may encourage its adoption. Objective: To describe factors influencing physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration. Design: Semistructured interviews with leaders and clinicians from physician practices that adopted behavioral health integration, supplemented by contextual interviews with experts and vendors in behavioral health integration. Setting: 30 physician practices, sampled for diversity on specialty, size, affiliation with parent organizations, geographic location, and behavioral health integration model (collaborative or co-located). Participants: 47 physician practice leaders and clinicians, 20 experts, and 5 vendors. Measurements: Qualitative analysis (cyclical coding) of interview transcripts. Results: Four overarching factors affecting physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration were identified. First, practices' motivations for integrating behavioral health care included expanding access to behavioral health services, improving other clinicians' abilities to respond to patients' behavioral health needs, and enhancing practice reputation. Second, practices tailored their implementation of behavioral health integration to local resources, financial incentives, and patient populations. Third, barriers to behavioral health integration included cultural differences and incomplete information flow between behavioral and nonbehavioral health clinicians and billing difficulties. Fourth, practices described the advantages and disadvantages of both fee-for-service and alternative payment models, and few reported positive financial returns. Limitation: The practice sample was not nationally representative and excluded practices that did not implement or sustain behavioral health integration, potentially limiting generalizability. Conclusion: Practices currently using behavioral health integration face cultural, informational, and financial barriers to implementing and sustaining behavioral health integration. Tailored, context-specific technical support to guide practices' implementation and payment models that improve the business case for practices may enhance the dissemination and long-term sustainability of behavioral health integration. Primary funding source: American Medical Association and The Commonwealth Fund.
Association between changes in prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs

Hussain S. Lalani,Massimilano Russo,Rishi J. Desai,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Benjamin N. Rome

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14279

2024-01-23

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To determine whether annual changes in prices for clinician‐administered drugs are associated with changes in patient out‐of‐pocket costs. Data Sources and Study Setting National commercial claims database, 2009 to 2018. Study Design In a serial, cross‐sectional study, we calculated the annual percent change in manufacturer list prices and net prices after rebates. We used two‐part generalized linear models to assess the relationship between annual changes in price with (1) the percentage of individuals incurring any out‐of‐pocket costs and (2) the percent change in median non‐zero out‐of‐pocket costs. Data Collection/Extraction Methods We created annual cohorts of privately insured individuals who used one of 52 brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs. Principal Findings List prices increased 4.4%/yr (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1% to 6.0%) and net prices 3.3%/yr (IQR, 0.3% to 5.5%). The median percentage of patients with any out‐of‐pocket costs increased from 38% in 2009 to 48% in 2018, and median non‐zero annual out‐of‐pocket costs increased by 9.6%/yr (IQR, 4.1% to 15.4%). There was no association between changes in prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for individual drugs. Conclusions From 2009 to 2018, prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs increased, but these were not directly related for individual drugs. This may be due to changes to insurance benefit design and private insurer drug reimbursement rates.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Ancillary Cost Implications of Physicians Multisiting and Inter‐Organizational Collaboration During Healthcare Delivery

Yingchao Lan,Deepa Goradia,Aravind Chandrasekaran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13567

IF: 4.638

2021-10-19

Production and Operations Management

Abstract:This study investigates diagnostic testing and pharmacy expenditures, commonly referred to as ancillary costs in the United States acute-care hospitals. These ancillary costs are charges associated with services provided to support patient treatment, including laboratory, radiology, and pharmacy charges. Despite of investment in inter-organizational and technological collaboration practices, these costs continue to rise. Our research examines the role of individual healthcare providers, namely multisiting physicians, who practice at more than one hospital, in reducing ancillary cost. We also look at how inter-organizational collaboration measured by the hospital's affiliation in an accountable care organization (ACO) model affect this relationship. To do this, we assembled a unique data set of 163,617 patients treated by 4,411 physicians at 182 hospitals in Florida from 2014 to 2016. Using an econometric estimation approach accounting for endogeneity, we find that patients treated by multisiting physicians experienced, on an average, per-hospitalization reduction in laboratory and radiology charges of 58.57% and 30.11%, respectively. These savings increase when multisiting physicians have less practice experience. We also find that hospitals participating in ACO model complement the savings achieved through multisiting physicians in the form of even lower pharmacy costs. In post-hoc analyses, we find such cost reduction comes from reducing the total number of procedures or tests ordered. We also show that the lower treatment charges do not compromise the clinical quality of patients treated by multisiting physicians. Collectively, the findings offer important insights to the healthcare operations management literature on the interaction between individual-organizational collaboration efforts and patient-level outcomes.

