Key result
Higher-billing by cardiologists was associated with increased receipt of echocardiograms (aOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.10-1.43) but not improved mortality (aOR 0.98; 95% CI 0.87-1.11) in atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
The relationship between healthcare utilization and outcomes in atrial fibrillation was unknown, prompting an investigation into whether cardiologists' fee-for-service billing amounts associate with better patient-level clinical outcomes.
Does care by higher-billing cardiologists improve clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=182,572)
Does care by higher-billing cardiologists improve clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Higher billing by cardiologists for patients with atrial fibrillation is associated with increased diagnostic testing and hospitalizations, but not with improved mortality.
Background The relationship between health care utilization and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation is unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate whether cardiologists' billing amounts in a fee-for-service environment are associated with better patient-level clinical outcomes. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data of cardiologists in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016. The cardiologists were stratified into quintiles based on their median billing patterns per patient over the observation period. The primary outcomes were patient-level receipt of repeat visits, cardiac diagnostic tests, and medications ≤1 year of index date. The secondary clinical outcomes were death, emergency department visits, and all-cause hospitalization 1-year post-index visit. The patient cohort comprised 182 572 patients with atrial fibrillation (median age 74 years, 58% male) from 467 cardiologists. Patients with atrial fibrillation seen by higher-billing cardiologists were 26% more likely to have an echocardiogram (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.26 [95% CI, 1.10-1.43] for quintile 5 versus 2), 28% a stress test (aOR, 1.28 [1.12-1.46] for quintile 5 versus 2), 25% continuous electrocardiographic monitoring (aOR, 1.25 [1.08-1.46] for quintile 4 versus 2), and 79% more likely to get a stress echocardiogram (aOR, 1.79 [1.32-2.42] for quintile 5 versus 2). They also had a higher rate of all-cause hospitalization (aOR, 1.13 [1.07-1.20]). Mortality rates were similar across cardiologists billing quintiles (eg, aOR, 0.98 [0.87-1.11] for quintile 4 versus 2). Conclusions Higher-billing cardiologists ordered more diagnostic tests per patient with atrial fibrillation but these are not associated with improvements in outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study conducted a cohort in atrial fibrillation (n=182,572). Higher-billing cardiologists vs. Lower-billing cardiologists (quintile 2) was evaluated on receipt of echocardiogram ≤1 year of index date (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.43). Higher-billing by cardiologists was associated with increased receipt of echocardiograms (aOR 1.26; 95% CI 1.10-1.43) but not improved mortality (aOR 0.98; 95% CI 0.87-1.11) in atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: