Physician payment models and cardiac imaging in patients at low cardiovascular risk: A population-based cohort study in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many factors beyond patient need influence the care that patients receive, including the way physicians are paid, and how services are delivered. In Alberta, outpatient non-invasive cardiac imaging ("cardiac imaging") is paid for publicly but performed at private, for-profit (investor/physician owned) facilities. We investigated patient, physician, and geographic factors associated with cardiac imaging in patients at low cardiovascular risk seeing specialist physicians in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health data from Alberta, Canada, where nearly all outpatient cardiac imaging is done at privately for-profit community-based facilities. We used administrative health data to identify a cohort of adult (aged ≥18 years) patients at low cardiovascular risk who were assessed by a cardiologist or internal medicine specialist for a new outpatient visit for a cardiac-related reason between April 1, 2011 and December 30, 2019 in Alberta. The primary outcome was cardiac imaging. Explanatory variables included patient and physician characteristics, including payment model (fee for service (FFS) or salary-based), and geography. We used multilevel, multivariable logistic regression models to measure the association between these factors and cardiac imaging. RESULTS: We identified 398,095 patients at low cardiovascular risk, of whom 27.5% received at least one cardiac imaging test. Compared to those seen by FFS cardiologists (and controlling for patient and geographic differences), patients seen by salary-based internal medicine specialists had the lowest odds of receiving cardiac imaging (OR=0.055, P < 0.001, CI 0.036-0.086), followed by those seen by FFS internal medicine specialists (OR=0.010, P < 0.001, CI 0.068-0.14), and salary-based cardiologists (OR=0.27, P < 0.001, CI 0.16-0.45). Findings were robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Physician payment models and specialty are strongly associated with non-invasive cardiac imaging among patients at low cardiovascular risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".