operations research & management science,engineering, manufacturing
Key factors for sustainable integration of pharmacists in team-based primary care physician practices

Sarah Krahe Dombrowski,Jennifer L Bacci,Patricia M Klatt,Maria Osborne,Gregory Castelli,Anne Burns,Melissa A Somma McGivney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2019.02.005

Abstract:Objectives: To (1) identify strategies for financial justification of pharmacists integrated into team-based primary care, (2) describe the payment models currently used for integration of pharmacists into team-based primary care, and (3) elicit key factors facilitating sustainable pharmacist-provided patient care services in the primary care setting. Design: Qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews. Setting: Nonacademic outpatient primary care physician practices throughout the United States from January to April 2014. Participants: Pharmacists responsible for leadership of clinical pharmacists in primary care practices whose positions are supported through nondispensing patient care services. Main outcome measures: Current payment model, infrastructure, documentation strategies, and methods of quality assessment. Results: Twelve interviews were conducted. Practices included a combination of single- and mixed-payer models in integrated and nonintegrated health systems. Various billing strategies were used, particularly in nonintegrated models, to sustain pharmacists in primary care practices utilizing both fee-for-service (FFS) and value-based incentives payments. Five main themes were elicited: (1) Pharmacists are integrated and valuable members of health care teams; (2) pharmacists are documenting in an accessible electronic health record; (3) data tracking is a facilitator for justifying and adapting practice; (4) systematized processes for pharmacist integration exist in each practice; and (5) pharmacists' responsibilities on the team have grown and evolved over time. Conclusion: Pharmacists' contributions to improving patients' medication-related care are the same regardless of payment model. Financially sustainable integration of pharmacists on the team involves using a combination of FFS and value-based incentive payments, consistent documentation, meaningful collection of pharmacists' contributions to improve the quality of care, and a firm understanding of the practice's needs and financial structure. These themes can be used as a guide for pharmacists as they establish themselves in an FFS environment and adapt to a future in value-based care.
Auditing the prescription drug consumer price index in a changing marketplace

Andrew L. Hicks,Ernst R. Berndt,Richard G. Frank

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4836

IF: 2.395

2024-05-01

Health Economics

Abstract:Changes in the dynamics of prescription drug markets have raised issues regarding whether the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS') Prescription Drug Consumer Price Index (CPI‐Rx) has adequately kept up with the evolving marketplace. The CPI‐Rx limits its sampling frame to retail outpatient outlets and excludes prescription pharmaceuticals dispensed in non‐retail settings such as hospitals, physician/clinic outpatient facilities, and nursing homes. Thus, the CPI‐Rx overlooks the increasingly important specialty pharmaceuticals dispensed in non‐retail settings, whose transactions are instead captured in the overall hospital and professional services component of the medical care CPI. Specialty drugs now account for about 55% of all U.S. drug spending, double the share of a decade earlier. To the extent specialty drug price growth differs from that of traditional pharmaceuticals, the CPI‐Rx could provide an inaccurate measure of overall drug price inflation. We calculate a chained Laspeyres CPI using data from the MerativeTM MarketScan® Databases for the years 2010–2019 and IQVIA‐designated specialty drugs and offer evidence showing that by not sampling specialty drugs in non‐retail settings, the CPI‐Rx has understated overall U.S. prescription drug inflation by just under 75 basis points annually. We discuss implications for health care policy and suggest the BLS examine the feasibility of publishing an overall pharmaceutical price index incorporating both traditional and specialty pharmaceuticals dispensed in retail and non‐retail settings.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
Effect of integration of prescription drug monitoring program data in the electronic health record on queries by primary care providers

Daniel M Hartung,Steven Z Kassakian,Michelle A Hendricks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582241259337

