Social Risk Adjustment of Quality Measures for Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in a Commercially Insured US Population.

Importance: Patients' social risk factors may be associated with physician group performance on quality measures. Objective: To examine the association of social risk with change in physician group performance on diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) quality measures in a commercially insured population. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study using claims data from 2010 to 2014 from a US national health insurance plan, the performance of 1400 physician groups (physicians billing under the same tax identification number) was estimated. After base adjustments for age and sex, changes in variation across groups and reordering of rankings resulting from additional adjustments for clinical, social, or both clinical and social risk factors were analyzed. In all models, only within-group associations were adjusted to distinguish the association of patients' social risk factors with outcomes while excluding physician groups' distinct characteristics that could also change observed performance. Data analysis was conducted between April and July 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Process measures (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] testing, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] testing, and statin use), disease control measures (HbA1c and LDL-C level control), and use-based outcome measures (hospitalizations for ambulatory-sensitive conditions) were calculated with base adjustment (age and sex), clinical adjustment, social risk factor adjustment, and both clinical and social adjustments. Quality variance in physician group performance and changes in rankings following these adjustments were measured. Results: This study identified 1 684 167 enrollees (859 618 [51%] men) aged 18 to 65 years (mean [SD] age, 50 [10.7] years) with diabetes or CVD. Performance rates were high for HbA1c and LDL-C level testing (mean ranged from 79.5% to 87.2%) but lower for statin use (54.7% for diabetes cohort and 44.2% for CVD cohort) and disease control measures (57.9% on LDL-C control for diabetes cohort and 40.0% for CVD cohort). On average, only 8.8% of enrollees with diabetes and 1.0% of enrollees with CVD in a group were hospitalized. The addition of clinical and social risk factors to base adjustment reduced variance across physician groups for most measures (percentage change in SD ranged from -13.9% to 1.6%). Although overall agreement between performance scores with base vs full adjustment was high, there was still substantial reordering for some measures. For example, social risk adjustment resulted in reordering for disease control in the diabetes cohort. Of the 1400 physician groups, 330 (23.6%) had performance rankings for HbA1c control that increased or decreased by at least 10 percentile points after adding social risk factors to age and sex. Both clinical and social risk adjustment affected rankings on hospital admissions. Conclusions and Relevance: Accounting for social risk may be important to mitigate adverse consequences of performance-based payments for physician groups serving socially vulnerable populations.