OBJECTIVES: End-of-life care is increasingly recognized as an important part of cancer management for many patients. Current methods to measure end-of-life care are limited by difficulties in identifying cancer cohorts with administrative data. We examined several techniques of identifying end-of-life cancer cohorts with claims data that is population-based, geographically scalable, and amenable to routine updating. METHODS: Using Medicare claims for patients 65 years of age and older, four techniques for identifying end-of-life cancer cohorts were compared; one based on Part A data using a broad primary or narrow secondary diagnosis of cancer, two based on Part B data, and one combining the Part A and B methods. We tested the performance of each definition to ascertain an appropriate end-of-life cancer population. RESULTS: The combined Part A and B definition using a primary or secondary diagnosis of cancer within a window of 180 days prior to death appears to be the most accurate and inclusive in ascertaining an end-of-life cohort (78.7% attainment). CONCLUSION: Combining inpatient and outpatient claims data, and identifying cases based upon a broad primary or a narrow secondary cancer definition is the most accurate and inclusive in ascertaining an end-of-life cohort.
OBJECTIVES: End-of-life care is increasingly recognized as an important part of cancer management for many patients. Current methods to measure end-of-life care are limited by difficulties in identifying cancer cohorts with administrative data. We examined several techniques of identifying end-of-life cancer cohorts with claims data that is population-based, geographically scalable, and amenable to routine updating. METHODS: Using Medicare claims for patients 65 years of age and older, four techniques for identifying end-of-life cancer cohorts were compared; one based on Part A data using a broad primary or narrow secondary diagnosis of cancer, two based on Part B data, and one combining the Part A and B methods. We tested the performance of each definition to ascertain an appropriate end-of-life cancer population. RESULTS: The combined Part A and B definition using a primary or secondary diagnosis of cancer within a window of 180 days prior to death appears to be the most accurate and inclusive in ascertaining an end-of-life cohort (78.7% attainment). CONCLUSION: Combining inpatient and outpatient claims data, and identifying cases based upon a broad primary or a narrow secondary cancer definition is the most accurate and inclusive in ascertaining an end-of-life cohort.
Authors: Nancy E Morden; Chiang-Hua Chang; Joseph O Jacobson; Ethan M Berke; Julie P W Bynum; Kimberly M Murray; David C Goodman Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Joan M Teno; Pedro L Gozalo; Julie P W Bynum; Natalie E Leland; Susan C Miller; Nancy E Morden; Thomas Scupp; David C Goodman; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carrie H Colla; Nancy E Morden; Jonathan S Skinner; J Russell Hoverman; Ellen Meara Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Garrett T Wasp; Shama S Alam; Gabriel A Brooks; Inas S Khayal; Nirav S Kapadia; Donald Q Carmichael; Andrea M Austin; Amber E Barnato Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 4.452