2024-06-07

Health Informatics Journal

Abstract:Health Informatics Journal, Volume 30, Issue 2, April-June 2024. Objective: To evaluate the impact of PDMP integration in the EHR on provider query rates within twelve primary care clinics in one academic medical center. Methods: Using linked data from the EHR and state PDMP program, we evaluated changes in PDMP query rates using a stepped-wedge observational design where integration was implemented in three waves (four clinics per wave) over a five-month period (May, July, September 2019). Multivariable negative binomial general estimating equations (GEE) models assessed changes in PDMP query rates, overall and across several provider and clinic-level subgroups. Results: Among 206 providers in PDMP integrated clinics, the average number of queries per provider per month increased significantly from 1.43 (95% CI 1.07 – 1.91) pre-integration to 3.94 (95% CI 2.96 – 5.24) post-integration, a 2.74-fold increase (95% CI 2.11 to 3.59; p < .0001). Those in the lowest quartile of PDMP use pre-integration increased 36.8-fold (95% CI 16.91 – 79.95) after integration, significantly more than other pre-integration PDMP use quartiles. Conclusions: Integration of the PDMP in the EHR significantly increased the use of the PDMP overall and across all studied subgroups. PDMP use increased to a greater degree among providers with lower PDMP use pre-integration.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
The Role of Organizational Affiliations in Physician Patient-Sharing Relationships

Kimberley H. Geissler,Benjamin Lubin,Keith M. Marzilli Ericson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558718769403

2018-04-20

Medical Care Research and Review

Abstract:Provider consolidation may enable improved care coordination, but raises concerns about lack of competition. Physician patient-sharing relationships play a key role in constructing patient care teams, but it is unknown how organization affiliations affect these. We use the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database to examine whether patient-sharing relationships are associated with sharing a practice site, medical group, and/or physician contracting network. Physicians were 17 percentage points more likely to have a patient-sharing relationship if they shared a practice site and 4 percentage points more likely if they shared a medical group, as compared with sharing no affiliation. However, there was no detectable increased probability of a patient-sharing relationship within the same physician contracting network. Our finding that physician patient-sharing relationships are concentrated within organizational boundaries at practice site and medical group levels helps illuminate referral incentives and provide insight into the role of organizational affiliations in patient care team construction.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Evaluation of Specialty Drug Price Trends Using Data from Retrospective Pharmacy Sales Transactions

Robert Penington,Jo Ann Stubbings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.9.1010

2016-09-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The past 25 years have seen a substantial increase in the effect of specialty drugs on patient care. These agents were initially not considered financially viable because they often served a comparatively small market of patients. However, the extended monopoly afforded to manufacturers of these drugs by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 has made treatment of rare diseases, which specialty drugs often target, a more viable option. As a result, pharmaceutical companies began to increase research and development expenditures in this area, and the pipeline of specialty drugs began to grow in the late 1980s.OBJECTIVE: To analyze the annual change in wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) pricing of specialty drugs sold over a period of 11 years.METHODS: Pharmacy claims data, including date and WAC, were collected for each specialty drug transaction that occurred from 2002 through 2013 at the University of Illinois at Chicago Ambulatory Care Pharmacy Department. The data were organized to create a chronological sequence of WAC values from the initial to final sales of each available drug. Those values were then used to calculate annual percentage of change in WAC. These results were grouped into subsets and graphed in order to illustrate the effects that various factors had on the annual changes in price.RESULTS: The price of the specialty drugs studied has generally shown a greater rate of increase since experiencing a trough rate increase in 2009 of 4.08%. The economic crisis of 2008 created a short pause in this overall trend, but increases in the rate of price growth have since rebounded. WACs increased at a rate of 7.03% or greater from 2010 through the end of the study period. There was a clear increase over the last few years of the study in the number of drugs with more than 10% annual increases in WAC, which has also shown a rebound after the economic crisis at the end of the last decade.CONCLUSIONS: Specialty drugs are getting more expensive at a faster rate over time. The period from 2010 to 2013, the final year of this study, has also seen biologic agents take a more prominent role in driving these annual increases in WAC.DISCLOSURES: No funding was provided for the commission of this study. The source data was provided by the University of Illinois at Chicago Ambulatory Care Pharmacy Department and described de-identified data from customer transactions from 2002 through 2013. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design and data interpretation were contributed by Stubbings and Penington. The manuscript was written primarily by Penington with assistance from Stubbings.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services
Hospital Prices for Physician-Administered Drugs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc2402132

