Background. Physician profiling is a method of cost control that focuses on patterns of care instead of on specific clinical decisions. It is one cost-control method that takes into account physicians' desire to curb the intrusion of administrative mechanisms into the clinical encounter. To provide a concrete example of profiling, we analyzed the inpatient practice patterns of physicians in Florida and Oregon. Methods. Data for 1991 from Medicare's National Claims History File were used to profile 12,720 attending physicians in Florida and 2589 in Oregon. For each attending physician, we determined the total relative value of all physicians' services delivered during each patient's hospital stay. Relative value was measured in relative-value units (RVUs), according to the resource-based relative-value scale used by Medicare in determining payments to physicians. The mean number of RVUs per admission was then adjusted for the physician's case mix according to the patients' assigned diagnosis-related groups. The influence of the physician's specialty and of selected types of services (such as imaging and endoscopy) was also examined. Results. Florida physicians used markedly more resources, on average, than their colleagues in Oregon (46 vs. 30 case-mix-adjusted RVUs per admission). The difference was apparent for all specialties and all types of service. To illustrate the profiling data potentially available to the medical staffs of individual hospitals, we examined specific data on individual attending physicians and for various types of service for three hospitals' staffs. Despite similar overall profiles that fell below the national mean, each staff had a different practice pattern and would require different efforts to improve efficiency. Conclusions. In an effort to encourage further debate, we have described one method of physician profiling. Profiling data help identify and characterize differences in practice style to which individual physicians or hospital staffs can respond. Because profiling is not based on rigid rules, it is a cost-containment strategy that can easily accommodate legitimate exceptions; it is therefore preferable to methods in which the appropriateness of each clinical decision is judged separately.
