Literature DB >> 14727787

How robust are health plan quality indicators to data loss? A Monte Carlo simulation study of pediatric asthma treatment.

Bruce Stuart1, Puneet K Singhal, Laurence S Magder, Ilene H Zuckerman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) To test the robustness of a health plan quality indicator (QI) for persistent asthma to various forms of data loss and (2) to assess the implications of the findings for other health plan quality measures. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTINGS: Maryland Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Children with asthma (n = 5,804) were selected from Medicaid enrollment records and medical and pharmacy FFS claims filed between June 1996 and December 1997. STUDY
DESIGN: A variant of a HEDIS measure for treatment of persistent asthma (the percent of asthma patients filling two or more rescue medications who also filled a controller medication) was selected to test the robustness of proportion-based QIs to loss of data. Data loss was simulated through a series of Monte Carlo experiments. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: Merged FFS medical and prescription claims. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: The asthma QI measure was highly robust to systematic and random data loss. The measure declined by less than 2 percent in the presence of up to a 35 percent data loss. Redundancy in the numerator of the QI significantly increased the robustness of the measure to data loss.
CONCLUSIONS: A HEDIS-related QI measure for persistent asthma is robust to data loss. The findings suggest that other proportion-based quality indicators, particularly those in which plan members have multiple opportunities to meet the numerator criterion, are likely to reflect true levels of health plan quality in the face of incomplete data capture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14727787      PMCID: PMC1360963          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00192.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  4 in total

1.  Visit-driven endpoints in randomized HIV/AIDS clinical trials: impact of missing data on treatment difference measured on summary statistics.

Authors:  E Le Corfec; S Chevret; D Costagliola
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches.

Authors:  R J Little; D B Rubin
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 21.981

3.  Clinical quality measurement. Comparing chart review and automated methodologies.

Authors:  M V Dresser; L Feingold; S L Rosenkranz; K L Coltin
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  A national survey of the arrangements managed-care plans make with physicians.

Authors:  M R Gold; R Hurley; T Lake; T Ensor; R Berenson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-12-21       Impact factor: 91.245

  4 in total
  3 in total

1.  Measuring quality in modern managed care.

Authors:  Harold S Luft; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Methods to identify the target population: implications for prescribing quality indicators.

Authors:  Liana Martirosyan; Onyebuchi A Arah; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Jozé Braspenning; Petra Denig
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Examining asthma quality of care using a population-based approach.

Authors:  Helena Klomp; Joshua A Lawson; Donald W Cockcroft; Benjamin T Chan; Paul Cascagnette; Laurie Gander; Derek Jorgenson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-04-08       Impact factor: 8.262

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.