Comparing Shared Patient Networks Across Payers
Measuring care coordination in administrative data facilitates important research to improve care quality.
To compare shared patient networks constructed from administrative claims data across multiple payers.
Social network analysis of pooled cross sections of physicians treating prevalent colorectal cancer patients between 2003 and 2013.
Surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists identified from North Carolina Central Cancer Registry data linked to Medicare claims (N = 1735) and private insurance claims (N = 1321).
Provider-level measures included the number of patients treated, the number of providers with whom they share patients (by specialty), the extent of patient sharing with each specialty, and network centrality. Network-level measures included the number of providers and shared patients, the density of shared-patient relationships among providers, and the size and composition of clusters of providers with a high level of patient sharing.
For 24.5% of providers, total patient volume rank differed by at least one quintile group between payers. Medicare claims missed 14.6% of all shared patient relationships between providers, but captured a greater number of patient-sharing relationships per provider compared with the private insurance database, even after controlling for the total number of patients (27.242 vs 26.044, p < 0.001). Providers in the private network shared a higher fraction of patients with other providers (0.226 vs 0.127, p < 0.001) compared to the Medicare network. Clustering coefficients for providers, weighted betweenness, and eigenvector centrality varied greatly across payers. Network differences led to some clusters of providers that existed in the combined network not being detected in Medicare alone.
Many features of shared patient networks constructed from a single-payer database differed from similar networks constructed from other payers’ data. Depending on a study’s goals, shortcomings of single-payer networks should be considered when using claims data to draw conclusions about provider behavior.
KEY WORDSnetwork analysis colorectal cancer
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision
This study was supported by the Cancer Information and Population Health Resource (CIPHR), UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, with funding provided by the University Cancer Research Fund (UCRF) via the State of North Carolina.
JGT, PJM, AMM, and KBS conceptualized the work and led the design and interpretation of the data. AMM led the acquisition of the data. SS, WHW, and TMK led the analysis of the data. All authors drafted and revised the manuscript, approved the final draft for submission, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 1.McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, et al. Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies (vol. 7: care coordination). AHRQ Technical Reviews. Rockville (MD), 2007Google Scholar
- 2.Committee on Quality of Health Care in America IoM. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC); 2001Google Scholar
- 9.Pollack CE, Lemke KW, Roberts E, et al. Patient sharing and quality of care: measuring outcomes of care coordination using claims data. Med Care 53:317–23, 2015Google Scholar
- 17.Landon BE, Keating NL, Barnett ML, et al. Variation in patient-sharing networks of physicians across the United States. JAMA 308:265–73, 2012Google Scholar
- 18.Trogdon JG, Chang Y, Shai S, et al. Care coordination and multispecialty teams in the care of colorectal cancer patients. Med Care 56:430–435, 2018Google Scholar
- 20.Meyer AM, Olshan AF, Green L, et al. Big data for population-based cancer research: the integrated cancer information and surveillance system. N C Med J 75:265–9, 2014Google Scholar
- 21.Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, et al. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp, 2008Google Scholar
- 23.Newman MEJ, Girvan M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69, 2004Google Scholar
- 24.Weir WH, Emmons S, Gibson R, et al: Post-processing partitions to identify domains of modularity optimization. Algorithms 10, 2017Google Scholar
- 25.Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Oncology care model; 2016Google Scholar
- 26.Agha L, Ericson KM, Geissler KH, et al. Team formation and performance: evidence from healthcare referral networks, in Research NBoE (ed): NBER Working Paper 24338. Cambridge, MA, 2018Google Scholar