Arjun K Venkatesh1,2, Hao Mei2, Keith E Kocher3, Michael Granovsky4, Ziad Obermeyer5, Erica S Spatz6,2, Craig Rothenberg1, Harlan M Krumholz6,2, Zhenqui Lin2. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 2. Yale New Haven Hospital-Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, CT. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Logix Health, Bedford, MA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Department of Internal Medicine and Division of Cardiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Administrative claims data sets are often used for emergency care research and policy investigations of healthcare resource utilization, acute care practices, and evaluation of quality improvement interventions. Despite the high profile of emergency department (ED) visits in analyses using administrative claims, little work has evaluated the degree to which existing definitions based on claims data accurately captures conventionally defined hospital-based ED services. We sought to construct an operational definition for ED visitation using a comprehensive Medicare data set and to compare this definition to existing operational definitions used by researchers and policymakers. METHODS: We examined four operational definitions of an ED visit commonly used by researchers and policymakers using a 20% sample of the 2012 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) data set. The CCW data set included all Part A (hospital) and Part B (hospital outpatient, physician) claims for a nationally representative sample of continuously enrolled Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries. Three definitions were based on published research or existing quality metrics including: 1) provider claims-based definition, 2) facility claims-based definition, and 3) CMS Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC) definition. In addition, we developed a fourth operational definition (Yale definition) that sought to incorporate additional coding rules for identifying ED visits. We report levels of agreement and disagreement among the four definitions. RESULTS: Of 10,717,786 beneficiaries included in the sample data set, 22% had evidence of ED use during the study year under any of the ED visit definitions. The definition using provider claims identified a total of 4,199,148 ED visits, the facility definition 4,795,057 visits, the ResDAC definition 5,278,980 ED visits, and the Yale definition 5,192,235 ED visits. The Yale definition identified a statistically different (p < 0.05) collection of ED visits than all other definitions including 17% more ED visits than the provider definition and 2% fewer visits than the ResDAC definition. Differences in ED visitation counts between each definition occurred for several reasons including the inclusion of critical care or observation services in the ED, discrepancies between facility and provider billing regulations, and operational decisions of each definition. CONCLUSION: Current operational definitions of ED visitation using administrative claims produce different estimates of ED visitation based on the underlying assumptions applied to billing data and data set availability. Future analyses using administrative claims data should seek to validate specific definitions and inform the development of a consistent, consensus ED visitation definitions to standardize research reporting and the interpretation of policy interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Administrative claims data sets are often used for emergency care research and policy investigations of healthcare resource utilization, acute care practices, and evaluation of quality improvement interventions. Despite the high profile of emergency department (ED) visits in analyses using administrative claims, little work has evaluated the degree to which existing definitions based on claims data accurately captures conventionally defined hospital-based ED services. We sought to construct an operational definition for ED visitation using a comprehensive Medicare data set and to compare this definition to existing operational definitions used by researchers and policymakers. METHODS: We examined four operational definitions of an ED visit commonly used by researchers and policymakers using a 20% sample of the 2012 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) data set. The CCW data set included all Part A (hospital) and Part B (hospital outpatient, physician) claims for a nationally representative sample of continuously enrolled Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries. Three definitions were based on published research or existing quality metrics including: 1) provider claims-based definition, 2) facility claims-based definition, and 3) CMS Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC) definition. In addition, we developed a fourth operational definition (Yale definition) that sought to incorporate additional coding rules for identifying ED visits. We report levels of agreement and disagreement among the four definitions. RESULTS: Of 10,717,786 beneficiaries included in the sample data set, 22% had evidence of ED use during the study year under any of the ED visit definitions. The definition using provider claims identified a total of 4,199,148 ED visits, the facility definition 4,795,057 visits, the ResDAC definition 5,278,980 ED visits, and the Yale definition 5,192,235 ED visits. The Yale definition identified a statistically different (p < 0.05) collection of ED visits than all other definitions including 17% more ED visits than the provider definition and 2% fewer visits than the ResDAC definition. Differences in ED visitation counts between each definition occurred for several reasons including the inclusion of critical care or observation services in the ED, discrepancies between facility and provider billing regulations, and operational decisions of each definition. CONCLUSION: Current operational definitions of ED visitation using administrative claims produce different estimates of ED visitation based on the underlying assumptions applied to billing data and data set availability. Future analyses using administrative claims data should seek to validate specific definitions and inform the development of a consistent, consensus ED visitation definitions to standardize research reporting and the interpretation of policy interventions.
Authors: Damon R Kuehl; Carl T Berdahl; Tiffany D Jackson; Arjun K Venkatesh; Rakesh D Mistry; Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield; Neha P Raukar; Brendan G Carr; Jeremiah D Schuur; Keith E Kocher Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Peter K Lindenauer; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Elizabeth E Drye; Zhenqiu Lin; Katherine Goodrich; Mayur M Desai; Dale W Bratzler; Walter J O'Donnell; Mark L Metersky; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Brian Kaskie; Maksym Obrizan; Elizabeth A Cook; Michael P Jones; Li Liu; Suzanne Bentler; Robert B Wallace; John F Geweke; Kara B Wright; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Claire E Pavlik; Robert L Ohsfeldt; Gary E Rosenthal; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-06-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Brian Kaskie; Maksym Obrizan; Michael P Jones; Suzanne Bentler; Paula Weigel; Jason Hockenberry; Robert B Wallace; Robert L Ohsfeldt; Gary E Rosenthal; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Deepika Mohan; David J Wallace; Samantha J Kerti; Derek C Angus; Matthew R Rosengart; Amber E Barnato; Donald M Yealy; Baruch Fischhoff; Chung-Chou Chang; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Ann M Sheehy; W Ryan Powell; Farah A Kaiksow; William R Buckingham; Christie M Bartels; Jen Birstler; Menggang Yu; Andrea Gilmore Bykovskyi; Fangfang Shi; Amy J H Kind Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Ryan D Ross; Xu Shi; Megan E V Caram; Pheobe A Tsao; Paul Lin; Amy Bohnert; Min Zhang; Bhramar Mukherjee Journal: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol Date: 2020-10-20
Authors: Anne M Suskind; Shoujun Zhao; Farnoosh Nik-Ahd; W John Boscardin; Kenneth Covinsky; Emily Finlayson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Alex Fauer; Lauren P Wallner; Matthew A Davis; Sung Won Choi; Christopher R Friese Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Valerie S Harder; Susan E Varni; Kimberly A Murray; Timothy B Plante; Andrea C Villanti; Daniel L Wolfson; Sanchit Maruti; Kathleen M Fairfield Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-06-06