Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Feb;40(1):253-78.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00352.x.

Application of a propensity score approach for risk adjustment in profiling multiple physician groups on asthma care

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Application of a propensity score approach for risk adjustment in profiling multiple physician groups on asthma care

I-Chan Huang et al. Health Serv Res. 2005 Feb.

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 kappa 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 kappa=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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure A1
Figure A1
Stratification by Five Strata Based on Propensity Quintiles
Figure A2
Figure A2
Example of Stratification by Group to Which They Belonged and by Satisfaction with Care
Figure 1
Figure 1
Distributions of Group-Specific Averages of Patient Age, Asthma Severity, and SF-36 PCS among the 20 Physician Groups before Adjustment (Numbers Are Plain Averages within Physician Groups) and after Adjustment (Numbers Are Described in Paragraph 3 of Results) with the Propensity Scores
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ranking Shift between Hierarchical Outcome Regression Adjustment and Propensity Score-Based Risk Adjustment

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alter DA, Austin PC, Naylor CD, Tu JV. “Factoring Socioeconomic Status into Cardiac Performance Profiling for Hospitals: Does It Matter?”. Medical Care. 2002;40(1):60–7. - PubMed
    1. Aron DC, Harper DL, Shepardson LB, Rosenthal GE. “Impact of Risk-Adjusting Cesarean Delivery Rates When Reporting Hospital Performance.”. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;279(24):1968–72. - PubMed
    1. Bodenheimer T. “The American Health Care System—The Movement for Improved Quality in Health Care.”. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;340(6):488–92. - PubMed
    1. Braitman LE, Rosenbaum PR. “Rare Outcomes, Common Treatments: Analytic Strategies Using Propensity Scores.”. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2002;137(8):693–5. - PubMed
    1. Christiansen CL, Morris CN. “Improving the Statistical Approach to Health Care Provider Profiling.”. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;127(8, Part 2):764–8. - PubMed

MeSH terms