Identifying Physician Peer-to-Peer Effects Using Patient Movement Data

In this paper, we identify and quantify peer-to-peer effects using physician prescription data and patient movement data between physicians. We categorize the movements into three types: 1) primary care physician (PCP) to specialist and back, 2) specialist to specialist, and 3) PCP to PCP. In-depth physician interviews and surveys reveal different reasons for these movements: PCP to PCP is purely patient-generated; PCP to specialist is mostly physician-generated; and specialist to specialist is a mix of patient- and physician-generated movements. We estimate a simultaneous equations model on these three types of movements and find that in the purely patient-generated movement sample (PCP to PCP), the physicians have a significantly negative effect on each other's prescription behavior due to observational learning and congestion effects. In contrast, in the PCP to specialist sample and the specialist to PCP sample, we find that the specialist has a significantly positive effect on the PCP but not vice versa. This result suggests an opinion leader effect. Specialist to specialist movement is a mixed case, and the effect is insignificant in most cases. Based on model estimates, we calculate the social multiplier to quantify the effect of opinion leaders on other physicians in the sample. We find focal specialists who are high prescribers are more likely to be opinion leaders.

[1]  Bernard Fortin,et al.  Identification of Peer Effects through Social Networks , 2007, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[2]  Bruce Sacerdote,et al.  The Social Multiplier , 2002 .

[3]  Timothy G. Conley,et al.  Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana , 2010 .

[4]  Pradeep Chintagunta,et al.  The Effect of Signal Quality and Contiguous Word of Mouth on Customer Acquisition for a Video-on-Demand Service , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[5]  F. Bass A new product growth model for consumer durables , 1976 .

[6]  D. Watts,et al.  Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation , 2007 .

[7]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Response Modeling with Non-Random Marketing Mix Variables , 2003 .

[8]  Stefan Stremersch,et al.  Marketing of the Life Sciences: A New Framework and Research Agenda for a Nascent Field , 2009 .

[9]  G. Lilien,et al.  A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing , 2008 .

[10]  Sangyoung Song,et al.  Social Contagion and Trial on the Internet: Evidence from Online Grocery Retailing , 2004 .

[11]  Sanjeev Goyal,et al.  A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation , 2000 .

[12]  Inge Geyskens,et al.  How cannibalistic is the internet channel? A study of the newspaper industry in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands , 2002 .

[13]  Gerrit van Bruggen,et al.  Viral marketing: What is it, and what are the components of viral success? , 2010 .

[14]  R. Rosenthal Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[15]  G. Lilien,et al.  Medical Innovation Revisited: Social Contagion versus Marketing Effort1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  William A. Brock,et al.  Discrete Choice with Social Interactions , 2001 .

[17]  J. Goldenberg,et al.  The chilling effects of network externalities , 2010 .

[18]  R. Burt Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  Jerome B. Kernan,et al.  Analysis of Referral Networks in Marketing: Methods and Illustration , 1986 .

[20]  Michael Song,et al.  Marketing Under Uncertainty:The Logic of an Effectual Approach , 2009 .

[21]  D. Strang,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in Diffusion , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  Eugene Vayda,et al.  Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. , 1991, JAMA.

[23]  Michael Trusov,et al.  Determining Influential Users in Internet Social Networks , 2010 .

[24]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Modeling Interdependent Consumer Preferences , 2003 .

[25]  Sangyoung Song,et al.  Neighborhood effects and trial on the internet: Evidence from online grocery retailing , 2007 .

[26]  N. Christakis,et al.  SUPPLEMENTARY ONLINE MATERIAL FOR: The Collective Dynamics of Smoking in a Large Social Network , 2022 .

[27]  Thomas W. Valente,et al.  Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[28]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Crime and Social Interactions , 1995 .

[29]  Ying Xie,et al.  The Role of Targeted Communication and Contagion in Product Adoption , 2008, Mark. Sci..

[30]  P. Jehiel,et al.  Partnership dissolution with interdependent values , 2006 .

[31]  Bruce I. Sacerdote Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates , 2001 .

[32]  Alan T. Sorensen,et al.  Social learning and health plan choice. , 2006, The Rand journal of economics.

[33]  C. Beyrer,et al.  Preventive intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections: a field trial in the Royal Thai Army. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[34]  Donald R. Lehmann,et al.  Preface to “The chilling effects of network externalities" , 2010 .

[35]  R. Frank Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status , 1986 .

[36]  Á. D. Paula Inference in a Synchronization Game with Social Interactions, Second Version , 2008 .

[37]  Harikesh S. Nair,et al.  Asymmetric Social Interactions in Physician Prescription Behavior: The Role of Opinion Leaders , 2008 .

[38]  C. Beyrer,et al.  Preventive Intervention to Reduce Sexually Transmitted Infections , 2000 .

[39]  C. Manski Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem , 1993 .

[40]  Thomas W Valente,et al.  Effects of a social-network method for group assignment strategies on peer-led tobacco prevention programs in schools. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[41]  Harikesh S. Nair,et al.  Modeling social interactions: Identification, empirical methods and policy implications , 2008 .

[42]  L. Blume The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction , 1993 .

[43]  W. Brock,et al.  A Multinomial-Choice Model of Neighborhood Effects , 2002 .

[44]  J. Coleman,et al.  Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. , 1967 .

[45]  E. Duflo,et al.  The Role of Information and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment , 2002 .