thanks, though seemed to me thaumasiotes who I replied understood perfectly! In particular he is correct that "Of the three non-fraudulent clinics, two show pretty elevated levels of that particularly lucrative code, the one that clips the ceiling for the fraudulent clinic. How much of that is fraud?" which he only could tell by correctly interpreting the graph (reading across that drug's column) - and it's a good question.

His second paragraph was only about the one clinic in question, he ignored the other 3 in his second paragraph, though he wasn't explicit about this, and asked a year-over-year question about the drug, concerning clinic A only.

My point was kind of tangential, that, INCIDENTALLY if the colors matched up in the rows (were repeated in the same order 4 times) you could look at it another way visually that you can't right now without counting by hand. Specifically, you could look at the aggregate trend for all four clinics year-over-year for the drug in question (the one with the spike) by seeing with your eye how the six colors move as you move your eye from Stripe A, to Stripe B, to Stripe C, to Stripe D. Right now, with your eye you can only tell or ask about year-over-year changes for a specific drug for clinic A, not for the other ones. If all four 2009's were peach, you could easily tell if there were 4 spikes in that year or just one. In fact in 2009 all four do seem to spike somewhat. Not being able to visually see aggregate year-over-year comparisons is probably the downside to the current presentation.