Density of Patient-Sharing Networks: Impact on the Value of Parkinson Care

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

3 Department of Neurology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

4 Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

5 Department of Intelligent Systems, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background 
Optimal care for Parkinson’s disease (PD) requires coordination and collaboration between providers within a complex care network. Individual patients have personalised networks of their own providers, creating a unique informal network of providers who treat (‘share’) the same patient. These ‘patient-sharing networks’ differ in density, ie, the number of identical patients they share. Denser patient-sharing networks might reflect better care provision, since providers who share many patients might have made efforts to improve their mutual care delivery. We evaluated whether the density of these patient-sharing networks affects patient outcomes and costs.
 
Methods 
We analysed medical claims data from all PD patients in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2016. We focused on seven professional disciplines that are commonly involved in Parkinson care. We calculated for each patient the density score: the average number of patients that each patient’s providers shared. Density scores could range from 1.00 (which might reflect poor collaboration) to 83.00 (which might reflect better collaboration). This score was also calculated at the hospital level by averaging the scores for all patients belonging to a specific hospital. Using logistic and linear regression analyses we estimated the relationship between density scores and health outcomes, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs.
 
Results 
The average density score varied considerably (average 6.7, SD 8.2). Adjusted for confounders, higher density scores were associated with a lower risk of PD-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.901; P < .001) and with lower healthcare costs (coefficients: -0.018, P = .005). Higher density scores were associated with more frequent involvement of neurologists (coefficient 0.068), physiotherapists (coefficient 0.052) and occupational therapists (coefficient 0.048) (P values all <.001).
 
Conclusion 
Patient sharing networks showed large variations in density, which appears unwanted as denser networks are associated with better outcomes and lower costs.

