ArticleHealth services research2026
Provider Attribution in Medicare: Challenges and Solutions.
Article in Health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality, Cost, and Timeliness of Cancer Treatment in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Article
- Palliative Care for Advanced Cancer in Medicare Advantage and Physician Networks.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Provider Attribution in Medicare: Challenges and Solutions.Health services research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo enhance National Provider Identifier (NPI) and specialty information available in Medicare Advantage (MA) encounter data and use the enhanced data to evaluate methods for retrospective attribution of the patient's usual clinician, comparing results across MA and Traditional Medicare (TM) populations. STUDY SETTING AND
designWe fill in missing clinician identifiers and specialty codes in MA encounter data using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and publicly available provider datasets. We attributed patients to the usual clinician using 16 methodological options, comparing the performance of these attribution methods in MA and TM. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We used a 20% sample of MA encounter data and TM claims data for 2016-2022, incorporating information from CMS's Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty, archived data from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, and specialty-taxonomy crosswalks derived from CMS publications. PRINCIPAL
findingsFor MA, we identified individual NPIs for 83% of medical claims in 2016, improving to 89% in 2022. Among MA medical claims billed by physicians and advanced practice providers, 95% of NPIs were for individual clinicians by 2022. In total, we identified individual or organization NPIs and specialty codes for over 99% of medical encounters in both TM and MA in all years. Rates of patient attribution were stable over time, and most methods had similar performance in MA and TM. We recommend a hierarchical attribution method that resulted in the highest fraction attributed with good consistency of attributed clinician year over year. Published reference files and SAS code make these NPI identification and patient attribution methods accessible.
conclusionsOur methods allow researchers to identify provider NPIs that can be matched to external clinician data, used to attribute patients to a usual source of care, or to fit clinician fixed effects in studies of MA and TM.
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.