Literature DB >> 9324013

Sensitivity and positive predictive value of Medicare Part B physician claims for rheumatologic diagnoses and procedures.

J N Katz1, J Barrett, M H Liang, A M Bacon, H Kaplan, R I Kieval, S M Lindsey, W N Roberts, D M Sheff, R T Spencer, A L Weaver, J A Baron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the sensitivity and positive predictive value of Medicare physician claims for select rheumatic conditions managed in rheumatology specialty practices.
METHODS: Eight rheumatologists in 3 states abstracted 378 patient office records to obtain information on diagnosis and office procedures. The Medicare Part B physician claims for these patient visits were obtained from the Health Care Financing Administration. The sensitivity of the claims data for a specific diagnosis was calculated as the proportion of all patients whose office records for a particular visit documented that diagnosis and who also had physician claims for that visit which identified that diagnosis. The positive predictive value was evaluated in a separate sample of 331 patient visits identified in Medicare physician claims. The positive predictive value of the claims data for a specific diagnosis was calculated as the proportion of patients with that diagnosis coded in the claims for a particular visit who also had the diagnosis documented in the medical record for that visit.
RESULTS: Ninety percent of abstracted office medical records were matched successfully with Medicare physician claims. The sensitivity of the Medicare physician claims was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.95) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 0.85 (95% CI 0.73-0.97) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-1.0) for aspiration or injection procedures. The sensitivity for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee was < or = 0.50 if 5-digit codes specifying anatomic site were required. The sensitivity for fibromyalgia (FM) was 0.48 (95% CI 0.28-0.68). The positive predictive values were at least 0.90 for RA, SLE, and aspiration or injection procedures. Positive predictive values for FM and the 5-digit site-specific codes for OA of the knee were 0.83 (95% CI 0.66-1.0) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.75-1.0), respectively, while the positive predictive value of the 5-digit site-specific codes for OA of the hip was zero (95% CI 0-0.26). The positive predictive value of OA at any site was 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.90).
CONCLUSION: In specialty practice, Medicare physician claims had high sensitivity and positive predictive value for RA, SLE, OA without specification of anatomic site, and injection or aspiration procedures. The claims had lower sensitivity and predictive value for FM and for OA of the hip. The accuracy of Medicare physician claims for other conditions and in the primary care setting requires further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9324013     DOI: 10.1002/art.1780400908

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthritis Rheum        ISSN: 0004-3591


  65 in total

1.  Universal Health Insurance Coverage in Massachusetts Did Not Change the Trajectory of Arthroplasty Use or Costs.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin L Ong; Jeffrey N Katz; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Alternative Methods for Defining Osteoarthritis and the Impact on Estimating Prevalence in a US Population-Based Survey.

Authors:  Miriam G Cisternas; Louise Murphy; Jeffrey J Sacks; Daniel H Solomon; David J Pasta; Charles G Helmick
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.794

3.  Psoriasis is associated with a greater risk of incident venous thromboembolism: the Iowa Women's Health Study.

Authors:  P L Lutsey; A E Prizment; A R Folsom
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.824

4.  Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Danielle La Selva; Jae-Myung Cha; Michael Gluck; Andrew Ross; Michael Chiorean; Richard A Kozarek
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Impact of rheumatoid arthritis on receiving a diagnosis of hypertension among patients with regular primary care.

Authors:  Christie M Bartels; Heather Johnson; Katya Voelker; Carolyn Thorpe; Patrick McBride; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Nancy Pandhi; Maureen Smith
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.794

6.  NSAIDs and colorectal cancer risk: do administrative data support a chemopreventive effect?

Authors:  Elizabeth B Lamont; Lauren E Dias; Diane S Lauderdale
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Cost-related medication nonadherence in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Leslie R Harrold; Becky A Briesacher; Dan Peterson; Ashley Beard; Jeanne Madden; Fang Zhang; Jerry H Gurwitz; Stephen B Soumerai
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 4.666

8.  Cancer risk in a cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in California.

Authors:  Arti Parikh-Patel; Richard H White; Mark Allen; Rosemary Cress
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  Risk of cancer among rheumatoid arthritis patients in California.

Authors:  Arti Parikh-Patel; Richard H White; Mark Allen; Rosemary Cress
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  Geographic variation in epidural steroid injection use in medicare patients.

Authors:  Janna Friedly; Leighton Chan; Richard Deyo
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.