Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Managing healthcare costs by peer-group modeling

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We describe statistical methods for managing healthcare costs using peer-group models and outlier detection. A peer group is a collection of similar entities such as patients, physicians, clinics, hospitals or pharmacies. In an empirical study of drug volumes prescribed by physicians, we examined the billing and prescription records for all patients covered by a major insurer over a 6 month period, encompassing over twenty million individual patient-physician encounters. During this period, 21,243 physicians prescribed a major pain-control medication which is frequently the subject of abuse - oxycodone. Profiles were computed for each physician based on their specialty and the clinical characteristics of their patients. For each physician, the average prescription volume within the corresponding peer group of similar physicians is an estimate of the expected volume of prescriptions for that physician. Strategies were developed to select outliers from the expected values as the ones that are candidates for potential cost reduction. Overall, the prediction of actual outcomes from peer profiles is significantly better than chance, with a reduction of average error of 45.5 %. For the 10 % of physicians that prescribed the most medications, there were extreme and highly significant differences found between their expected and predicted outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aggarwal C (2013) Outlier analysis. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Allcott H (2011) Social norms and energy conservation. J Public Econ 95:1082–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bolton RJ, Hand DJ et al (2001) Unsupervised profiling methods for fraud detection. In: Proc. credit scoring and credit control VII. Citeseer

  4. Carlson J, Sullivan S, Garrison L, Neumann P, Veenstra D (2010) Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy 96:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chandola V, Banerjee A, Kumar V (2009) Anomaly detection: a survey. ACM Comput Surv 41 (3):15:1–15:58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Leap T (2011) Phantom billing, fake prescriptions, and the high cost of medicine. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li J, Huang K, Jin J, Shi J (2008) A survey on statistical methods for health care fraud detection. Health Care Manag Sci 11:275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Phua C, Lee V, Smith K, Gayler R (2010) A comprehensive survey of data mining-based fraud detection research. arXiv preprint arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.6119

  9. Porter M (2009) A strategy for health care reform toward a value-based system. N Engl J Med 361:109–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Porter M, Teisberg E (2006) Redefining healthcare creating value based competition on results. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schultz P, Nolan J, Cialdini R, Goldstein N, Griskevicius V (2007) The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci 18:429–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sparrow M (2008) Fraud in the us health-care system: exposing the vulnerabilities of automated payments systems. Soc Res: An International Quarterly 75:1151–1180

    Google Scholar 

  13. United States G. A. O. (2000) HealthCare fraud schemes to defraud, Medicare, Medicaid and Private Health Insurers. GAO/T-OSI-00-15, Washington, DC

  14. van Walraven C, Naylor C (1998) Do we know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? A systematic review of laboratory clinical audits. JAMA 280(6):550–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weiss S, Indurkhya N (1998) Predictive data mining: a practical guide. Morgan Kaufmann. http://www.data-miner.com

  16. Weston DJ, Hand DJ, Adams NM, Whitrow C, Juszczak P (2008) Plastic card fraud detection using peer group analysis. Adv Data Anal Classif 2(1):45–62

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. World-Health-Organization (2014) International classification of diseases. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sholom M. Weiss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weiss, S.M., Kulikowski, C.A., Galen, R.S. et al. Managing healthcare costs by peer-group modeling. Appl Intell 43, 752–759 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-015-0685-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-015-0685-7

Keywords

Navigation