Keywords

References

  1. Bloem BR, Henderson EJ, Dorsey ER, et al. Integrated and patient-centred management of Parkinson's disease: a network model for reshaping chronic neurological care. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(7):623-634. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30064-8
  2. Willis CD, Riley BL, Herbert CP, Best A. Networks to strengthen health systems for chronic disease prevention. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):e39-48. doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301249
  3. Landon BE, Keating NL, Barnett ML, et al. Variation in patient-sharing networks of physicians across the United States. JAMA. 2012;308(3):265-273. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.7615
  4. Pollack CE, Weissman GE, Lemke KW, Hussey PS, Weiner JP. Patient sharing among physicians and costs of care: a network analytic approach to care coordination using claims data. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(3):459-465. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2104-7
  5. Foy R, Hempel S, Rubenstein L, et al. Meta-analysis: effect of interactive communication between collaborating primary care physicians and specialists. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(4):247-258. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-4-201002160-00010
  6. Barnett ML, Landon BE, O'Malley AJ, Keating NL, Christakis NA. Mapping physician networks with self-reported and administrative data. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(5):1592-1609. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01262.x
  7. Moen EL, Bynum JPW. Evaluation of physician network-based measures of care coordination using Medicare patient-reported experience measures. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(11):2482-2489. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05313-y
  8. Bloem BR, van Laar T, Keus S, et al. Multidisciplinaire Richtlijn Ziekte Van Parkinson. Alphen aan den Rijn: Van Zuiden Communications; 2010.
  9. Radder DLM, de Vries NM, Riksen NP, et al. Multidisciplinary care for people with Parkinson's disease: the new kids on the block! Expert Rev Neurother. 2019;19(2):145-157. doi:10.1080/14737175.2019.1561285
  10. Keus S, Munneke M, Graziano M, et al. European Physiotherapy Guideline for Parkinson’s Disease. The Netherlands: KNGF/ParkinsonNet; 2014.
  11. Vektis. Over Vektis. https://www.vektis.nl/over-vektis.  Accessed August 10, 2020. Published 2020.
  12. Zorgwijzer. Cijfers en feiten over de zorgverzekering. Barendrecht, The Netherlands: Zorgwijzer; 2019.
  13. CBS. Bevolkingsteller. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/bevolkingsteller.  Accessed August 10, 2020. Published 2020.
  14. Ypinga JHL, de Vries NM, Boonen L, et al. Effectiveness and costs of specialised physiotherapy given via ParkinsonNet: a retrospective analysis of medical claims data. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(2):153-161. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30406-4
  15. Vlaanderen FP, de Man Y, Krijthe JH, et al. Sex-specific patient journeys in early Parkinson's disease in the Netherlands. Front Neurol. 2019;10:794. doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00794
  16. Kalf JG, de Swart BJ, Bonnier M, et al. Guidelines for Speech-Language Therapy in Parkinson’s Disease. Nijmegen, The Netherlands/Miami, FL: ParkinsonNet/NPF; 2008.
  17. Sturkenboom IH, Thijssen MC, Gons-van Elsacker JJ, et al. Guidelines for Occupational Therapy in Parkinson's Disease Rehabilitation. Nijmegen, The Netherlands/Miami, FL: ParkinsonNet/NPF; 2008.
  18. van Asseldonk MJ, Dicke HC, van den Beemt BJ, et al. Dietetics Guideline for Parkinson’s Disease. The Hague, The Netherlands: Lemma Publisher; 2012.
  19. van der Maaten L, G Hinton G. Visualizing data using t-SNE. J Mach Learn Res. 2008;9(11):2579-2605.
  20. Nijkrake MJ, Keus SH, Overeem S, et al. The ParkinsonNet concept: development, implementation and initial experience. Mov Disord. 2010;25(7):823-829. doi:10.1002/mds.22813
  21. Barnett ML, Christakis NA, O'Malley J, Onnela JP, Keating NL, Landon BE. Physician patient-sharing networks and the cost and intensity of care in US hospitals. Med Care. 2012;50(2):152-160. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822dcef7
  22. Landon BE, Keating NL, Onnela JP, Zaslavsky AM, Christakis NA, O'Malley AJ. Patient-sharing networks of physicians and health care utilization and spending among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(1):66-73. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5034
  23. Pollack CE, Frick KD, Herbert RJ, et al. It's who you know: patient-sharing, quality, and costs of cancer survivorship care. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(2):156-166. doi:10.1007/s11764-014-0349-3
  24. Pollack CE, Lemke KW, Roberts E, Weiner JP. Patient sharing and quality of care: measuring outcomes of care coordination using claims data. Med Care. 2015;53(4):317-323. doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000319
  25. Skinner TR, Scott IA, Martin JH. Diagnostic errors in older patients: a systematic review of incidence and potential causes in seven prevalent diseases. Int J Gen Med. 2016;9:137-146. doi:10.2147/ijgm.s96741
  26. Hijdra A, Koudstaal PJ, Roos RA. Neurologie. 4th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Gezondheidszorg; 2012.
  27. Jankovic J, Hurtig HI, Eichler AF. Etiology and Pathogenesis of Parkinson Disease. UpToDate website. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/etiology-and-pathogenesis-of-parkinson-disease.  Accessed August 10, 2020. Published 2019.
  28. Bloem BR, Ypinga JHL, Willis A, et al. Using medical claims analyses to understand interventions for Parkinson patients. J Parkinsons Dis. 2018;8(1):45-58. doi:10.3233/jpd-171277
  29. Bloem BR, Stocchi F. Move for change part I: a European survey evaluating the impact of the EPDA charter for people with Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(3):402-410. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03532.x
  30. Willis AW, Schootman M, Evanoff BA, Perlmutter JS, Racette BA. Neurologist care in Parkinson disease: a utilization, outcomes, and survival study. Neurology. 2011;77(9):851-857. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31822c9123
  31. Dorsey ER, Vlaanderen FP, Engelen LJ, et al. Moving Parkinson care to the home. Mov Disord. 2016;31(9):1258-1262. doi:10.1002/mds.26744
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 7
July 2022
Pages 1132-1139

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 August 2020
  • Revise Date: 03 December 2020
  • Accept Date: 13 February 2021
  • First Publish Date: 03 March 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics