BACKGROUND: Prediction models that identify populations at risk for high health expenditures can guide the management and allocation of financial resources. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability for identifying individuals at risk for high health expenditures between the single-item assessment of general self-rated health (GSRH), "In general, would you say your health is Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor?," and 3 more complex measures. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from a prospective cohort, representative of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population, to compare the predictive ability of GSRH to: (1) the Short Form-12, (2) the Seattle Index of Comorbidity, and (3) the Diagnostic Cost-Related Groups/Hierarchal Condition Categories Relative-Risk Score. The outcomes were total, pharmacy, and office-based annualized expenditures in the top quintile, decile, and fifth percentile and any inpatient expenditures. DATA SOURCE: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey panels 8 (2003-2004, n = 7948) and 9 (2004-2005, n = 7921). RESULTS: The GSRH model predicted the top quintile of expenditures, as well as the SF-12, Seattle Index of Comorbidity, though not as well as the Diagnostic Cost-Related Groups/Hierarchal Condition Categories Relative-Risk Score: total expenditures [area under the curve (AUC): 0.79, 0.80, 0.74, and 0.84, respectively], pharmacy expenditures (AUC: 0.83, 0.83, 0.76, and 0.87, respectively), and office-based expenditures (AUC: 0.73, 0.74, 0.68, and 0.78, respectively), as well as any hospital inpatient expenditures (AUC: 0.74, 0.76, 0.72, and 0.78, respectively). Results were similar for the decile and fifth percentile expenditure cut-points. CONCLUSIONS: A simple model of GSRH and age robustly stratifies populations and predicts future health expenditures generally as well as more complex models.
BACKGROUND: Prediction models that identify populations at risk for high health expenditures can guide the management and allocation of financial resources. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability for identifying individuals at risk for high health expenditures between the single-item assessment of general self-rated health (GSRH), "In general, would you say your health is Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor?," and 3 more complex measures. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from a prospective cohort, representative of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population, to compare the predictive ability of GSRH to: (1) the Short Form-12, (2) the Seattle Index of Comorbidity, and (3) the Diagnostic Cost-Related Groups/Hierarchal Condition Categories Relative-Risk Score. The outcomes were total, pharmacy, and office-based annualized expenditures in the top quintile, decile, and fifth percentile and any inpatient expenditures. DATA SOURCE: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey panels 8 (2003-2004, n = 7948) and 9 (2004-2005, n = 7921). RESULTS: The GSRH model predicted the top quintile of expenditures, as well as the SF-12, Seattle Index of Comorbidity, though not as well as the Diagnostic Cost-Related Groups/Hierarchal Condition Categories Relative-Risk Score: total expenditures [area under the curve (AUC): 0.79, 0.80, 0.74, and 0.84, respectively], pharmacy expenditures (AUC: 0.83, 0.83, 0.76, and 0.87, respectively), and office-based expenditures (AUC: 0.73, 0.74, 0.68, and 0.78, respectively), as well as any hospital inpatient expenditures (AUC: 0.74, 0.76, 0.72, and 0.78, respectively). Results were similar for the decile and fifth percentile expenditure cut-points. CONCLUSIONS: A simple model of GSRH and age robustly stratifies populations and predicts future health expenditures generally as well as more complex models.
Authors: Christopher G Slatore; Laura M Cecere; Lynn F Reinke; Linda Ganzini; Edmunds M Udris; Brianna R Moss; Chris L Bryson; J Randall Curtis; David H Au Journal: Chest Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Elizabeth A Bayliss; Jennifer L Ellis; Mary Jo Strobel; Deanna B Mcquillan; Irena B Petsche; Jennifer C Barrow; Arne Beck Journal: Perm J Date: 2015-06-01
Authors: Katharina Klug; Claudia Bernhard-Oettel; Anne Mäkikangas; Ulla Kinnunen; Magnus Sverke Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Vicki Fung; Cassandra G K Peitzman; Julie Shi; Catherine Y Liang; William H Dow; Alan M Zaslavsky; Bruce H Fireman; Stephen F Derose; Michael E Chernew; Joseph P Newhouse; John Hsu Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Thomas V Perneger; Angèle Gayet-Ageron; Delphine S Courvoisier; Thomas Agoritsas; Stéphane Cullati Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nicholas K Schiltz; David F Warner; Jiayang Sun; Paul M Bakaki; Avi Dor; Charles W Given; Kurt C Stange; Siran M Koroukian Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.983