Literature DB >> 24800145

Evaluating comorbidity scores based on health service expenditures.

Meredith L Kilgore1, Wilson Smith1, Jeffrey R Curtis2, Michael A Morrisey1, David J Becker1, Kenneth G Saag2, Elizabeth Delzell1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the performance of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) specifications among Medicare beneficiaries and subgroups. DATA SOURCES: Medicare data for beneficiaries covered by Parts A and B and not Medicare Advantage throughout 2007. STUDY
DESIGN: We evaluated several CCI specifications, particularly a model using expenditures related to Charlson categories, to predict 1 year mortality. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: Data were obtained from the Chronic Condition Data Warehouse. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: The use of Charlson related expenditures did not result in improved mortality prediction. CCI models perform less well in population subgroups with higher underlying mortality risks based on age and chronic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Relatively simple models provide quite adequate discrimination compared to more sophisticated models. Our proposed and more sophisticated model, which added in expenditure information, did not perform as well as much more easily executed methods.

Keywords:  Comorbidity scores; Medicare claims data; risk adjustment

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 24800145      PMCID: PMC4006378          DOI: 10.5600/mmrr.002.03.a05

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Medicare Medicaid Res Rev        ISSN: 2159-0354


  8 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.  Improved comorbidity adjustment for predicting mortality in Medicare populations.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss; Philip S Wang; Jerry Avorn; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; M A Ciol
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model.

Authors:  D W Hosmer; T Hosmer; S Le Cessie; S Lemeshow
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores.

Authors:  Joshua J Gagne; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Raisa Levin; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives.

Authors:  P S Romano; L L Roos; J G Jollis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  A refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 3.797

8.  Consistency of performance ranking of comorbidity adjustment scores in Canadian and U.S. utilization data.

Authors:  Sebastian Schneeweiss; Philip S Wang; Jerry Avorn; Malcolm Maclure; Raia Levin; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 6.473

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Death, debility, and destitution following hip fracture.

Authors:  Gabriel S Tajeu; Elizabeth Delzell; Wilson Smith; Tarun Arora; Jeffrey R Curtis; Kenneth G Saag; Michael A Morrisey; Huifeng Yun; Meredith L Kilgore
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 6.053

2.  Utilizing national patient-register data to control for comorbidity in prognostic studies.

Authors:  Yngvar Nilssen; Trond-Eirik Strand; Robert Wiik; Inger Johanne Bakken; Xue Qin Yu; Dianne L O'Connell; Bjørn Møller
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 4.790

3.  Differences in breast cancer diagnosis by patient presentation in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Steven Habbous; Esha Homenauth; Andriana Barisic; Sharmilaa Kandasamy; Vicky Majpruz; Katharina Forster; Marta Yurcan; Anna M Chiarelli; Patti Groome; Claire M B Holloway; Andrea Eisen
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2022-04-05
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.