Olga F Jarrín1,2, Abner N Nyandege2, Irina B Grafova3, XinQi Dong2, Haiqun Lin1. 1. Division of Nursing Science, School of Nursing. 2. Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research. 3. School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Misclassification of Medicare beneficiaries' race/ethnicity in administrative data sources is frequently overlooked and a limitation in health disparities research. OBJECTIVE: To compare the validity of 2 race/ethnicity variables found in Medicare administrative data [enrollment database (EDB) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) race] against a gold-standard source also available in the Medicare data warehouse: the self-reported race/ethnicity variable on the home health Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS). SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries over the age of 18 who received home health care in 2015 (N=4,243,090). MEASURES: Percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and Cohen κ coefficient. RESULTS: The EDB and RTI race variable have high validity for black race and low validity for American Indian/Alaskan Native race. Although the RTI race variable has better validity than the EDB race variable for other races, κ values suggest room for future improvements in classification of whites (0.90), Hispanics (0.87), Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.77), and American Indian/Alaskan Natives (0.44). DISCUSSION: The status quo of using "good-enough for government" race/ethnicity variables contained in Medicare administrative data for minority health disparities research can be improved through the use of self-reported race/ethnicity data, available in the Medicare data warehouse. Health services and policy researchers should critically examine the source of race/ethnicity variables used in minority health and health disparities research. Future work to improve the accuracy of Medicare beneficiaries' race/ethnicity data should incorporate and augment the self-reported race/ethnicity data contained in assessment and survey data, available within the Medicare data warehouse.
BACKGROUND: Misclassification of Medicare beneficiaries' race/ethnicity in administrative data sources is frequently overlooked and a limitation in health disparities research. OBJECTIVE: To compare the validity of 2 race/ethnicity variables found in Medicare administrative data [enrollment database (EDB) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) race] against a gold-standard source also available in the Medicare data warehouse: the self-reported race/ethnicity variable on the home health Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS). SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries over the age of 18 who received home health care in 2015 (N=4,243,090). MEASURES: Percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and Cohen κ coefficient. RESULTS: The EDB and RTI race variable have high validity for black race and low validity for American Indian/Alaskan Native race. Although the RTI race variable has better validity than the EDB race variable for other races, κ values suggest room for future improvements in classification of whites (0.90), Hispanics (0.87), Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.77), and American Indian/Alaskan Natives (0.44). DISCUSSION: The status quo of using "good-enough for government" race/ethnicity variables contained in Medicare administrative data for minority health disparities research can be improved through the use of self-reported race/ethnicity data, available in the Medicare data warehouse. Health services and policy researchers should critically examine the source of race/ethnicity variables used in minority health and health disparities research. Future work to improve the accuracy of Medicare beneficiaries' race/ethnicity data should incorporate and augment the self-reported race/ethnicity data contained in assessment and survey data, available within the Medicare data warehouse.
Authors: Judy H Ng; Faye Ye; Lauren M Ward; Samuel C Chris Haffer; Sarah Hudson Scholle Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: David J Klein; Marc N Elliott; Amelia M Haviland; Peter A Morrison; Nate Orr; Sarah Gaillot; Robert Weech-Maldonado Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Xiaobei Dong; Chi Chun Steve Tsang; Shirong Zhao; Jim Y Wan; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Marie A Chisholm-Burns; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; William C Cushman; Lisa E Hines; Junling Wang Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2021-09
Authors: Margaret O'Kane; Shantanu Agrawal; Leah Binder; Victor Dzau; Tejal K Gandhi; Rachel Harrington; Kedar Mate; Paul McGann; David Meyers; Paul Rosen; Michelle Schreiber; Dan Schummers Journal: NAM Perspect Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Omar A Halawa; Ajay Kolli; Gahee Oh; William G Mitchell; Robert J Glynn; Dae Hyun Kim; David S Friedman; Nazlee Zebardast Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: John M Hollingsworth; Xianshi Yu; Akbar K Waljee; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Phyllis L Yan; Hyesun Yoo; Dana A Telem; Ekow N Yankah; Ji Zhu Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-04-30
Authors: Paul R Duberstein; Michael Chen; Michael Hoerger; Ronald M Epstein; Laura M Perry; Sule Yilmaz; Fahad Saeed; Supriya G Mohile; Sally A Norton Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jamie M Smith; Haiqun Lin; Charlotte Thomas-Hawkins; Jennifer Tsui; Olga F Jarrín Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Caroline P Thirukumaran; Yeunkyung Kim; Xueya Cai; Benjamin F Ricciardi; Yue Li; Kevin A Fiscella; Addisu Mesfin; Laurent G Glance Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03