Literature DB >> 25302935

Classification accuracy of claims-based methods for identifying providers failing to meet performance targets.

Rebecca A Hubbard1, Rhondee Benjamin-Johnson, Tracy Onega, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Weiwei Zhu, Joshua J Fenton.   

Abstract

Quality assessment is critical for healthcare reform, but data sources are lacking for measurement of many important healthcare outcomes. With over 49 million people covered by Medicare as of 2010, Medicare claims data offer a potentially valuable source that could be used in targeted health care quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the operating characteristics of provider profiling methods using claims-based outcome measures that may estimate provider performance with error. Motivated by the example of screening mammography performance, we compared approaches to identifying providers failing to meet guideline targets using Medicare claims data. We used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and linked Medicare claims to compare claims-based and clinical estimates of cancer detection rate. We then demonstrated the performance of claim-based estimates across a broad range of operating characteristics using simulation studies. We found that identification of poor performing providers was extremely sensitive to algorithm specificity, with no approach identifying more than 65% of poor performing providers when claims-based measures had specificity of 0.995 or less. We conclude that claims have the potential to contribute important information on healthcare outcomes to quality improvement efforts. However, to achieve this potential, development of highly accurate claims-based outcome measures should remain a priority.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medicare; breast cancer; hierarchical models; provider profiling

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25302935      PMCID: PMC4262572          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6318

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of clinical and administrative data sources for hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards.

Authors:  David M Shahian; Treacy Silverstein; Ann F Lovett; Robert E Wolf; Sharon-Lise T Normand
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-03-12       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Use of the false discovery rate when comparing multiple health care providers.

Authors:  Hayley E Jones; David I Ohlssen; David J Spiegelhalter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Resource use and cost of diagnostic workup of women with suspected breast cancer.

Authors:  David W Lee; Paul E Stang; George A Goldberg; Merle Haberman
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2008-12-12       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Improving the statistical approach to health care provider profiling.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; C N Morris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

6.  Does reporting of coronary artery bypass grafting from administrative databases accurately reflect actual clinical outcomes?

Authors:  Michael J Mack; Morley Herbert; Syma Prince; Todd M Dewey; Mitchell J Magee; James R Edgerton
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Distinguishing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Paul Fishman; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Validation of a Medicare Claims-based Algorithm for Identifying Breast Cancers Detected at Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Tracy Onega; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Louise Henderson; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Bayes rules for optimally using Bayesian hierarchical regression models in provider profiling to identify high-mortality hospitals.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  3 in total

1.  The emerging landscape of health research based on biobanks linked to electronic health records: Existing resources, statistical challenges, and potential opportunities.

Authors:  Lauren J Beesley; Maxwell Salvatore; Lars G Fritsche; Anita Pandit; Arvind Rao; Chad Brummett; Cristen J Willer; Lynda D Lisabeth; Bhramar Mukherjee
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  The Importance of Integrating Clinical Relevance and Statistical Significance in the Assessment of Quality of Care--Illustrated Using the Swedish Stroke Register.

Authors:  Anita Lindmark; Bart van Rompaye; Els Goetghebeur; Eva-Lotta Glader; Marie Eriksson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers.

Authors:  Timo B Brakenhoff; Kit C B Roes; Karel G M Moons; Rolf H H Groenwold
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 4.615

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.