ArticlePloS one2020
The association between patient sharing network structure and healthcare costs.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Collaborative CT and MRI Utilization Through Network Analysis: Retrospective Study Using Administrative Claims Data.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- A Scoping Review of Multilevel Patient-Sharing Network Measures in Health Services Research.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2025Article
- Analysis of the patient-sharing network in hypertension management: a retrospective study in China.BMJ open · 2025Article
- The association of prescriber prominence in a shared-patient physician network with their patients receipt of and transitions between risky drug combinations.Applied network science · 2025Article
- The influence of strong and weak ties in physician peer networks on new drug adoption.International journal of health economics and management · 2023Article
- Observational
- Using social network analysis methods to identify networks of physicians responsible for the care of specific patient populations.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Provider Network Structure and Black-to-White Disparity Gaps for Medicare Patients with Diabetes: County-Level Analysis of Cost, Utilization, and Clinical Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Regional medical inter-institutional cooperation in medical provider network constructed using patient claims data from Japan.PloS one · 2022Article
- The association of insurance plan characteristics with physician patient-sharing network structure.International journal of health economics and management · 2021Article
- A Network Approach for the Study of Drug Prescriptions: Analysis of Administrative Records from a Local Health Unit (ASL TO4, Regione Piemonte, Italy).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhile physician relationships (measured through shared patients) are associated with clinical and utilization outcomes, the extent to which this is driven by local or global network characteristics is not well established. The objective of this research is to examine the association between local and global network statistics with total medical spending and utilization. DATA SOURCE: Data used are the 2011 Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database. STUDY
designThe association between network statistics and total medical spending and utilization (using standardized prices) is estimated using multivariate regression analysis controlling for patient demographics and health status. DATA COLLECTION: We limit the sample to continuously enrolled commercially insured patients in Massachusetts in 2011. PRINCIPAL
findingsMean patient age was 45 years, and 56.3% of patients were female. 73.4% were covered by a health maintenance organization. Average number of visits was 5.43, with average total medical spending of $4,911 and total medical utilization of $4,252. Spending was lower for patients treated by physicians with higher degree (p<0.001), eigenvector centrality (p<0.001), clustering coefficient (p<0.001), and measures reflecting the normalized degree (p<0.001) and eigenvector centrality (p<0.001) of specialists connected to a patient's PCP. Spending was higher for patients treated by physicians with higher normalized degree, which accounts for physician specialty and patient panel size (p<0.001). Results were similar for utilization outcomes, although magnitudes differed indicating patients may see different priced physicians.
conclusionsGenerally, higher values of network statistics reflecting local connectivity adjusted for physician characteristics are associated with increased costs and utilization, while higher values of network statistics reflecting global connectivity are associated with decreased costs and utilization. As changes in the financing and delivery system advance through policy changes and healthcare consolidation, future research should examine mechanisms through which this structure impacts outcomes and potential policy responses to determine ways to reduce costs while maintaining quality and coordination of care. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: It is unknown whether local and global measures of physician network connectivity associated with spending and utilization for commercially insured patients?In this social network analysis, we found generally higher values of network statistics reflecting local connectivity are associated with increased costs and utilization, while higher values of network statistics reflecting global connectivity are associated with decreased costs and utilization.Understanding how to influence local and global physician network characteristics may be important for reducing costs while maintaining quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.