L M Lix1, J P Kuwornu1, K Kroeker1, G Kephart2, K C Sikdar3, M Smith4, H Quan3,5. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 3. Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 5. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Changes in physician reimbursement policies may hinder the collection of billing claims in administrative data; this can result in biased estimates of disease prevalence and incidence. However, the magnitude of data loss is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to estimate completeness of capture of disease cases for Manitoba physicians paid by fee-for-service (FFS) and non-fee-for-service (NFFS) methods. METHODS: Manitoba's administrative data were used to identify a cohort (≥ 20 years) with a new diabetes medication between 1 April, 2007, and 31 March, 2009. Cohort members were classified by payment method of the prescribing physician (i.e. FFS vs. NFFS). The cohort was then classified as missing or not missing a diabetes diagnosis using physician claims and hospital records. Then, χ2 statistics were used to test for differences in the characteristics of the two groups. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 12 394 individuals; 86.4% had a prescription for a diabetes medication from an FFS physician. A total of 1172 physicians (81.8% FFS) prescribed these medications for the cohort. Cohort members with a prescription from an FFS physician were older and more likely to reside in the urban Winnipeg health region than those with a prescription from a NFFS physician. A greater percentage of NFFS physicians' cases were missing a diabetes diagnosis (18.7%vs. 14.9% for FFS physicians). CONCLUSION: The results suggest minimal loss of physician claims associated with remuneration policies in Manitoba. This method of assessing data completeness could be applied to other chronic diseases and jurisdictions to estimate completeness.
INTRODUCTION: Changes in physician reimbursement policies may hinder the collection of billing claims in administrative data; this can result in biased estimates of disease prevalence and incidence. However, the magnitude of data loss is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to estimate completeness of capture of disease cases for Manitoba physicians paid by fee-for-service (FFS) and non-fee-for-service (NFFS) methods. METHODS: Manitoba's administrative data were used to identify a cohort (≥ 20 years) with a new diabetes medication between 1 April, 2007, and 31 March, 2009. Cohort members were classified by payment method of the prescribing physician (i.e. FFS vs. NFFS). The cohort was then classified as missing or not missing a diabetes diagnosis using physician claims and hospital records. Then, χ2 statistics were used to test for differences in the characteristics of the two groups. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 12 394 individuals; 86.4% had a prescription for a diabetes medication from an FFS physician. A total of 1172 physicians (81.8% FFS) prescribed these medications for the cohort. Cohort members with a prescription from an FFS physician were older and more likely to reside in the urban Winnipeg health region than those with a prescription from a NFFS physician. A greater percentage of NFFS physicians' cases were missing a diabetes diagnosis (18.7%vs. 14.9% for FFS physicians). CONCLUSION: The results suggest minimal loss of physician claims associated with remuneration policies in Manitoba. This method of assessing data completeness could be applied to other chronic diseases and jurisdictions to estimate completeness.
Entities:
Keywords:
chronic disease; data quality; medical records; surveillance
Authors: Sharon H Saydah; Linda S Geiss; Ed Tierney; Stephanie M Benjamin; Michael Engelgau; Frederick Brancati Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Hude Quan; Nadia Khan; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Karen Tu; Guanmin Chen; Norm Campbell; Michael D Hill; William A Ghali; Finlay A McAlister Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Lisa M Lix; Xue Yao; George Kephart; Hude Quan; Mark Smith; John Paul Kuwornu; Nitharsana Manoharan; Wilfrid Kouokam; Khokan Sikdar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: James M Bolton; Suzanne N Morin; Sumit R Majumdar; Jitender Sareen; Lisa M Lix; Helena Johansson; Anders Odén; Eugene V McCloskey; John A Kanis; William D Leslie Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Erin Hobin; Anders Swanson; Gillian Booth; Kelly Russell; Laura C Rosella; Brendan T Smith; Ed Manley; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Stephanie Whitehouse; Nicole Brunton; Jonathan McGavock Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jonathan McGavock; Erin Hobin; Heather J Prior; Anders Swanson; Brendan T Smith; Gillian L Booth; Kelly Russell; Laura Rosella; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Stephanie Whitehouse; Nicole Brunton; Charles Burchill Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Lisa M Lix; James Ayles; Sharon Bartholomew; Charmaine A Cooke; Joellyn Ellison; Valerie Emond; Naomi C Hamm; Heather Hannah; Sonia Jean; Shannon LeBlanc; Siobhan O'Donnell; J Michael Paterson; Catherine Pelletier; Karen A M Phillips; Rolf Puchtinger; Kim Reimer; Cynthia Robitaille; Mark Smith; Lawrence W Svenson; Karen Tu; Linda D VanTil; Sean Waits; Louise Pelletier Journal: Int J Popul Data Sci Date: 2018-10-05