Characterizing physician directory data quality: variation by specialty, state, and insurer.

backgroundAs U.S. legislators are urged to combat ghost networks in behavioral health and address the provider data quality issue, it becomes important to better characterize the variation in data quality of provider directories to understand root causes and devise solutions. Therefore, this manuscript examines consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information for physician entries from 5 national health plan provider directories by insurer, physician specialty, and state.

methodsWe included all physicians in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) found in ≥ 2 health insurer physician directories across 5 large national U.S. health insurers. We examined variation in consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information among physicians by insurer, physician specialty, and state.

resultsOf 634,914 unique physicians in the PECOS database, 449,282 were found in ≥ 2 directories and included in our sample. Across insurers, consistency of address information varied from 16.5 to 27.9%, consistency of phone number information varied from 16.0 to 27.4%, and consistency of specialty information varied from 64.2 to 68.0%. General practice, family medicine, plastic surgery, and dermatology physicians had the highest consistency of addresses (37-42%) and phone numbers (37-43%), whereas anesthesiology, nuclear medicine, radiology, and emergency medicine had the lowest consistency of addresses (11-21%) and phone numbers (9-14%) across health insurer directories. There was marked variation in consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information by state.

conclusionsIn evaluating a large national sample of U.S. physicians, we found minimal variation in provider directory consistency by insurer, suggesting that this is a systemic problem that insurers have not solved, and considerable variation by physician specialty with higher quality data among more patient-facing specialties, suggesting that physicians may respond to incentives to improve data quality. These data highlight the importance of novel policy solutions that leverage technology targeting data quality to centralize provider directories so as not to not reinforce existing data quality issues or policy solutions to create national and state-level standards that target both insurers and physician groups to maximize quality of provider information.