Jenny W Sun1, James R Rogers, Qoua Her, Emily C Welch, Catherine A Panozzo, Sengwee Toh, Joshua J Gagne. 1. *Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School†Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health‡Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The combined comorbidity score, which merges the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices, uses the ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). In October 2015, the United States adopted the 10th revision (ICD-10-CM). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine different coding algorithms for the ICD-10-CM combined comorbidity score and compare their performance to the original ICD-9-CM score. METHODS: Four ICD-10-CM coding algorithms were defined: 2 using General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs), one based on ICD-10-CA (Canadian modification) codes for Charlson and Elixhauser measures, and one including codes from all 3 algorithms. We used claims data from the Clinfomatics Data Mart to identify 2 cohorts. The ICD-10-CM cohort comprised patients who had a hospitalization between January 1, 2016 and March 1, 2016. The ICD-9-CM cohort comprised patients who had a hospitalization between January 1, 2015 and March 1, 2015. We used logistic regression models to predict 30-day hospital readmission for the original score in the ICD-9-CM cohort and for each ICD-10-CM algorithm in the ICD-10-CM cohort. RESULTS: Distributions of each version of the score were similar. The algorithm based on ICD-10-CA codes [c-statistic, 0.646; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.640-0.653] had the most similar discrimination for readmission to the ICD-9-CM version (c, 0.646; 95% CI, 0.639-0.653), but combining all identified ICD-10-CM codes had the highest c-statistic (c, 0.651; 95% CI, 0.644-0.657). CONCLUSIONS: We propose an ICD-10-CM version of the combined comorbidity score that includes codes identified by ICD-10-CA and GEMs. Compared with the original score, it has similar performance in predicting readmission in a population of United States commercially insured individuals.
BACKGROUND: The combined comorbidity score, which merges the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices, uses the ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). In October 2015, the United States adopted the 10th revision (ICD-10-CM). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine different coding algorithms for the ICD-10-CM combined comorbidity score and compare their performance to the original ICD-9-CM score. METHODS: Four ICD-10-CM coding algorithms were defined: 2 using General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs), one based on ICD-10-CA (Canadian modification) codes for Charlson and Elixhauser measures, and one including codes from all 3 algorithms. We used claims data from the Clinfomatics Data Mart to identify 2 cohorts. The ICD-10-CM cohort comprised patients who had a hospitalization between January 1, 2016 and March 1, 2016. The ICD-9-CM cohort comprised patients who had a hospitalization between January 1, 2015 and March 1, 2015. We used logistic regression models to predict 30-day hospital readmission for the original score in the ICD-9-CM cohort and for each ICD-10-CM algorithm in the ICD-10-CM cohort. RESULTS: Distributions of each version of the score were similar. The algorithm based on ICD-10-CA codes [c-statistic, 0.646; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.640-0.653] had the most similar discrimination for readmission to the ICD-9-CM version (c, 0.646; 95% CI, 0.639-0.653), but combining all identified ICD-10-CM codes had the highest c-statistic (c, 0.651; 95% CI, 0.644-0.657). CONCLUSIONS: We propose an ICD-10-CM version of the combined comorbidity score that includes codes identified by ICD-10-CA and GEMs. Compared with the original score, it has similar performance in predicting readmission in a population of United States commercially insured individuals.
Authors: Julie C Lauffenburger; Thomas Isaac; Romit Bhattacharya; Thomas D Sequist; Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Joshua R Lakin; Margaret G Robinson; Ziad Obermeyer; Brian W Powers; Susan D Block; Rebecca Cunningham; Joseph M Tumblin; Christine Vogeli; Rachelle E Bernacki Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Yinzhu Jin; Joan E Landon; Whitney Krueger; Alexander Liede; Rishi J Desai; Seoyoung C Kim Journal: BioDrugs Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 7.744
Authors: Constance P Fontanet; Niteesh K Choudhry; Thomas Isaac; Thomas D Sequist; Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan; Joshua J Gagne; Cynthia A Jackevicius; Michael A Fischer; Daniel H Solomon; Julie C Lauffenburger Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Shahar Shmuel; Virginia Pate; Marc J Pepin; Janine C Bailey; Yvonne M Golightly; Laura C Hanson; Til Stürmer; Rebecca B Naumann; Danijela Gnjidic; Jennifer L Lund Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Shahar Shmuel; Virginia Pate; Marc J Pepin; Janine C Bailey; Laura C Hanson; Til Stürmer; Rebecca B Naumann; Yvonne M Golightly; Danijela Gnjidic; Jennifer L Lund Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.890