Search

Importance: Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown., Objective: To compare remote and in-home physician care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020., Interventions: All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates., Results: A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Importance: Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, which ran from 2013 to 2018, was an important experiment in physician-focused alternative payment models. However, little is known about whether the program was associated with better quality or outcomes or lower costs., Objective: To determine whether participation in BPCI among physician group practices was associated with advantageous or deleterious changes in costs or patient outcomes., Design Setting and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2013 to 2017 Medicare files and difference-in-differences (DID) models to compare the change over time in Medicare payments, patient selection, and clinical outcomes between 91 orthopedic groups in BPCI Model 2 and 169 propensity-matched controls for patients undergoing joint replacement. Analyses were performed between December 2019 and February 2021., Exposures: Voluntary participation in BPCI., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day Medicare payments; secondary outcomes were patient selection (volume, comorbidities) and clinical outcomes (30-day and 90-day emergency department visits, readmissions, mortality, and healthy days at home)., Results: There were 74 343 patient episodes in the baseline period and 102 790 during the intervention in BPCI practices, and 88 147 patient episodes in the baseline period and 120 253 during the intervention in control practices; 291 214 of 461 598 (63.1%) patients were women, and 419 619 (90.9%) were White. At baseline, mean episode payments among BPCI-participating practices were $18 257, which decreased to $15 320 during the intervention, while control practices decreased from $17 927 to $16 170 (DID, -$1180; 95% CI, -$1565 to -$795; P  < .001). Savings were driven by a decrease in postacute care spending. There were no differential changes in volume or comorbidities. The BPCI practices increased the proportion of patients discharged home compared with controls (23.6% to 43.4% vs 22.2% to 31.8%; DID, 10.2% [95% CI, 6.2% to 14.1%]). There were no differential changes in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates or emergency department visits, but 30-day and 90-day readmission rates decreased more among BPCI practices than controls (90 days: 8.7% to 7.5% vs 8.9% to 8.7%; DID, -1.0% [95% CI, -1.4% to -0.5%]), and 90-day healthy days at home increased (BPCI, 82.9 to 84.8, vs controls, 83.1 to 84.4; DID, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4 to 0.8])., Conclusions and Relevance: Group practice participation in BPCI for joint replacement was associated with reduced Medicare payments and improvements in clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Joynt Maddox reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) during the conduct of the study and receiving grants from NIH/National Institute on Aging and performing prior contract work for the US Department of Health and Human Services outside the submitted work. Dr Orav reported receiving grants from the Commonwealth Fund during the conduct of the study. Dr Epstein reported receiving grants from the NIH, Commonwealth Fund, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright 2021 Joynt Maddox KE et al. JAMA Health Forum.)

Importance: Incidental findings on screening and diagnostic tests are common and may prompt cascades of testing and treatment that are of uncertain value. No study to date has examined physician perceptions and experiences of these cascades nationally., Objective: To estimate the national frequency and consequences of cascades of care after incidental findings using a national survey of US physicians., Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based survey study using data from a 44-item cross-sectional, online survey among 991 practicing US internists in a research panel representative of American College of Physicians national membership. The survey was emailed to panel members on January 22, 2019, and analysis was performed from March 11 to May 27, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Physician report of prior experiences with cascades, features of their most recently experienced cascade, and perception of potential interventions to limit the negative consequences of cascades., Results: This study achieved a 44.7% response rate (376 completed surveys) and weighted responses to be nationally representative. The mean (SE) age of respondents was 43.4 (0.7) years, and 60.4% of respondents were male. Almost all respondents (99.4%; percentages were weighted) reported experiencing cascades, including cascades with clinically important and intervenable outcomes (90.9%) and cascades with no such outcome (94.4%). Physicians reported cascades caused their patients psychological harm (68.4%), physical harm (15.6%), and financial burden (57.5%) and personally caused the physicians wasted time and effort (69.1%), frustration (52.5%), and anxiety (45.4%). When asked about their most recent cascade, 33.7% of 371 respondents reported the test revealing the incidental finding may not have been clinically appropriate. During this most recent cascade, physicians reported that guidelines for follow-up testing were not followed (8.1%) or did not exist to their knowledge (53.2%). To lessen the negative consequences of cascades, 62.8% of 376 respondents chose accessible guidelines and 44.6% chose decision aids as potential solutions., Conclusions and Relevance: The survey findings indicate that almost all respondents had experienced cascades after incidental findings that did not lead to clinically meaningful outcomes yet caused harm to patients and themselves. Policy makers and health care leaders should address cascades after incidental findings as part of efforts to improve health care value and reduce physician burnout.

