The Effect of Different Attribution Rules on Individual Physician Cost Profiles

Published in: Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 152, no. 10, May 18, 2010, p. 649-654, w-228

Posted on on May 18, 2010

by Ateev Mehrotra, John L. Adams, J. William Thomas, Elizabeth A. McGlynn

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: Some health plans profile physicians on the basis of their relative costs and use these profiles to assign physicians to cost categories. Physician organizations have questioned whether the rules used to attribute costs to a physician affect the cost category to which that physician is assigned. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 12 different attribution rules on physician cost profiles. DESIGN: Under each of the 12 attribution rules, a cost profile was created for the physicians in the aggregated claims database and the physicians were assigned to a cost category (high cost, average cost, low cost, or low sample size). The attribution rules differed by unit of analysis, signal for responsibility, number of physicians who can be assigned responsibility, and threshold value for assigning responsibility. SETTING: Four commercial health plans in Massachusetts. PATIENTS: 1.1 million adults continuously enrolled in 4 commercial health plans in 2004 and 2005. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of all episodes assigned to any physician and percentage of costs billed by a physician that were included in his or her own profile were calculated under each rule. The cost category assignments from a commonly used default rule were compared with those from each of the other 11 attribution rules and the rate of disagreement was calculated. RESULTS: Percentage of episodes that could be assigned to a physician varied substantially across the 12 rules (range, 20% to 69%), as did the mean percentage of costs billed by a physician that were included in that physician's own cost profile (range, 13% to 60%). Depending on the alternate rule used, between 17% and 61% of physicians would be assigned to a different cost category than that assigned by using the default rule. LIMITATION: Results might differ if data from another state or from Medicare were used. CONCLUSION: The choice of attribution rule affects how costs are assigned to a physician and can substantially affect the cost category to which a physician is assigned.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.