Studying Effects of Primary Care Physicians and Patients on the Trade-Off Between Charges for Primary Care and Specialty Care Using a Hierarchical Multivariate Two-Part Model

Objective. To examine effects of primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients on the association between charges for primary care and specialty care in a point-of-service (POS) health plan. Data Source. Claims from 1996 for 3,308 adult male POS plan members, each of whom was assigned to one of the 50 family practitioner-PCPs with the largest POS plan member-loads. Study Design. A hierarchical multivariate two-part model was fitted using a Gibbs sampler to estimate PCPs' effects on patients' annual charges for two types of services, primary care and specialty care, the associations among PCPs' effects, and within-patient associations between charges for the two services. Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs) were used to adjust for case-mix. Principal Findings. PCPs with higher case-mix adjusted rates of specialist use were less likely to see their patients at least once during the year (estimated correlation: –.40; 95% CI: –.71, –.008) and provided fewer services to patients that they saw (estimated correlation: –.53; 95% CI: –.77, –.21). Ten of 11 PCPs whose case-mix adjusted effects on primary care charges were significantly less than or greater than zero (p < .05) had estimated, case-mix adjusted effects on specialty care charges that were of opposite sign (but not significantly different than zero). After adjustment for ACG and PCP effects, the within-patient, estimated odds ratio for any use of primary care given any use of specialty care was .57 (95% CI: .45, .73). Conclusions. PCPs and patients contributed independently to a trade-off between utilization of primary care and specialty care. The trade-off appeared to partially offset significant differences in the amount of care provided by PCPs. These findings were possible because we employed a hierarchical multivariate model rather than separate univariate models.

Effectively Selecting a Target Population for a Future Comparative Study

When comparing a new treatment with a control in a randomized clinical study, the treatment effect is generally assessed by evaluating a summary measure over a specific study population. The success of the trial heavily depends on the choice of such a population. In this paper, we show a systematic, effective way to identify a promising population, for which the new treatment is expected to have a desired benefit, using the data from a current study involving similar comparator treatments. Specifically, with the existing data we first create a parametric scoring system using multiple covariates to estimate subject-specific treatment differences. Using this system, we specify a desired level of treatment difference and create a subgroup of patients, defined as those whose estimated scores exceed this threshold. An empirically calibrated group-specific treatment difference curve across a range of threshold values is constructed. The population of patients with any desired level of treatment benefit can then be identified accordingly. To avoid any ``self-serving'' bias, we utilize a cross-training-evaluation method for implementing the above two-step procedure. Lastly, we show how to select the best scoring system among all competing models. The proposals are illustrated with the data from two clinical trials in treating AIDS and cardiovascular diseases. Note that if we are not interested in designing a new study for comparing similar treatments, the new procedure can also be quite useful for the management of future patients who would receive nontrivial benefits to compensate for the risk or cost of the new treatment.

MODELING DIFFERENTIATED TREATMENT EFFECTS FOR MULTIPLE OUTCOMES DATA

Multiple outcomes data are commonly used to characterize treatment effects in medical research, for instance, multiple symptoms to characterize potential remission of a psychiatric disorder. Often either a global, i.e. symptom-invariant, treatment effect is evaluated. Such a treatment effect may over generalize the effect across the outcomes. On the other hand individual treatment effects, varying across all outcomes, are complicated to interpret, and their estimation may lose precision relative to a global summary. An effective compromise to summarize the treatment effect may be through patterns of the treatment effects, i.e. "differentiated effects." In this paper we propose a two-category model to differentiate treatment effects into two groups. A model fitting algorithm and simulation study are presented, and several methods are developed to analyze heterogeneity presenting in the treatment effects. The method is illustrated using an analysis of schizophrenia symptom data.