Evaluating the Completness of Physician Billing Claims: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTObjectivesAn increasing number of physicians are remunerated by alternative forms of payment, instead of conventional fee-for-service (FFS) payments. Changes in physician remuneration methods can to influence the completeness of physician billing claims databases, because physicians on alternative payments may not consistently complete billing records. However, there is no established technique to estimate the magnitude of data loss. This proof-of-concept study estimated completeness of physician claims by comparing them with prescription drug records. We applied the method to estimate completeness of non-fee-for-service (NFFS) and FFS physician claims data over time in Manitoba, Canada. ApproachOur method uses information on the date of patient initiation of a new prescription medication, payment method of the prescribing physician, and presence/absence of a physician billing claim prior to the medication initiation date. A billing claim within 7 days of the medication initiation date was defined as a captured claim; if there was no claim in this observation window, it was classified as missed. Our method was applied to annual patient cohorts who initiated a common prescription medication (i.e., anti-hypertensives) between fiscal years 1998/99 and 2012/13. A sensitivity analysis used a 21-day observation window to identify captured/missing claims. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models tested patient and prescriber characteristics associated with missing claims. ResultsThe cohort consisted of 274, 462 individuals with a new anti-hypertensive prescription medication. A total of 9.2% of the cohort had a NFFS prescribing physician in 1998/99; this increased to 20.2% in 2012/13 (linear trend p-value < .0001). The percentage of NFFS prescribers almost doubled, from 10.0% to 17.8%. The percentage of the annual cohorts with a FFS prescribing physician and a missing claim remained close to 13.0%. However, the percentage of the annual cohorts with a NFFS prescribing physician and a missing claim increased from 15.6% to 23.3% (linear trend p-value < .0001), and was always higher than the FFS percentage. Patient age, sex, and comorbidity and physician specialty and practice location were associated with the odds of a missing claim. ConclusionThe percentage of missing claims was higher for patients with NFFS than FFS prescribing physicians, demonstrating the impact of physician remuneration on database completeness. The trend of greater data loss in later than earlier years suggests that completeness of physician billing claims data may be decreasing. Our method can be applied across jurisdictions to compare the impact of physician payment methods on data quality.
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 | 0.138 | 0.223 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".