Importance: Medicare recently launched the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier (PVBM) Program, a mandatory pay-for-performance program for physician practices. Little is known about performance by practices that serve socially or medically high-risk patients., Objective: To compare performance in the PVBM Program by practice characteristics., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional observational study using PVBM Program data for payments made in 2015 based on performance of large US physician practices caring for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2013., Exposures: High social risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid) and high medical risk (defined as practices in the top quartile of mean Hierarchical Condition Category risk score among fee-for-service beneficiaries)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality and cost z scores based on a composite of individual measures. Higher z scores reflect better performance on quality; lower scores, better performance on costs., Results: Among 899 physician practices with 5 189 880 beneficiaries, 547 practices were categorized as low risk (neither high social nor high medical risk) (mean, 7909 beneficiaries; mean, 320 clinicians), 128 were high medical risk only (mean, 3675 beneficiaries; mean, 370 clinicians), 102 were high social risk only (mean, 1635 beneficiaries; mean, 284 clinicians), and 122 were high medical and social risk (mean, 1858 beneficiaries; mean, 269 clinicians). Practices categorized as low risk performed the best on the composite quality score (z score, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.28]) compared with each of the practices categorized as high risk (high medical risk only: z score, -0.55 [95% CI, -0.77 to -0.32]; high social risk only: z score, -0.86 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.54]; and high medical and social risk: -0.78 [95% CI, -1.04 to -0.51]) (P < .001 across groups). Practices categorized as high social risk only performed the best on the composite cost score (z score, -0.52 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.33]), low risk had the next best cost score (z score, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.10]), then high medical and social risk (z score, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.57]), and then high medical risk only (z score, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99]) (P < .001 across groups). Total per capita costs were $9506 for practices categorized as low risk, $13 683 for high medical risk only, $8214 for high social risk only, and $11 692 for high medical and social risk. These patterns were associated with fewer bonuses and more penalties for high-risk practices., Conclusions and Relevance: During the first year of the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program, physician practices that served more socially high-risk patients had lower quality and lower costs, and practices that served more medically high-risk patients had lower quality and higher costs.

Importance: Studies have found differences in practice patterns between male and female physicians, with female physicians more likely to adhere to clinical guidelines and evidence-based practice. However, whether patient outcomes differ between male and female physicians is largely unknown., Objective: To determine whether mortality and readmission rates differ between patients treated by male or female physicians., Design, Setting, and Participants: We analyzed a 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older hospitalized with a medical condition and treated by general internists from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. We examined the association between physician sex and 30-day mortality and readmission rates, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (effectively comparing female and male physicians within the same hospital). As a sensitivity analysis, we examined only physicians focusing on hospital care (hospitalists), among whom patients are plausibly quasi-randomized to physicians based on the physician's specific work schedules. We also investigated whether differences in patient outcomes varied by specific condition or by underlying severity of illness., Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients' 30-day mortality and readmission rates., Results: A total of 1 583 028 hospitalizations were used for analyses of 30-day mortality (mean [SD] patient age, 80.2 [8.5] years; 621 412 men and 961 616 women) and 1 540 797 were used for analyses of readmission (mean [SD] patient age, 80.1 [8.5] years; 602 115 men and 938 682 women). Patients treated by female physicians had lower 30-day mortality (adjusted mortality, 11.07% vs 11.49%; adjusted risk difference, -0.43%; 95% CI, -0.57% to -0.28%; P < .001; number needed to treat to prevent 1 death, 233) and lower 30-day readmissions (adjusted readmissions, 15.02% vs 15.57%; adjusted risk difference, -0.55%; 95% CI, -0.71% to -0.39%; P < .001; number needed to treat to prevent 1 readmission, 182) than patients cared for by male physicians, after accounting for potential confounders. Our findings were unaffected when restricting analyses to patients treated by hospitalists. Differences persisted across 8 common medical conditions and across patients' severity of illness., Conclusions and Relevance: Elderly hospitalized patients treated by female internists have lower mortality and readmissions compared with those cared for by male internists. These findings suggest that the differences in practice patterns between male and female physicians, as suggested in previous studies, may have important clinical implications for patient outcomes.

