• Ceara Tess Cunningham, Nathalie Jetté, Bing Li, Ravneet Robyn Dhanoa, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Tom Noseworthy, Cynthia A Beck, Elijah Dixon, Susan Samuel, William A Ghali, Carolyn DeCoster, and Hude Quan.
• Department of Community Health Sciences (Cunningham, Noseworthy, Quan), University of Calgary; Departments of Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and Community Health Sciences and Institute for Public Health (Jetté), University of Calgary; Data Integration, Measurement and Reporting (Li, DeCoster), Alberta Health Services; Faculty of Nursing (Dhanoa), University of Calgary; Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences (Hemmelgarn, Dixon, Ghali), University of Calgary; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Psychiatry (Beck), University of Calgary; Department of Pediatric Nephrology (Samuel), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
• CMAJ Open. 2015 Oct 1; 3 (4): E406-12.

BackgroundThere are concerns that alternate payment plans for physicians may be associated with erosion of data quality, given that physicians are paid regardless of whether claims are submitted. Our objective was to determine the proportion of claims submitted by physician specialists using fee-for-service and alternative payment plans, and to identify and compare the validity of information coded in physician billing claims submitted by these specialists in Calgary.MethodsWe conducted a survey of physician specialists to determine their plan status and obtained consent to use physicians' claims data from 4 acute care hospitals in Calgary. Inpatient and emergency department services were identified from the Discharge Abstract Database for Alberta (Canadian Institute for Health Information) and the Alberta Ambulatory Care Classification System database. We linked services to claims by Alberta physicians from 2002 to 2009 by using unique patient and physician identifiers. After identifying the proportion of claims submitted, we reviewed inpatient charts to determine the completeness of submissions as defined by positive predictive value.ResultsOf 182 physicians who responded to the survey, 94 (51.6%) used fee-for-service plans exclusively and 51 (28.0%) used alternative payment plans exclusively. Overall completeness of physician submissions for claims was 91.8% for physicians using fee-for-service plans and 90.0% for physicians using alternative payment plans. Submission rate varied by medical specialty (surgery: 92.4% for fee for service v. 88.6% for alternative payment; internal medicine: 94.1% v. 91.3%; neurology: 95.1% v. 91.0%; and pediatrics: 95.1% v. 89.3%). Among claims submitted, the physician accuracies for billing of medical conditions were 87.8% for fee-for-service and 85.0% for alternative payment.InterpretationOverall submission rates and accuracy in recording diagnoses by physicians who used both plans were high. These findings show that the implementation of alternative payment plan programs in Alberta may not have an impact on the quality of physician claims data.

2 keywords...

hide…