Risk Adjustment Using Administrative Data-Based and Survey-Derived Methods for Explaining Physician Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate an administrative data-based risk adjustment method for predicting physician utilization and the contribution of survey-derived indicators of health status. The results of this study will support the use of administrative data for planning, reimbursement, and assessing equity of physician utilization. METHODS: The Ontario portion of the 2000-2001 Canadian Community Health Survey was linked with administrative physician claims data from 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Explanatory models of family physician (FP) and specialist physician (SP) utilization were run using demographic information and The Johns Hopkins University Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) Case-mix System. Survey-based measures of health status were then added to the models. The coefficient of determination, R, indicated the models' explanatory power. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 25,558 individuals aged 20 to 79 years representing approximately 7.8 million people. Over the 2 years of study period, 82.5% of the study population had a FP visit with a median of 6 visits and 53.2% had a SP visit with a median of 1 visit. The R values based on administrative data alone were 33% and 21% for the frequency of FP and SP visits and 16% and 35% for having one or more visit to an FPs and SPs, respectively. The addition of the survey-based measures to the administrative data-based models produced less than a 2% increase in explanatory power for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Administrative data-based measures of morbidity burden are valid and useful indicators of future physician utilization. The survey-derived measures used in this study did not contribute significantly to models on the basis of administrative data-based measures. These findings support the future use of administrative data-based data and Adjusted Clinical Groups for planning, reimbursement, and research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".