Literature DB >> 20950800

Accuracy of Medicare claims for identifying findings and procedures performed during colonoscopy.

Cynthia W Ko1, Jason A Dominitz, Pam Green, William Kreuter, Laura-Mae Baldwin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims data are frequently used for quality measurement.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of administrative claims for potential colonoscopy quality measures, including findings (polyp or tumor detection), procedures (biopsy or polypectomy), and incomplete colonoscopy.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: Patients age 65 and older undergoing colonoscopy in the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database in 2006. We linked colonoscopy records for these patients to Medicare colonoscopy claims by using patient age, sex, date of procedure, and performing provider's Unique Physician Identification Number. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Medicare claims for potential quality measures, including colonoscopy findings and procedures.
RESULTS: We linked Medicare colonoscopy claims to 15,168 of the 30,011 Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative colonoscopy records. Sensitivity of the claims for colon polyps was 93.4%, with a specificity of 97.8%. Sensitivity of claims for other diagnoses, including colorectal tumors was suboptimal, although specificity was high. In contrast, sensitivity of claims for procedures-biopsy (with or without cautery) or polypectomy-was high (87.2%-97.6%), with specificity >97%. Claims had poor sensitivity for identification of incomplete colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: Potential for inaccurate matching of colonoscopy records and Medicare claims.
CONCLUSIONS: Medicare claims have high sensitivity and specificity for polyp detection, biopsy, and polypectomy at colonoscopy, but sensitivity is low for other diagnoses such as tumor detection and for incomplete colonoscopy. Caution is needed when using Medicare claims data for certain important quality measures, in particular tumor detection and incomplete colonoscopy.
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20950800      PMCID: PMC3397774          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.07.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  27 in total

1.  Validity of information on comorbidity derived rom ICD-9-CCM administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Gerry A Parsons; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

Authors:  William Sanchez; Gavin C Harewood; Bret T Petersen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Record linkage strategies, outpatient procedures, and administrative data.

Authors:  L L Roos; R Walld; A Wajda; R Bond; K Hartford
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Accuracy and completeness of Medicare claims data for surgical treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  X Du; J L Freeman; J L Warren; A B Nattinger; D Zhang; J S Goodwin
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Colonoscopy by a family physician: a 9-year experience of 1048 procedures.

Authors:  W Hopper; K A Kyker; W M Rodney
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 0.493

6.  Accuracy of coding in Medicare part B claims. Cataract as a case study.

Authors:  J C Javitt; A M McBean; S S Sastry; F DiPaolo
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-05

7.  Validation of diagnostic codes within medical services claims.

Authors:  Machelle Wilchesky; Robyn M Tamblyn; Allen Huang
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Accuracy of Medicare claims-based diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: estimating positive predictive value on the basis of review of hospital records.

Authors:  Yuka Kiyota; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Carolyn C Cannuscio; Jerry Avorn; Daniel H Solomon
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.749

9.  Office-based colonoscopy in a family practice.

Authors:  C J Godreau
Journal:  Fam Pract Res J       Date:  1992-09

10.  Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Wendy Atkin; Pauline Rogers; Christopher Cardwell; Claire Cook; Jack Cuzick; Jane Wardle; Rob Edwards
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  19 in total

1.  Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Danielle La Selva; Jae-Myung Cha; Michael Gluck; Andrew Ross; Michael Chiorean; Richard A Kozarek
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Rinku Sutradhar; Ning Liu; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-08-13

3.  Use of colonoscopy for polyp surveillance in Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Gregory S Cooper; Tzuyung D Kou; Jill S Barnholtz Sloan; Siran M Koroukian; Mark D Schluchter
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Prevalence and predictors of interval colorectal cancers in medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Gregory S Cooper; Fang Xu; Jill S Barnholtz Sloan; Mark D Schluchter; Siran M Koroukian
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Diverticulosis and the risk of interval colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Gregory S Cooper; Fang Xu; Mark D Schluchter; Siran M Koroukian; Jill S Barnholtz Sloan
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Developing and Testing an Electronic Measure of Screening Colonoscopy Overuse in a Large Integrated Healthcare System.

Authors:  Sameer D Saini; Adam A Powell; Jason A Dominitz; Deborah A Fisher; Joseph Francis; Linda Kinsinger; Kathleen S Pittman; Philip Schoenfeld; Stephanie E Moser; Sandeep Vijan; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database.

Authors:  Jason E Williams; Jennifer L Holub; Douglas O Faigel
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence After Negative Colonoscopy in the State of Utah: The Effect of Family History.

Authors:  N Jewel Samadder; Lisa Pappas; Kenneth M Boucherr; Ken R Smith; Heidi Hanson; Alison Fraser; Yuan Wan; Randall W Burt; Karen Curtin
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Predictors of CT colonography utilization among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Jianing Yang; Michael Harhay; Anna Lev-Toaff; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Natural language processing accurately categorizes findings from colonoscopy and pathology reports.

Authors:  Timothy D Imler; Justin Morea; Charles Kahi; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.