Carrie N Klabunde1, Linda C Harlan, Joan L Warren. 1. Health Services and Economics Branch, Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA. klabundc@mail.nih.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying appropriate comorbidity data sources is a key consideration in health services and outcomes research. OBJECTIVE: Using cancer patients as an example, we compared comorbid conditions identified: 1) on the discharge facesheet versus full hospital medical record and 2) in the hospital record versus Medicare claims, both precancer diagnosis and associated with a cancer treatment-related index hospitalization. METHODS: We used data from 1995 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results patterns of care studies for 1,382 patients. Comorbid conditions were ascertained from the hospital record associated with the most definitive cancer treatment and Medicare claims. We calculated the prevalence for and assessed concordances among 12 conditions derived from the hospital record facesheet; full hospital record; Medicare claims precancer diagnosis, with and without a rule-out algorithm applied; and Medicare claims associated with an index hospitalization. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with one or more comorbid conditions varied by data source, from 21% for the facesheet to 85% for prediagnosis Medicare claims without the rule-out algorithm. Condition prevalences were substantially lower for the facesheet compared with the full hospital record. For prediagnosis Medicare claims, condition prevalences were more than 1.7 times greater in the absence of an algorithm to screen for rule-out diagnoses. Measures assessing concordance between the full hospital record and prediagnosis Medicare claims (rule-out algorithm applied) showed modest agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital record and Medicare claims are complementary data sources for identifying comorbid conditions. Comorbidity is greatly underascertained when derived only from the facesheet of the hospital record. Investigators using Part B Medicare claims to measure comorbidity should remove conditions that are listed for purposes of generating bills but are not true comorbidities.
BACKGROUND: Identifying appropriate comorbidity data sources is a key consideration in health services and outcomes research. OBJECTIVE: Using cancerpatients as an example, we compared comorbid conditions identified: 1) on the discharge facesheet versus full hospital medical record and 2) in the hospital record versus Medicare claims, both precancer diagnosis and associated with a cancer treatment-related index hospitalization. METHODS: We used data from 1995 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results patterns of care studies for 1,382 patients. Comorbid conditions were ascertained from the hospital record associated with the most definitive cancer treatment and Medicare claims. We calculated the prevalence for and assessed concordances among 12 conditions derived from the hospital record facesheet; full hospital record; Medicare claims precancer diagnosis, with and without a rule-out algorithm applied; and Medicare claims associated with an index hospitalization. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with one or more comorbid conditions varied by data source, from 21% for the facesheet to 85% for prediagnosis Medicare claims without the rule-out algorithm. Condition prevalences were substantially lower for the facesheet compared with the full hospital record. For prediagnosis Medicare claims, condition prevalences were more than 1.7 times greater in the absence of an algorithm to screen for rule-out diagnoses. Measures assessing concordance between the full hospital record and prediagnosis Medicare claims (rule-out algorithm applied) showed modest agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital record and Medicare claims are complementary data sources for identifying comorbid conditions. Comorbidity is greatly underascertained when derived only from the facesheet of the hospital record. Investigators using Part B Medicare claims to measure comorbidity should remove conditions that are listed for purposes of generating bills but are not true comorbidities.
Authors: Elizabeth Tarlov; Kevin T Stroupe; Todd A Lee; Thomas W Weichle; Qiuying L Zhang; Laura C Michaelis; Howard Ozer; Margaret M Browning; Denise M Hynes Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mary E Tinetti; Gail J McAvay; Terrence E Murphy; Cary P Gross; Haiqun Lin; Heather G Allore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Denise M Hynes; Elizabeth Tarlov; Ramon Durazo-Arvizu; Ruth Perrin; Qiuying Zhang; Thomas Weichle; M Rosario Ferreira; Todd Lee; Al B Benson; Nirmala Bhoopalam; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Amin; G Mhango; J Lin; A Aronson; J Wisnivesky; P Boffetta; Aimee L Lucas Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Patricia St Clair; Étienne Gaudette; Henu Zhao; Bryan Tysinger; Roxanna Seyedin; Dana P Goldman Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Dejana Braithwaite; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dan Moore; Karen J Wernli; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Beth M Beadle; Kai-Ping Liao; Sharon H Giordano; Adam S Garden; Katherine A Hutcheson; Stephen Y Lai; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Dorina Kallogjeri; Sheila M Gaynor; Marilyn L Piccirillo; Raymond A Jean; Edward L Spitznagel; Jay F Piccirillo Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 6.113