Note: Billing relationships are defined as an instance of an EP billing under a given TIN. Each EP can have multiple billing relationships, as can each TIN.

Table 4. EP Specialty Composition of Each Cost Range for TINs with 1+ EPs and 20+ Beneficiaries - Specialty Weight by Percent of TIN Charges

LowMedium Medical oncology 94% 3,709 0.2% 55.2% Hematology/oncology 90% 10,156 0.4% 63.7% Radiation oncology 56% 3,666 1.8% 71.5% Gynecologist/oncologist 76% 1,038 1.7% 75.5% Hematology 92% 1,100 0.4% 77.5% Geriatric medicine 93% 2,593 0.4% 79.1% Surgical oncology 81% 832 0.8% 79.4% Geriatric Psychiatry 44% 57 0.0% 82.5% Neurosurgery 67% 3,729 0.9% 83.3% Unknown physician specialty 54% 167 0.6% 83.8% Pain Management 56% 1,011 1.1% 85.5% Certified clinical nurse specialist 43% 1,275 2.5% 84.9% Hospice and Palliative Care 81% 323 0.3% 87.6% Internal medicine 83% 111,2211.0% 87.3% Nurse practitioner 71% 51,908 5.3% 83.6% Physical medicine and rehabilitation57% 5,590 1.4% 87.9% Single or Multispecialty clinic or group practice 36% 3,142 6.8% 83.3% Clinical psychologist (billing indepedently)4% 31 9.7% 80.6% Licensed clinical social worker 13% 4,724 7.4% 83.4% General practice 64% 8,279 4.7% 86.2% Interventional Pain Management58% 1,893 2.1% 89.1% General surgery 63% 17,133 1.3% 90.1% Physician assistant 70% 42,071 3.9% 87.9% Clinical psychologist 15% 4,583 3.2% 88.7% Thoracic surgery 62% 1,889 0.1% 91.9% Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) 31% 16,191 1.0% 91.1% Osteopathic manipulative therapy57% 457 3.9% 88.2% Chiropractic 2% 843 2.6% 89.6% Nuclear medicine 46% 494 2.2% 90.1% Colorectal surgery 59% 953 2.9% 89.4% Diagnostic radiology 29% 15,926 0.6% 92.0% Emergency medicine 37% 23,335 3.4% 89.3% Podiatry 16% 3,303 1.9% 91.0% Infectious disease 70% 4,747 2.1% 90.9% Cardiac surgery 59% 1,527 0.5% 92.6% Family practice 85% 93,888 1.1% 92.2% Peripheral vascular disease 69% 90 0.0% 93.3% Neuropsychiatry 36% 75 4.0% 89.3% Pathology 39% 6,033 3.1% 90.3%

Specialty Total Billing Relationships Captured Cost Range Composition for EPs of each Specialty Original per Capita Cost Analysis (rows sum to 100%) Percent Billing Relationships CapturedVascular surgery 68% 2,999 0.5% 92.8%

