Skip to main content

Table 1 Description of included practices and approach

From: Primary care practices’ ability to predict future risk of expenditures and hospitalization using risk stratification and segmentation

Practices (N = 6) Result
Practice size  
 Large (greater than 20,000 patients) 2 (33%)
 Medium (10,000–20,000 patients) 4 (67%)
Practice location  
 Urban 4 (83%)
 Rural 2 (17%)
Practice ownership  
 Health system 4 (67%)
 Independent 2 (33%)
Perception of practice RS processa  
 High (> 67% agree) 3 (50%)
 Low (< 33% agree) 3 (50%)
Stratification approach  
 Clinical intuition 1 (17%)
 Algorithm only 1 (17%)
 Adjudication 4 (67%)
Patient panels N (range) 40,342 (2,209–24,192)
% female (practice range) 57% (54–60%)
Age mean (practice range) 60.8 (56.5–72.0)
HCC scores (IQR) 0.60 (0.28–0.80)
 Practice 1 0.62 (0.35–0.79)
 Practice 2 0.74 (0.35–1.0)
 Practice 3 0.54 (0.29–0.67)
 Practice 4 0.55 (0.26–0.70)
 Practice 5 0.65 (0.29–0.86)
 Practice 6 0.79 (0.40–1.05)
HCC categories mean (practice range) 0.79 (0.47–1.06)
HCC conditions % (range)  
 Diabetes 11% (2–19%)
 Neoplasm 11% (3–12%)
 Heart disease 10% (7–17%)
 Psychiatric 8% (2–14%)
 Lung 5% (3–9%)
Patients with outcome data available 3,381 (49–1,629)
Outcome rate % (range)  
 At least one ED visit 30% (25–59%)
 At least two ED visits 12% (9–36%)
 One or more hospitalization 14% (11–33%)
 Expenditures ≥ $ 30,000 9% (6–22%)
  1. aPercent agreement with measures of risk score correctness and overall confidence in stratification approach; no medium levels of agreement were seen (34–66%)
\