IF: 158.5

2024-04-11

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 390, Issue 14, Page 1347-1348, April 2024.

medicine, general & internal
Hospital Prices for Physician-Administered Drugs for Patients with Private Insurance

James C. Robinson,Christopher Whaley,Sanket S. Dhruva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa2306609

IF: 158.5

2024-01-26

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 390, Issue 4, Page 338-345, January 2024.

medicine, general & internal
Reprint of: Self-identified prescriber tendencies in sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor outpatient prescribing

Kristen Thompson,Brandi L Bowers,Ashley M Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2024.102177

Abstract:Background: Despite expanded indications and demonstrated cardiovascular and renal benefits, prescribing rates of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are low. Objectives: The study aimed to identify factors impacting prescriber decision-making when prescribing SGLT-2 inhibitors in the outpatient setting and identify differences across specialties in self-identified prescribing patterns. Methods: An anonymous survey was administered electronically to prescribers in relevant specialties at a large community health system. Descriptive statistics were used to compile results, and subgroup comparisons were conducted utilizing Fisher's exact test. Results: Fifty-one prescribers completed the survey, representing a 25.2% response rate. The highest reported prescribing rates were for type 2 diabetes (92%), and the lowest for HFpEF (20%) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction (16%). Prescribers without clinic-embedded pharmacist were more likely to report cost and insurance had at least a moderate effect on prescribing compared to prescribers with clinic-embedded pharmacists (95.3% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.0228) and less likely to report hemoglobin A1c less than 6.5% to have at least a moderate effect on prescribing (20.9% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.0317). Compared to specialty providers, primary care prescribers were more likely to report hemoglobin A1c over 9% had at least a moderate effect on prescribing (92.0% vs. 42.9%, P = 0.0082) and less likely to note history of urinary tract infection (22.2% vs. 85.7%, P = 0.0028), history of mycotic infection (38.9% vs. 100%, P = 0.0036), and sex (male: 5.6% vs. 42.9%, P = 0.0242; female: 8.0% vs. 42.9%, P = 0.0447) had at least a moderate effect on prescribing. Conclusion: Prescribing hesitancies vary across specialty and when clinic-embedded pharmacists are present. Pharmacists may help improve SGLT-2 inhibitor prescribing rates and use of guideline-directed therapies. Pharmacists can target identified hesitancies through medication-access consultations, education regarding adverse effects, and expanded benefits of the class. Future studies should examine the impact of pharmacist intervention on SGLT-2 inhibitor prescribing rates.
Effect of physician-hospital financial integration on health outcomes and spending ∗

Amy R. Wagner

Abstract:Physician-hospital financial integration rates have surged over the past few years. The Medicare fee rules permit integrated physicians to charge higher prices for office visits. Meanwhile, industry stakeholders claim that integration may promote care coordination and quality, each of which may in turn improve patient health. Economic theory provides mixed evidence about the consequences of physician-hospital financial integration. I examine the effect of physician-hospital financial integration on health outcomes and spending using patient-year level Medicare data, and physicianyear level integration data. I exploit the granularity of this data to make more precise estimates of the effect of integration on health outcomes than previous studies made. I address selection on both patient and physician unobservables by using an instrumental variables model with physician fixed effects. Addressing these two important sources of selection allows me to identify the causal effects of physician-hospital financial integration. I find that having an integrated primary care physician (PCP) does not significantly affect average mortality risk, but does reduce the risk of less severe adverse health outcomes attributable to conditions that are treatable in primary care settings. I also show that attending an integrated PCP does not increase health care spending. Physician-hospital financial integration could potentially impact patient health via several mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms predict that the effect of integration should be heterogeneous over patient characteristics. I test these predictions in the data. My results indicate that inter-specialty coordination is not playing a large role in the beneficial effects of physician-hospital financial integration. I also show that the higher prices associated with integrated PCPs do not reduce access to primary care. I find suggestive evidence that integration increases mortality for low income patients but decreases mortality for high income patients. JEL classification codes: I11, L42

Medicine,Economics
Ethical conflict in nurse practitioners and physician assistants in managed care

Connie M Ulrich,Marion Danis,Sarah J Ratcliffe,Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer,Deloris Koziol,Karen L Soeken,Christine Grady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200611000-00003