Interventional radiology 37% 820 0.9% 92.7% Critical care (intensivists) 75% 2,887 1.6% 92.1% Psychiatry 35% 13,202 4.8% 89.4% Speech-language pathologist 28% 364 6.3% 87.9% Plastic and Reconstructive surgery32% 1,979 5.2% 89.1% Oral surgery (dentists only) 14% 456 0.9% 93.4% Orthopedic surgery 76% 21,086 2.4% 92.2% Anesthesiology 30% 14,039 1.5% 93.5% Preventive medicine 76% 532 2.6% 92.5% Anesthesiologist Assistant 29% 372 0.0% 95.4% Pulmonary disease 78% 10,840 2.8% 92.7% Registered Dietician/Nutrition Professional 63% 2,080 2.9% 92.9% Physical therapist 16% 7,468 2.1% 93.7% Certified nurse midwife 72% 1,953 1.9% 94.2% Obstetrics/gynecology 54% 21,006 7.7% 88.7% Maxillofacial surgery 12% 226 0.9% 95.6% Pediatric medicine 73% 8,540 1.1% 95.6% Occupational therapist 28% 1,623 2.5% 94.1% Cardiology 77% 34,291 4.0% 92.7% Urology 82% 10,250 4.9% 92.3% Sports Medicine 96% 305 0.0% 97.4% Neurology 74% 13,147 4.8% 92.5% Rheumatology 85% 4,771 3.7% 93.9% Addiction medicine 48% 85 4.7% 92.9% Mass Immunization Roster Biller 0% 153 2.0% 96.1% Cardiac Electrophysiology 85% 1,229 1.5% 96.5% Gastroenterology 75% 12,363 4.1% 93.9% Nephrology 82% 8,983 14.5%83.6% Endocrinology 88% 5,987 9.8% 88.6% Otolaryngology 73% 8,238 18.6%79.8% Allergy/immunology 48% 2,078 8.3% 90.3% Hand surgery 76% 1,290 2.0% 96.7% Optometry 13% 4,771 21.1%78.0% Audiologist 48% 3,636 19.1%80.0% Dermatology 74% 9,866 49.5%49.7% Ophthalmology 53% 12,93324.3%75.0%

Total 696,830

*Note: green indicates that a specialty had proportionally more high cost billing relationships when evaluating straight per capita cost than when evaluating the specialty-weighted per capita cost. Yellow indicates that a specialty had proportionally fewer high cost billing relationships when evaluating straight per capita cost than when evaluating the specialty-weighted per capita cost.Note: Billing relationships are defined as an instance of an EP billing under a given TIN. Each EP can have multiple billing relationships, as can each TIN.

Table 4. EP Specialty Composition of Each Cost Range for TINs with 1+ EPs and 20+ Beneficiaries - Specialty Weight by Percent of TIN Charges

