Patient and primary care physician characteristics associated with billing incentives for chronic diseases in British Columbia: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incentive payments for chronic diseases in British Columbia were intended to support primary care physicians in providing more comprehensive care, but research shows that not all physicians bill incentives and not all eligible patients have them billed on their behalf. We investigated patient and physician characteristics associated with billing incentives for chronic diseases in BC. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using linked administrative health data to examine community-based primary care physicians and patients with eligible chronic conditions in BC during 2010-2013. Descriptive analyses of patients and physicians compared 3 groups: no incentives in any of the 4 years, incentives in all 4 years, and incentives in any of the study years. We used hierarchical logistic regression models to identify the patient- and physician-level characteristics associated with billing incentives. RESULTS: Of 428 770 eligible patients, 142 475 (33.2%) had an incentive billed on their behalf in all 4 years, and 152 686 (35.6%) never did. Of 3936 physicians, 2625 (66.7%) billed at least 1 incentive in each of the 4 years, and 740 (18.8%) billed no incentives during the study period. The strongest predictors of having an incentive billed were the number of physician contacts a patient had (odds ratio [OR] for > 48 contacts 134.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 112.27-161.78) and whether a physician had a large number of patients in his or her practice for whom incentives were billed (OR 42.38 [95% CI 34.55-52.00] for quartile 4 v. quartile 1). INTERPRETATION: The findings suggest that primary care physicians bill incentives for patients based on whom they see most often rather than using a population health management approach to their practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".