Abstract:Background: More patients are receiving healthcare services from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). These providers are likely to be confronted with a variety of ethical issues as they balance quality care with their patients' rising cost concerns. However, very little is known about the ethical conflicts and causes of these conflicts experienced by these clinicians in their daily practice. Objective: To identify ethical concerns and conflicts NPs and PAs encounter related to managed care in the delivery of primary care to patients and the factors that influence ethical conflict. Methods: A cross-sectional self-administered mailed questionnaire was sent to 3,900 NPs and PAs randomly selected from primary care and primary care subspecialties in the United States (adjusted response rate, 50.6%). Respondents were surveyed on ethical issues and concerns, ethics preparedness, and ethical conflict. Bivariate and multiple linear regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of ethical conflict. Results: Insurance constraints were reported to have interfered with the ability to provide quality patient care by 72% of respondents, with 55.3% reporting daily to weekly interferences. Nearly half of respondents (47%) have been asked by a patient to mislead insurers to assist them in receiving care. A perceived obligation to advocate for patients, even if it means exaggerating the severity of a patient's condition, was the single most significant predictor of ethical conflict, explaining 25% of the variance. Discussion: NPs and PAs are experiencing ethical conflict often associated with their perceived professional obligations to advocate for patients. Being well-prepared in ethics and having sufficient professional independence help clinicians balance the ethical complexities and demands of meeting patients' needs within a constrained healthcare system.
Association between physician–hospital integration and inpatient care delivery in accountable care organizations: An instrumental variable analysis

Meng‐Yun Lin,Amresh D. Hanchate,Austin B. Frakt,James F. Burgess Jr,Kathleen Carey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14311

2024-04-25

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To investigate the relationship between physician–hospital integration within accountable care organizations (ACOs) and inpatient care utilization and expenditure. Data Sources The primary data were Massachusetts All‐Payer Claims Database (2009–2013). Study Setting Fifteen provider organizations that entered a commercial ACO contract with a major private payer in Massachusetts between 2009 and 2013. Study Design Using an instrumental variable approach, the study compared inpatient care delivery between patients of ACOs demonstrating high versus low integration. We measured physician–hospital integration within ACOs by the proportion of primary care physicians in an ACO who billed for outpatient services with a place‐of‐service code indicating employment or practice ownership by a hospital. The study sample comprised non‐elderly adults who had continuous insurance coverage and were attributed to one of the 15 ACOs. Outcomes of interest included total medical expenditure during an episode of inpatient care, length of stay (LOS) of the index hospitalization, and 30‐day readmission. An inpatient episode was defined as 30, 45, and 60 days from the admission date. Data Collection/Extraction Methods Not applicable. Principal Findings The study examined 33,535 admissions from patients served by the 15 ACOs. Average medical expenditure within 30 days of admission was 26,447, and within 60 days was $28,043. Average LOS was 3.5 days, and 5.4% of patients were readmitted within 30 days. Physician–hospital integration was associated with a 10.6% reduction in 30‐day expenditure (95% CI, −15.1% to −5.9%). Corresponding estimates for 45 and 60 days were − 9.7% (95%CI, −14.2% to −4.9%) and − 9.6% (95%CI, −14.3% to −4.7%). Integration was associated with a 15.7% decrease in LOS (95%CI, −22.6% to −8.2%) but unrelated to 30‐day readmission rate. Conclusions Our instrumental variable analysis shows physician–hospital integration with ACOs was associated with reduced inpatient spending and LOS, with no evidence of elevated readmission rates.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Spending on and Use of Clinician-Administered Drugs in Medicare

Megan F Hyland,Rebecca M Sachs,Lara Robillard,Tamara B Hayford,Ge Bai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.2941

