Application of a Propensity Score Approach for Risk Adjustment in Profiling Multiple Physician Groups on Asthma Care
Open Access
- 21 January 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Health Services Research
- Vol. 40 (1) , 253-278
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00352.x
Abstract
Objectives. To develop a propensity score‐based risk adjustment method to estimate the performance of 20 physician groups and to compare performance rankings using our method to a standard hierarchical regression‐based risk adjustment method. Data Sources/Study Setting. Mailed survey of patients from 20 California physician groups between July 1998 and February 1999. Study Design. A cross‐sectional analysis of physician group performance using patient satisfaction with asthma care. We compared the performance of the 20 physician groups using a novel propensity score‐based risk adjustment method. More specifically, by using a multinomial logistic regression model we estimated for each patient the propensity scores, or probabilities, of having been treated by each of the 20 physician groups. To adjust for different distributions of characteristics across groups, patients cared for by a given group were first stratified into five strata based on their propensity of being in that group. Then, strata‐specific performance was combined across the five strata. We compared our propensity score method to hierarchical model‐based risk adjustment without using propensity scores. The impact of different risk‐adjustment methods on performance was measured in terms of percentage changes in absolute and quintile ranking (AR, QR), and weighted κ of agreement on QR. Results. The propensity score‐based risk adjustment method balanced the distributions of all covariates among the 20 physician groups, providing evidence for validity. The propensity score‐based method and the hierarchical model‐based method without propensity scores provided substantially different rankings (75 percent of groups differed in AR, 50 percent differed in QR, weighted κ=0.69). Conclusions. We developed and tested a propensity score method for profiling multiple physician groups. We found that our method could balance the distributions of covariates across groups and yielded substantially different profiles compared with conventional methods. Propensity score‐based risk adjustment should be considered in studies examining quality comparisons.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effectiveness and Cost‐effectiveness of Four Treatment Modalities for Substance Disorders: A Propensity Score AnalysisHealth Services Research, 2003
- Factoring Socioeconomic Status Into Cardiac Performance Profiling for HospitalsMedical Care, 2002
- Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training ProgramsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1999
- Case-mix adjustment: making bad apples look goodPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1995
- Health care for black and poor hospitalized Medicare patientsPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1994
- How Will Outcomes Management Work?Health Affairs, 1994
- Optimal Matching for Observational StudiesJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1989
- Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity ScoreJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1984
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983
- Parametric Empirical Bayes Inference: Theory and ApplicationsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1983