High Total Low Medium High Low 44.6%100.0% 0.1% 18.2% -18.3% 0.0% 35.9%100.0% 0.4% 16.7% -17.1% 0.2% 26.7%100.0% 0.7% 9.4% -10.1% 0.1% 22.7%100.0% 0.0% 7.5% -7.5% 0.0% 22.1%100.0% 0.3% 6.6% -6.8% 0.0% 20.5%100.0% 0.9% 4.5% -5.4% 0.1% 19.7%100.0% 0.6% 2.1% -2.7% 0.0% 17.5%100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.8%100.0% 0.6% 1.7% -2.3% 0.1% 15.6%100.0% 0.0% -0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 13.5%100.0% 0.5% 0.4% -0.9% 0.0% 12.5%100.0% 0.3% 1.3% -1.6% 0.0% 12.1%100.0% 0.0% 1.5% -1.5% 0.0% 11.7%100.0% 0.6% -0.2% -0.4% 3.1% 11.1%100.0% 0.2% 0.5% -0.7% 1.9% 10.7%100.0% 1.1% -0.3% -0.8% 0.3% 9.8%100.0% -1.2% 1.7% -0.5% 0.0% 9.7%100.0% 2.8% -2.5% -0.3% 0.0% 9.2%100.0% 1.7% -0.7% -1.0% 0.5% 9.2%100.0% 1.7% -2.2% 0.5% 0.7% 8.8%100.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% 0.1% 8.6%100.0% 0.4% -0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 8.3%100.0% -0.8% 1.1% -0.3% -0.4% 8.1%100.0% 0.7% -0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 8.0%100.0% 0.1% 0.1% -0.2% 0.0% 7.9%100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 7.9%100.0% 1.3% -2.8% 1.5% 0.0% 7.8%100.0% 0.2% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0% 7.7%100.0% 0.0% 0.2% -0.2% 0.0% 7.7%100.0% 0.8% -1.1% 0.3% 0.0% 7.4%100.0% 0.2% 0.0% -0.2% 0.2% 7.3%100.0% 0.8% -1.1% 0.3% 1.1% 7.1%100.0% 0.4% 0.0% -0.4% 0.1% 7.0%100.0% 0.3% -0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 6.9%100.0% 0.1% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 6.7%100.0% 0.5% -0.6% 0.1% 2.3% 6.7%100.0% 0.0% 1.1% -1.1% 0.0% 6.7%100.0% 0.0% 1.3% -1.3% 0.0% 6.6%100.0% -1.0% 0.9% 0.1% -0.1% Difference in Percentage Points of Cost Range Composition for EPs of each Specialty (Specialty-Adjusted minus Original) Difference in Percentage Points of Specialty Composition for each Cost Range of TINs (Specialty-Adjusted minus Original) Cost Range Composition for EPs of each Specialty Original per Capita Cost Analysis (rows sum to 100%)6.6%100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6.5%100.0% -0.1% 0.2% -0.1% 0.0% 6.2%100.0% 0.1% -0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 5.9%100.0% 1.2% -1.0% -0.2% 0.9% 5.8%100.0% -1.2% -0.6% 1.8% 0.0% 5.7%100.0% -1.8% 1.7% 0.1% -0.1% 5.7%100.0% 0.6% -1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 5.4%100.0% 1.1% -1.2% 0.1% 1.2% 5.0%100.0% 0.6% -0.8% 0.2% 0.4% 4.9%100.0% 0.6% -0.9% 0.4% 0.0% 4.6%100.0% 12.3% -7.9% -4.3% 0.2% 4.6%100.0% 0.2% -0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 4.2%100.0% -0.7% 1.0% -0.2% 0.0% 4.2%100.0% 1.0% -1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.9%100.0% 0.1% -0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 3.6%100.0% 0.1% -0.4% 0.3% 0.9% 3.5%100.0% 0.0% -0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 3.4%100.0% 0.2% -3.3% 3.1% 0.1% 3.4%100.0% 1.1% -1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 3.2%100.0% -0.3% -0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 2.8%100.0% -0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 2.6%100.0% 2.6% -2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6%100.0% -0.2% -0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 2.5%100.0% 0.0% -0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 2.4%100.0% 0.0% 1.2% -1.2% 0.0% 2.0%100.0% 0.7% -0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%100.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.9%100.0% 0.1% -0.8% 0.7% 0.3% 1.9%100.0% -4.4% 3.7% 0.7% -0.8% 1.6%100.0% -2.4% 2.1% 0.2% -0.2% 1.6%100.0% -5.5% 4.3% 1.1% -0.9% 1.3%100.0% -3.0% 2.0% 1.0% -0.1% 1.2%100.0% 1.2% -1.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.9%100.0% -10.0% 7.4% 2.6% -1.3% 0.9%100.0% -6.2% 5.0% 1.2% -0.5% 0.8%100.0% -28.9% 27.5% 1.4% -8.4% 0.7%100.0% -12.2% 9.0% 3.2% -4.4%

0.0%

*Note: green indicates that a specialty had proportionally more high cost billing relationships when evaluating straight per capita cost than when evaluating the specialty-weighted per capita cost. Yellow indicates that a specialty had proportionally fewer high cost billing relationships when evaluating straight per capita cost than when evaluating the specialty-weighted per capita cost.Medium High

0.1% -1.2% 0.3% -3.0% 0.1% -0.6% 0.0% -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% 0.0% -0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 0.2% 0.0% -0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Difference in Percentage Points of Specialty Composition for each Cost Range of TINs (Specialty-Adjusted minus Original)0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.8%

0.0% 0.0%

*Note: green indicates that a specialty had proportionally more high cost billing relationships when evaluating straight per capita cost than when evaluating the specialty-weighted per capita cost. Yellow indicates that a specialty had proportionally fewer high cost billing relationships when evaluating straight per capita cost than when evaluating the specialty-weighted per capita cost.