2023-09-01

JAMA Health Forum

Abstract:Importance: Medicare Part B drug expenditures have increased in recent years. This trend is likely to persist given the increased use and availability of biologics. Objectives: To assess the extent to which Medicare Part B spending growth was associated with changes in price vs quantity, and how these trends interacted with entry of new drugs into the marketplace. Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study quantified the degree of spending concentration and the association between price and use of Part B drugs among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Data on use and spending for separately payable Part B drugs were included. Source data were aggregated to the drug-year level and reported from 2016 to 2020. Descriptive decomposition and index analyses quantified the relative association of price and use changes separately for existing single-source drugs, existing drugs that faced competition, and new drugs that entered the market. Data analysis was performed from June to December 2022. Main outcomes and measures: Part B drug spending by the fee-for-service Medicare program and beneficiaries, as well as use, defined as dosage units and beneficiaries using the drugs. Results: The study included 535 unique Part B drug products. From 2016 to 2020, 15 or fewer products comprised half of all Part B drug expenditures. The set of 7 drugs that comprised the top 25% of spending was very consistent over time, and all were biologics. Part B drug products that cost $1.85 or less per administration accounted for more than half of the doses administered in 2020. Spending on Part B drugs increased by $15 billion from 2016 to 2020. The entry of new, nonbiosimilar drugs during this period accounted for $12 billion of this increased spending (80%), while shifts in use and price increases among existing single-source brand drugs accounted for the remaining increase in spending. Part B spending decreased among the subset of existing drugs facing generic or biosimilar competition. Among single-source drugs on the market in 2016, the index that varied dosage units exceeded the index that varied price in all years, confirming that changes in use were associated more with spending growth for those drugs. Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of Medicare Part B drug expenditures, spending was found to be concentrated among a small number of drugs. The entry of new products was a key factor associated with recent increases in Part B drug spending. These findings suggest that policies targeting top-selling drugs may have greater potential to curb Part B drug spending than those targeting price growth.
Vertical integration: hospital ownership of physician practices is associated with higher prices and spending.

M. Bundorf,L. Baker,Daniel P. Kessler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1279

2014-05-01

Health Affairs

Abstract:We examined the consequences of contractual or ownership relationships between hospitals and physician practices, often described as vertical integration. Such integration can reduce health spending and increase the quality of care by improving communication across care settings, but it can also increase providers' market power and facilitate the payment of what are effectively kickbacks for inappropriate referrals. We investigated the impact of vertical integration on hospital prices, volumes (admissions), and spending for privately insured patients. Using hospital claims from Truven Analytics MarketScan for the nonelderly privately insured in the period 2001-07, we constructed county-level indices of prices, volumes, and spending and adjusted them for enrollees' age and sex. We measured hospital-physician integration using information from the American Hospital Association on the types of relationships hospitals have with physicians. We found that an increase in the market share of hospitals with the tightest vertically integrated relationship with physicians--ownership of physician practices--was associated with higher hospital prices and spending. We found that an increase in contractual integration reduced the frequency of hospital admissions, but this effect was relatively small. Taken together, our results provide a mixed, although somewhat negative, picture of vertical integration from the perspective of the privately insured.

Medicine,Business,Economics

Trends in Integration Between Physician Organizations and Pharmacies for Self-Administered Drugs

Trends in Medically Integrated Dispensing Among Oncology Practices

Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration

Trends in acquisitions of physician practices and subsequent clinical integration: A mixed methods study

Impact of hospital‐physician vertical integration on physician‐administered drug spending and utilization

Factors Influencing Physician Practices' Adoption of Behavioral Health Integration in the United States: A Qualitative Study

Association between changes in prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs

Ancillary Cost Implications of Physicians Multisiting and Inter‐Organizational Collaboration During Healthcare Delivery

Key factors for sustainable integration of pharmacists in team-based primary care physician practices

Auditing the prescription drug consumer price index in a changing marketplace

Effect of integration of prescription drug monitoring program data in the electronic health record on queries by primary care providers

The Role of Organizational Affiliations in Physician Patient-Sharing Relationships

Evaluation of Specialty Drug Price Trends Using Data from Retrospective Pharmacy Sales Transactions

Hospital Prices for Physician-Administered Drugs

Hospital Prices for Physician-Administered Drugs for Patients with Private Insurance

Reprint of: Self-identified prescriber tendencies in sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor outpatient prescribing

Effect of physician-hospital financial integration on health outcomes and spending ∗

Ethical conflict in nurse practitioners and physician assistants in managed care

Association between physician–hospital integration and inpatient care delivery in accountable care organizations: An instrumental variable analysis

Spending on and Use of Clinician-Administered Drugs in Medicare

Vertical integration: hospital ownership of physician practices is associated with higher prices and spending.