Elizabeth B Lamont1, Lan Lan. 1. *Departments of Medicine and Health Care Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA †Department of Biostatistics Duke University, Durham, NC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the accuracy with which Medicare billing data documents elderly Medicare cancer patients' receipt of common multiagent chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: We merged gold-standard clinical trial data from 406 elderly cancer patients known to be treated on 1 of 6 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) breast, colorectal, and lung cancer trials (trial numbers; 9344, 9730, 9235,9732, 80203, 89803) with their Medicare claims data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Comparing CMS chemotherapy codes to gold-standard CALGB treatment data, we estimated Medicare data's sensitivity at measuring the correct drugs and schedule for each of the multiagent chemotherapy regimens. RESULTS: Overall 92% (375/406) of CALGB patients had contemporaneous CMS claims indicating receipt of chemotherapy. The overall sensitivity of CMS ambulatory claims for documenting treatment with the correct drugs and on the correct schedule (ie, all drugs had to be billed on the same day) for the 5 common multiagent chemotherapy regimens was 78% (275/354) for those potentially treated in the ambulatory setting. The sensitivity was similar for all treatment regimens: carboplatin and paclitaxel 83%, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin 80%, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) 76%, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide 75%, and cisplatin and etoposide 75%. CONCLUSIONS: We correctly identified at least 3-quarters of elderly Medicare cancer patients treated on a clinical trial with standard first-line multiagent chemotherapy regimens in the ambulatory setting by applying coding algorithms to their CMS claims. The algorithms may be useful in identifying cohorts of elderly Medicare patients for observational studies of the comparative effectiveness of standard multiagent chemotherapy regimens.
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the accuracy with which Medicare billing data documents elderly Medicare cancerpatients' receipt of common multiagent chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: We merged gold-standard clinical trial data from 406 elderly cancerpatients known to be treated on 1 of 6 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) breast, colorectal, and lung cancer trials (trial numbers; 9344, 9730, 9235,9732, 80203, 89803) with their Medicare claims data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Comparing CMS chemotherapy codes to gold-standard CALGB treatment data, we estimated Medicare data's sensitivity at measuring the correct drugs and schedule for each of the multiagent chemotherapy regimens. RESULTS: Overall 92% (375/406) of CALGB patients had contemporaneous CMS claims indicating receipt of chemotherapy. The overall sensitivity of CMS ambulatory claims for documenting treatment with the correct drugs and on the correct schedule (ie, all drugs had to be billed on the same day) for the 5 common multiagent chemotherapy regimens was 78% (275/354) for those potentially treated in the ambulatory setting. The sensitivity was similar for all treatment regimens: carboplatin and paclitaxel 83%, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin 80%, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) 76%, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide 75%, and cisplatin and etoposide 75%. CONCLUSIONS: We correctly identified at least 3-quarters of elderly Medicare cancerpatients treated on a clinical trial with standard first-line multiagent chemotherapy regimens in the ambulatory setting by applying coding algorithms to their CMS claims. The algorithms may be useful in identifying cohorts of elderly Medicare patients for observational studies of the comparative effectiveness of standard multiagent chemotherapy regimens.
Authors: Edward F McClay; Jeff Bogart; James E Herndon; Dee Watson; Lisa Evans; Steven L Seagren; Mark R Green Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Joan L Warren; K Robin Yabroff; Angela Meekins; Marie Topor; Elizabeth B Lamont; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Beth A Virnig; Joan L Warren; Gregory S Cooper; Carrie N Klabunde; Nicola Schussler; Jean Freeman Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Carolyn I Sartor; Bercedis L Peterson; Susan Woolf; Thomas J Fitzgerald; Frances Laurie; Andrew J Turrisi; Jeff Bogart; I Craig Henderson; Larry Norton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth B Lamont; Richard L Schilsky; Yulei He; Hyman Muss; Harvey Jay Cohen; Arti Hurria; Ashley Meilleur; Hedy L Kindler; Alan Venook; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Harvey Niell; Richard M Goldberg; Steven Joffe Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nikki M Carroll; Kate M Burniece; Jeff Holzman; Deanna B McQuillan; Angela Plata; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2017-11
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Tracy Onega; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Karl Huang; Solomon B Makgoeng; Gheorghe Luta; Jun X Song; Michelle Tallarico; Janise M Roh; Julie R Munneke; Cathie A Houlston; Meghan E McGuckin; Ling Cai; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Dawn L Hershman; Alfred I Neugut; Claudine Isaacs; Larry Kushi Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Anna N Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Quyen Tran; Joan L Warren; Michael J Barrett; Dave Annett; Melissa Marth; Rosemary D Cress; Dennis Deapen; Sally L Glaser; Scarlett L Gomez; Stephen M Schwartz; Christopher I Li; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lindsey Enewold; Linda C Harlan; Donna R Rivera; Deborah M Winn; Lynne Penberthy; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2020-05-01