Background: There is an urgent need to improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients with heart failure (HF). Physician volume is associated with better outcomes for patients undergoing procedures, but its association with outcomes for medically managed diseases, such as HF, is not well understood., Methods and Results: We used Medicare inpatient data in 2009 to examine all HF admissions to acute care hospitals in the United States. We divided physicians into quintiles according to their volume of patients with HF. We used patient-level regression to compare 30-day risk-adjusted mortality, readmissions, and costs across volume groups, controlling for patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. We examined physician volume within strata of hospital volume and physician specialty. Patients cared for by the high-volume physicians had lower mortality than those by the low-volume physicians (8.9% versus 9.7%; P<0.001); this relationship was strongest in low-volume hospitals. In contrast, patients cared for by high-volume physicians had higher readmission rates (25.8% versus 21.5%; P<0001); this relationship was similar across hospital volume groups. Finally, costs were higher for the high-volume physicians ($8982 versus $8731; P=0.002, a difference that was consistent across hospital volume groups). The relationship between physician volume and mortality was strongest for internists (9.2% versus 10.6%; P<0.001) and weakest for cardiologists (6.4% versus 6.7%; P=0.485)., Conclusions: Physician volume is associated with lower mortality for HF, particularly in low-volume institutions and among noncardiologist physicians. Our findings suggest that clinician expertise may play an important role in HF care.

Background: The importance of physician well-being has been well-documented. However, little is known about how physicians' self-reported quality improvement (QI) activities and quality of care are related to their practice dissatisfaction, professional isolation, and work-life stress., Methods: We surveyed a random sample of 1884 physicians in Massachusetts by mail and assessed their practices' participation in QI activities and quality of care, as well as their feelings of professional isolation, work-life stress, and practice dissatisfaction., Results: A total of 1345 physicians responded (71.4% response rate). Most respondents reported QI activities in their practices (85%) and subsequent evaluation of these activities (62%). Approximately one-third (33%) reported quality problems in their practice. In linear regression analyses, the presence of quality problems was independently associated with increased professional isolation, work-life stress, and practice dissatisfaction. In contrast, physicians from practices that were involved in the evaluation of QI activities had significantly less isolation, stress, and dissatisfaction. Participation in QI activities was also independently associated with less dissatisfaction. A substantial fraction of physicians reported moderate to severe problems with isolation (17%), work-life stress (31%), and dissatisfaction (27%)., Conclusions: Substantial practice dissatisfaction, professional isolation, and work-life stress are experienced by physicians and they seem to be inversely correlated with QI activities. Physicians who perceive quality problems in their practices are more likely to experience dissatisfaction, isolation, and stress. Efforts to engage physicians in QI and systems change should assess how these programs affect physicians themselves and the care that they deliver.

Objectives: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a promising tool to improve the quality of health care, although it remains unclear who will benefit from this new technology. Given that a small group of providers care for most racial/ethnic minorities, we sought to determine whether minority-serving providers adopt EHR systems at comparable rates to other providers., Methods: We used survey data from stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts in 2005. We determined rates of EHR adoption, perceived barriers to adoption, and satisfaction with EHR systems., Results: Physicians who reported patient panels of more than 40% black or Hispanic had comparable levels of EHR adoption than other physicians (27.9% and 21.8%, respectively, P = 0.46). Physicians from minority-serving practices identified financial and other barriers to implementing EHR systems at similar rates, although these physicians were less likely to be concerned with privacy and security concerns of EHRs (47.1% vs. 64.4%, P = 0.01). Finally, physicians from high-minority practices had similar perceptions about the positive impact of EHRs on quality (73.7% vs. 76.6%, P = 0.43) and costs (46.9% vs. 51.5%, P = 0.17) of care., Conclusions: In a state with a diverse minority population, we found no evidence that minority-serving providers had lower EHR adoption rates, faced different barriers to adoption or were less satisfied with EHRs. Given the importance of ensuring that minority-serving providers have equal access to EHR systems, we failed to find evidence of a new digital divide.

