Table 1.
Intervention Group | Control Group | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intervention/Analysis | Source | Sample Size | Source | Sample Size | |||||
Member mailings and advertising* | Members living in Michigan | Physicians | 31,576 | Members living outside of Michigan‡ | Physicians | 106,732 | |||
Patients | 188,216 | Patients | 194,171 | ||||||
Claims | 4,637,462 | Claims | 5,152,602 | ||||||
Generic sampling† | Patients of physicians selected for generic sample program | Physicians | 289§ | Patients of physicians not selected for generic sampling program | 31,287 | ||||
Patients | 22,163 | Patients | 166,053 | ||||||
Claims | 422,449 | Claims | 4,215,013 | ||||||
Physician incentive | Patients of group practices selected for physician incentive program | Physicians | 1,127 | Patients of matched groups not selected for physician incentive program | Physicians | 980 | |||
Patients | 39,474 | Patients | 31,934 | ||||||
Claims | 773,414 | Claims | 569,508 |
The member-to-physician ratio is higher for the intervention group because the density of BCBSM members is higher in Michigan than in any other state
The intervention group counts members and claims of members if they were associated with a physician that participated in the generic sampling intervention at any point during the study even if the member was mostly seen by nonparticipating physicians (thus the ratios of members and claims to physicians is higher than for the control group)
These are almost all employees of nationally based employers
Physicians were counted in the intervention group for the generic sampling intervention if they received generic samples in any year