Using claims data to attribute patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer to prescribing oncologists.

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pragmatic and Observational Research Pub Date : 2019-03-29 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.2147/POR.S197252
Ezra Fishman, John Barron, Ying Liu, Santosh Gautam, Justin E Bekelman, Amol S Navathe, Michael J Fisch, Ann Nguyen, Gosia Sylwestrzak
{"title":"Using claims data to attribute patients with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer to prescribing oncologists.","authors":"Ezra Fishman,&nbsp;John Barron,&nbsp;Ying Liu,&nbsp;Santosh Gautam,&nbsp;Justin E Bekelman,&nbsp;Amol S Navathe,&nbsp;Michael J Fisch,&nbsp;Ann Nguyen,&nbsp;Gosia Sylwestrzak","doi":"10.2147/POR.S197252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Alternative payment models frequently require attribution of patients to individual physicians to assign cost and quality outcomes. Our objective was to examine the performance of three methods for attributing a patient with cancer to the likeliest physician prescriber of anticancer drugs for that patient using administrative claims data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment to identify patients who had claims for anticancer medication along with diagnosis codes for breast, lung, or colorectal lung cancer between July 2013 and September 2017. The index date was the first date with a record for anticancer medication and cancer diagnosis code. Included patients had continuous medical coverage from 6 months before index to at least 7 days after index. Patients who received anticancer drugs during the 6 months prior to index were excluded. The three methods attributed each patient to the physician with whom the patient had the most evaluation and management (E&M) visits within a 90-day window around the index date (Method 1); the most E&M visits with no time window (Method 2); or the E&M visit nearest in time to the index date (Method 3). We assessed the performance of the methods using the percentage of the study cohort successfully attributed to a physician, and the positive predictive value (PPV) relative to available physician-reported data on patient(s) they treat.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 70,641 patients were available for attribution to physicians. Percentages of the study cohort attributed to a physician were: Method 1, 92.6%; Method 2, 96.9%; and Method 3, 96.9%. PPVs for each method were 84.4%, 80.6%, and 75.8%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found that a claims-based algorithm - specifically, a plurality method with a 90-day time window - correctly attributed nearly 85% of patients to a prescribing physician. Claims data can reliably identify prescribing physicians in oncology.</p>","PeriodicalId":20399,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","volume":"10 ","pages":"15-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/POR.S197252","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S197252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: Alternative payment models frequently require attribution of patients to individual physicians to assign cost and quality outcomes. Our objective was to examine the performance of three methods for attributing a patient with cancer to the likeliest physician prescriber of anticancer drugs for that patient using administrative claims data.

Methods: We used the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment to identify patients who had claims for anticancer medication along with diagnosis codes for breast, lung, or colorectal lung cancer between July 2013 and September 2017. The index date was the first date with a record for anticancer medication and cancer diagnosis code. Included patients had continuous medical coverage from 6 months before index to at least 7 days after index. Patients who received anticancer drugs during the 6 months prior to index were excluded. The three methods attributed each patient to the physician with whom the patient had the most evaluation and management (E&M) visits within a 90-day window around the index date (Method 1); the most E&M visits with no time window (Method 2); or the E&M visit nearest in time to the index date (Method 3). We assessed the performance of the methods using the percentage of the study cohort successfully attributed to a physician, and the positive predictive value (PPV) relative to available physician-reported data on patient(s) they treat.

Results: In total, 70,641 patients were available for attribution to physicians. Percentages of the study cohort attributed to a physician were: Method 1, 92.6%; Method 2, 96.9%; and Method 3, 96.9%. PPVs for each method were 84.4%, 80.6%, and 75.8%, respectively.

Conclusion: We found that a claims-based algorithm - specifically, a plurality method with a 90-day time window - correctly attributed nearly 85% of patients to a prescribing physician. Claims data can reliably identify prescribing physicians in oncology.

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
使用索赔数据将乳腺癌、肺癌或结直肠癌患者归为开处方的肿瘤学家。
背景:可选择的支付模式通常需要将患者归属于个别医生,以分配成本和质量结果。我们的目标是检查三种方法的性能,这些方法使用行政索赔数据将癌症患者归因于最有可能为该患者开抗癌药物的医生。方法:我们使用HealthCore综合研究环境来识别2013年7月至2017年9月期间有抗癌药物声明以及乳腺癌、肺癌或结直肠癌诊断代码的患者。索引日期是第一个记录抗癌药物和癌症诊断代码的日期。纳入的患者在指数前6个月至指数后至少7天有持续的医疗覆盖。排除指数前6个月内接受过抗癌药物治疗的患者。三种方法将每位患者归为患者在索引日期前后90天窗口内就诊评估和管理(E&M)次数最多的医生(方法1);无时间窗口的机电探访次数(方法二);或最接近索引日期的E&M访问(方法3)。我们使用成功归因于医生的研究队列的百分比,以及相对于他们治疗的患者的可用医生报告数据的阳性预测值(PPV)来评估方法的性能。结果:共有70,641名患者可归因给医生。归于内科医生的研究队列的百分比为:方法1,92.6%;方法2,96.9%;方法3,96.9%。两种方法的ppv分别为84.4%、80.6%和75.8%。结论:我们发现基于索赔的算法-特别是具有90天时间窗口的多个方法-正确地将近85%的患者归因于处方医生。索赔数据可以可靠地识别肿瘤学的处方医生。
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
Pragmatic and Observational Research
Pragmatic and Observational Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Pragmatic and Observational Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes data from studies designed to closely reflect medical interventions in real-world clinical practice, providing insights beyond classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While RCTs maximize internal validity for cause-and-effect relationships, they often represent only specific patient groups. This journal aims to complement such studies by providing data that better mirrors real-world patients and the usage of medicines, thus informing guidelines and enhancing the applicability of research findings across diverse patient populations encountered in everyday clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Improving the Transparency and Replicability of Consensus Methods: Respiratory Medicine as a Case Example. Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis Patient Characterization and Real-World Management Approaches in Italy. Comparing Machine Learning and Advanced Methods with Traditional Methods to Generate Weights in Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting: The INFORM Study. Involvement of Root Canal Treatment in Pro-Inflammatory Processes - A Real-World Study. UK Electronic Healthcare Records for Research: A Scientometric Analysis of Respiratory, Cardiovascular, and COVID-19 Publications.
×
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