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) allow for a variety of functions, ranging from visit documentation to laboratory test ordering, but little is known about physicians' actual use of these functions., Methods: We surveyed a random sample of 1884 physicians in Massachusetts by mail and assessed availability and use of EHR functions, predictors of use, and the relationships between EHR use and physicians' perceptions of medical practice., Results: A total of 1345 physicians responded to the survey (71.4% response rate), and 387 (28.8%) reported that their practice had adopted EHRs. More than 80% of physicians with EHRs reported having the ability to view laboratory reports (84.8%) and document visits electronically (84.0%), but considerably fewer reported being able to order laboratory tests electronically (46.8%) or transmit prescriptions to a pharmacy electronically (44.7%). Fewer than half of the physicians who had systems with clinical decision support, transmittal of electronic prescriptions, and radiology order entry actually used these functions most or all of the time. Compared with physicians who had not adopted EHRs, EHR users reported more positive views of the effects of computers on health care; there were no significant differences in these attitudes between high and low users of EHRs. Overall, about 1 in 4 physicians reported dissatisfaction with medical practice; there was no difference in this measure by EHR adoption or use., Conclusions: There is considerable variability in the functions available in EHRs and in the extent to which physicians use them. Future work should emphasize factors that affect the use of available functions.

PURPOSE: Health care consolidation has significantly affected cancer care delivery, with oncology practices undergoing substantial consolidation over the past two decades. This study investigates practice consolidation trends among medical oncologists (MOs), factors associated with consolidation, and changes in MO geographic distribution. METHODS: Medicare data from 2015 to 2022 were used to assess MO practice consolidation in hospital referral regions (HRRs), linked with regional health care market data and physician demographics. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure consolidation, and the Gini coefficient was used to measure MO distribution across counties. Multivariable linear regression explored factors associated with MO practice consolidation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2022, the number of MOs increased by 14.5% (11,727-13,433), whereas the number of MO practices decreased by 18.0% (2,774-2,276). The mean number of MOs per practice increased by 40% (4.26-5.95; P <.001). The percentage of MOs in small practices decreased, whereas larger practices saw an increase. MO consolidation, as indicated by the HHI, increased by 9% (median HHI, 0.3204-0.3480). HRRs with higher baseline hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to have MO practice consolidation. Despite MO practice consolidation, the county-level distribution of MOs did not change substantially. CONCLUSION: On the basis of Federal Trade Commission classifications, MO practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. While distribution of MOs at the county level remained stable, further research is needed to assess the effects of rapid consolidation on cancer care cost, quality, and access. These data have important implications for policymakers and payers as they design programs that ensure high-quality, affordable cancer care. Medical oncology practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Growing evidence shows that hospitals are increasingly employing physicians.Objective: To examine changes in U.S. acute care hospitals that reported employment relationships with their physicians and to determine whether quality of care improved after the hospitals switched to this integration model.Design: Retrospective cohort study of U.S. acute care hospitals between 2003 and 2012.Setting: U.S. nonfederal acute care hospitals.Participants: 803 switching hospitals compared with 2085 nonswitching control hospitals matched for year and region.Intervention: Hospitals' conversion to an employment relationship with any of their privileged physicians.Measurements: Risk-adjusted hospital-level mortality rates, 30-day readmission rates, length of stay, and patient satisfaction scores for common medical conditions.Results: In 2003, approximately 29% of hospitals employed members of their physician workforce, a number that rose to 42% by 2012. Relative to regionally matched controls, switching hospitals were more likely to be large (11.6% vs. 7.1%) or major teaching hospitals (7.5% vs. 4.5%) and less likely to be for-profit institutions (8.8% vs. 19.9%) (all P values <0.001). Up to 2 years after conversion, no association was found between switching to an employment model and improvement in any of 4 primary composite quality metrics.Limitations: The measure of integration used depends on responses to the American Hospital Association annual questionnaire, yet this measure has been used by others to examine effects of integration. The study examined performance up to 2 years after evidence of switching to an employment model; however, beneficial effects may have taken longer to appear.Conclusion: During the past decade, hospitals have increasingly become employers of physicians. The study's findings suggest that physician employment alone probably is not a sufficient tool for improving hospital care.Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) causes substantial morbidity and mortality; however, there are limited data to comprehensively assess quality of care in this area.Objective: To assess quality of care for CKD according to patient risk and identify correlates of improved care delivery.Design: Retrospective cohort.Setting: Fifteen health centers within a multi-site group practice in eastern Massachusetts.Participants: 166 primary care physicians caring for 11,774 patients with stages 3 or 4 CKD defined as two estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) between 15 and 60.Main Measures: Two measures of kidney disease monitoring, five measures of cardiovascular disease management, four measures of metabolic bone disease and anemia management, and one measure of drug safety were extracted from the electronic health record. Primary care recognition of CKD was assessed as a problem list diagnosis, and nephrology co-management was assessed as at least one visit with a nephrologist in the prior 12 months.Key Results: Overall, 46% of patients were high risk for death based on the presence of diabetes, proteinuria, or an eGFR <45. Seventy percent of patients lacked annual urine protein testing, 46% had a blood pressure ≥130/80 mmHg and 25% were not receiving appropriate angiotensin blockade. Appropriate screening for anemia was common (76%), while screening rates for metabolic bone disease were low. Use of potentially harmful drugs was common (26%). Primary care physician recognition and nephrology co-management were both associated with improved quality of care, though rates of both were low (24% and 10%, respectively).Conclusions: Significant deficiencies in the quality of CKD care exist. Opportunities for improvement include increasing physician recognition of CKD and improving collaborative care with nephrology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study was undertaken to compare the frequencies with which physicians and patients report medical and behavioral risk factors during pregnancy, with particular attention to identification of women at risk for prenatal alcohol use. Study design: The sample included 278 women, drawn from a randomized trial of T-ACE (alcohol screening questionnaire) positive pregnant women receiving obstetric care. Medical records and participants' self-reports were available for comparison. Results: Physicians identified only 10.8% of women recognized as at risk for alcohol consumption by the T-ACE screening measure. In contrast, the physicians' records were more inclusive for medical risk factors than the participant's self-reports. Physicians were significantly more likely to correctly identify nonwhite participants as being at risk for prenatal alcohol use (odds ratio = 3.59, P = .026), compared with their white counterparts. Conclusion: Self-report on the T-ACE questionnaire is more effective than medical records in identifying women at risk for prenatal alcohol use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluation of physician performance is increasingly based on patient satisfaction. However, few data are available regarding the extent to which individual physician profiles might be influenced by factors such as whether a physician's practice is open or closed. We evaluated whether panel status (whether or not a physician is accepting new patients) is associated with patient satisfaction with their primary care physician (PCP).Cross-sectional analysis of patient satisfaction surveys. Surveys were available for 1750 patients cared for by 69 PCPs. Patient satisfaction with their PCP was determined based on a composite of six questions derived from the Medical Outcomes Study. We used Generalized Estimating Equations to adjust for physician level variation.Patients of closed-panel physicians were more likely to rate their satisfaction with the provider as‘Excellent’ or‘Very Good’ compared to patients of open-panel physicians (78% vs. 69%,P < 0.0001). After adjusting for satisfaction with the practice site, provider years in practice, managed care coverage, provider productivity, and patient race, the association between a closed panel and satisfaction remained significant (odds ratio 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.10–2.31).Individual physicians’ patient satisfaction data are confounded by factors not likely to be adjusted for in available profiles. After adjusting for other variables, physicians with closed panels still had better patient satisfaction compared to physicians with open panels. Further research is necessary to determine if panel status might also confound patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between physicians' qualifications and experience and rates of completion of the recommended number of prenatal visits and delivery of a low-birth weight infant. Methods. All deliveries performed by a permanently licensed physician in Massachusetts in 1990 (n= 80537) were examined. Qualification was measured by board certification. Experience was measured by both volume of deliveries and duration of practice. Results. Women cared for by a non-board-certified physician were less likely to receive the recommended number of prenatal visits (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54. 0.85) and were more likely to have a low-birthweight infant (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.00, 1.42). Physicians with a smaller volume of deliveries or a shorter duration of practice were more likely to deliver a low-birthweight infant. conclusions. The data show an association of board certification with rates of the recommended number of prenatal visits and low birthweight. In addition, volume and duration of practice were significantly associated with tow birthweight. Further research should examine whether these associations are related to differences in patient referral or to physicians' judgment and efficiency in provision of prenatal care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent increases in Medicare Advantage enrollment may have caused lower spending growth in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. We identified the counties of largest Medicare Advantage growth and determined if increased enrollment was associated with reduced FFS Medicare spending growth in those counties. We found that 73 percent of counties experienced at least a 5-percentage-point increase in Medicare Advantage penetration between 2007 and 2014, with the most growth occurring in larger and poorer counties in the Northeast and South. The association between Medicare Advantage growth and FFS Medicare costs varied depending on baseline Medicare Advantage penetration: In counties with low baseline penetration, Medicare Advantage growth did not have a significant effect on per capita FFS Medicare spending, whereas in counties in the highest quartile of baseline Medicare Advantage penetration, it was associated with a significant decrease in FFS Medicare spending growth ($154 annually per 10-percentage-point increase in Medicare Advantage). These findings suggest that Medicare Advantage growth may be playing a role in moderating FFS Medicare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]