Use of Open Claims vs Closed Claims in Health Outcomes Research.

IF 2.3 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2023-09-05 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.36469/001c.87538
Onur Baser, Gabriela Samayoa, Nehir Yapar, Erdem Baser, Fatih Mete
{"title":"Use of Open Claims vs Closed Claims in Health Outcomes Research.","authors":"Onur Baser, Gabriela Samayoa, Nehir Yapar, Erdem Baser, Fatih Mete","doi":"10.36469/001c.87538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Closed claims are frequently used in outcomes research studies. Lately, the availability of open claims has increased the possibility of obtaining information faster and on a larger scale. However, because of the possibility of missing claims and duplications, these data sets have not been highly utilized in medical research. <b>Objective:</b> To compare frequently used healthcare utilization measures between closed claims and open claims to analyze if the possibility of missing claims in open claims data creates a downward bias in the estimates. <b>Methods:</b> We identified 18 different diseases using 2022 data from 2 closed claims data sets (MarketScan® and PharMetrics® Plus) and 1 open claims database (Kythera). After applying an algorithm that removes possible duplications from open claims data, we compared healthcare utilizations such as inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient use and length of stay among these 3 data sets. We applied standardized differences to compare the medians for each outcome. <b>Results:</b> The sample size of the open claims data sets was 10 to 65 times larger than closed claims data sets depending on disease type. For each disease, the estimates of healthcare utilization were similar between the open claims and closed claims data. The difference was statistically insignificant. <b>Conclusions:</b> Open claims data with a bigger sample size and more current available information provide essential advantages for healthcare outcomes research studies. Therefore, especially for new medications and rare diseases, open claims data can provide information much earlier than closed claims, which usually have a time lag of 6 to 8 months.</p>","PeriodicalId":16012,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484335/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36469/001c.87538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Closed claims are frequently used in outcomes research studies. Lately, the availability of open claims has increased the possibility of obtaining information faster and on a larger scale. However, because of the possibility of missing claims and duplications, these data sets have not been highly utilized in medical research. Objective: To compare frequently used healthcare utilization measures between closed claims and open claims to analyze if the possibility of missing claims in open claims data creates a downward bias in the estimates. Methods: We identified 18 different diseases using 2022 data from 2 closed claims data sets (MarketScan® and PharMetrics® Plus) and 1 open claims database (Kythera). After applying an algorithm that removes possible duplications from open claims data, we compared healthcare utilizations such as inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient use and length of stay among these 3 data sets. We applied standardized differences to compare the medians for each outcome. Results: The sample size of the open claims data sets was 10 to 65 times larger than closed claims data sets depending on disease type. For each disease, the estimates of healthcare utilization were similar between the open claims and closed claims data. The difference was statistically insignificant. Conclusions: Open claims data with a bigger sample size and more current available information provide essential advantages for healthcare outcomes research studies. Therefore, especially for new medications and rare diseases, open claims data can provide information much earlier than closed claims, which usually have a time lag of 6 to 8 months.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放声明与封闭声明在健康结果研究中的应用。
背景:封闭式索赔经常用于结果研究。最近,公开索赔的可用性增加了更快、更大规模地获取信息的可能性。然而,由于索赔可能缺失和重复,这些数据集在医学研究中没有得到充分利用。目的:比较已结案索赔和未结案索赔之间常用的医疗保健利用率指标,以分析未结案索赔数据中遗漏索赔的可能性是否会造成估计值的向下偏差。方法:我们使用来自2个封闭索赔数据集(MarketScan®和PharMetrics®Plus)和1个开放索赔数据库(Kythera)的2022年数据,确定了18种不同的疾病。在应用了一种从开放索赔数据中消除可能重复的算法后,我们比较了这3个数据集的医疗利用率,如住院、急诊和门诊使用率以及住院时间。我们采用标准化差异来比较每种结果的中位数。结果:根据疾病类型,开放索赔数据集的样本量是封闭索赔数据集样本量的10到65倍。对于每种疾病,公开索赔和非公开索赔数据对医疗利用率的估计是相似的。这一差异在统计学上并不显著。结论:具有更大样本量和更多最新可用信息的开放索赔数据为医疗保健结果研究提供了基本优势。因此,特别是对于新药和罕见病,公开索赔数据可以比封闭索赔更早地提供信息,封闭索赔通常有6到8个月的时间滞后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Real-World HbA1c Changes Among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Initiating Treatment With a 1.0 Mg Weekly Dose of Semaglutide for Diabetes. Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients With Agitation in Alzheimer Dementia. Adherence to First-Line Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Therapy in the Context of Guideline Recommendations for US Patients With High-Risk Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Costs of Potential Medication Wastage Due to Switching Treatment Among People With Multiple Sclerosis. Patient Experience of Living With Hemophilia A: A Conceptual Model of Humanistic and Symptomatic Experience in Adolescents, Adults, and Children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1