Objective: To examine the impact of Medicare managed care (MMC) versus Medicare fee for service (MFFS) on stent patients' use of physicians with lower resource use and better outcomes.
Data sources/study setting: Retrospective secondary data from 2003 through 2006 for 67,476 patients without acute myocardial infarction, staying 2 or more days in hospital, and treated by 486 physicians in Florida performing 10 or more cases per quarter.
Study design: Analysis was at the patient level. Multivariate logistic models estimated the probability of an MMC patient using a physician with a particular risk-adjusted profile rank with respect to hospital peers.
Principal findings: No differences were found in usage of physicians with shorter admissions. Compared with MFFS, MMC patients were significantly less likely to use physicians whose average mortality was the lowest/lowest quartiles/below median among facility peers, and more likely to use a physician ranked below median on live discharges directly home (not needing home health care, skilled nursing care, or a subacute hospital convalescence). Similar results were found with emergency admissions, and where physicians both attended and treated.
Conclusions: Florida percutaneous coronary interventions patients insured by MMC used physicians with worse outcome profiles than those of MFFS patients. Results were not consistent with hospital care differences, physician-patient, or payor-physician selection, but they were consistent with selection of unobservably sicker members into MMC and concentration of MMC among physicians.