Medical Care最新文献

Introduction: Individual-level social risk factors have a significant impact on health. Social risks can be documented in the electronic health record using ICD-10 diagnosis codes (the "Z codes"). This study aims to summarize the literature on using Z codes to document social risks.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases for papers published before June 2024. Studies were included if they were published in English in peer-reviewed journals and reported a Z code utilization rate with data from the United States.

Results: Thirty-two articles were included in the review. In studies based on patient-level data, patient counts ranged from 558 patients to 204 million, and the Z code utilization rate ranged from 0.4% to 17.6%, with a median of 1.2%. In studies that examined encounter-level data, sample sizes ranged from 19,000 to 2.1 billion encounters, and the Z code utilization rate ranged from 0.1% to 3.7%, with a median of 1.4%. The most reported Z codes were Z59 (housing and economic circumstances), Z63 (primary support group), and Z62 (upbringing). Patients with Z codes were more likely to be younger, male, non-White, seeking care in an urban teaching facility, and have higher health care costs and utilizations.

Discussion: The use of Z codes to document social risks is low. However, the research interest in Z codes is growing, and a better understanding of Z code use is beneficial for developing strategies to increase social risk documentation, with the goal of improving health outcomes.

Background: Classification systems to segment such patients into subgroups for purposes of care management and population analytics should balance administrative simplicity with clinical meaning and measurement precision.

Objective: To describe and empirically apply a new clinically relevant population segmentation framework applicable to all payers and all ages across the lifespan.

Research design and subjects: Cross-sectional analyses using insurance claims database for 3.31 Million commercially insured and 1.05 Million Medicaid enrollees under 65 years old; and 5.27 Million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 and older.

Measures: The "Patient Need Groups" (PNGs) framework, we developed, classifies each person within the entire 0-100+ aged population into one of 11 mutually exclusive need-based categories. For each PNG segment, we documented a range of clinical and resource endpoints, including health care resource use, avoidable emergency department visits, hospitalizations, behavioral health conditions, and social need factors.

Results: The PNG categories included: (1) nonuser; (2) low-need child; (3) low-need adult; (4) low-complexity multimorbidity; (5) medium-complexity multimorbidity; (6) low-complexity pregnancy; (7) high-complexity pregnancy; (8) dominant psychiatric/behavioral condition; (9) dominant major chronic condition; (10) high-complexity multimorbidity; and (11) frailty. Each PNG evidenced a characteristic age-related trajectory across the full lifespan. In addition to offering clinically cogent groupings, large percentages (29%-62%) of patients in two pregnancy and high-complexity multimorbidity and frailty PNGs were in a high-risk subgroup (upper 10%) of potential future health care utilization.

Conclusions: The PNG population segmentation approach represents a comprehensive measurement framework that captures and categorizes available electronic health care data to characterize individuals of all ages based on their needs.

Background: Quality indicators are frequently used to assess the performance of health care providers, in particular hospitals. Established approaches to the design of such indicators are subject to distortions due to indirect standardization and high variance of estimators. Indicators for geographical regions are rarely considered.

Objectives: To develop and evaluate a methodology of multilevel quality indicators (MQIs) for both health care providers and geographical regions.

Research design: We formally derived MQIs from a statistical multilevel model, which may include characteristics of patients, providers, and regions. We used Monte Carlo simulation to assess the performance of MQIs relative to established approaches based on the standardized mortality/morbidity ratio (SMR) and the risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR).

Measures: Rank correlation between true provider/region effects and quality indicator estimates; shares of the 10% best and 10% worst providers identified by the quality indicators.

Results: The proposed MQIs are: (1) standardized hospital outcome rate (SHOR); (2) regional SHOR; and (3) regional standardized patient outcome rate. Monte Carlo simulations indicated that the SHOR provides substantially better estimates of provider performance than the SMR and risk-standardized mortality rate in almost all scenarios. The regional standardized patient outcome rate was slightly more stable than the regional SMR. We also found that modeling of regional characteristics generally improves the adequacy of provider-level estimates.

Conclusions: MQIs methodology facilitates adequate and efficient estimation of quality indicators for both health care providers and geographical regions.

Background: Adjustment for baseline stroke severity is necessary for accurate assessment of hospital performance. We evaluated whether adjusting for the Passive Surveillance Stroke SeVerity (PaSSV) score, a measure of stroke severity derived using administrative data, changed hospital-specific estimated 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) after stroke.

Methods: We used linked administrative data to identify adults who were hospitalized with ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage across 157 hospitals in Ontario, Canada between 2014 and 2019. We fitted a random effects logistic regression model using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods to estimate hospital-specific 30-day RSMR and 95% credible intervals with adjustment for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and stroke type. In a separate model, we additionally adjusted for stroke severity using PaSSV. Hospitals were defined as low-performing, average-performing, or high-performing depending on whether the RSMR and 95% credible interval were above, overlapping, or below the cohort's crude mortality rate.

Results: We identified 65,082 patients [48.0% were female, the median age (25th,75th percentiles) was 76 years (65,84), and 86.4% had an ischemic stroke]. The crude 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 14.1%. The inclusion of PaSSV in the model reclassified 18.5% (n=29) of the hospitals. Of the 143 hospitals initially classified as average-performing, after adjustment for PaSSV, 20 were reclassified as high-performing and 8 were reclassified as low-performing. Of the 4 hospitals initially classified as low-performing, 1 was reclassified as high-performing. All 10 hospitals initially classified as high-performing remained unchanged.

Conclusion: PaSSV may be useful for risk-adjusting mortality when comparing hospital performance. External validation of our findings in other jurisdictions is needed.

Background: Direct and indirect standardization are well-established approaches to performing risk adjustment when comparing outcomes between healthcare providers. However, it is an open question whether they work well when there is an association between the center effects and the distributions of the patient characteristics in these centers.

Objectives and methods: We try to shed further light on the impact of such an association. We construct an artificial case study with a single covariate, in which centers can be classified as performing above, on, or below average, and the center effects correlate with center-specific mean values of a patient characteristic, as a consequence of differential quality improvement. Based on this case study, direct standardization and indirect standardization-based on marginal as well as conditional models-are compared with respect to systematic differences between their results.

Results: Systematic differences between the methods were observed. All methods produced results that partially reflect differences in mean age across the centers. This may mask the classification as above, on, or below average. The differences could be explained by an inspection of the parameter estimates in the models fitted.

Conclusions: In case of correlations of center effects with center-specific mean values of a covariate, different risk adjustment methods can produce systematically differing results. This suggests the routine use of sensitivity analyses. Center effects in a conditional model need not reflect the position of a center above or below average, questioning its use in defining the truth. Further empirical investigations are necessary to judge the practical relevance of these findings.

Objectives: The goals of this paper are: (1) to identify groups of healthy people; and (2) to quantify the extent to which the Dutch risk adjustment (RA) model overpays insurers for these groups.

Background: There have been strong signals that insurers in the Dutch regulated health insurance market engage in actions to attract healthy people. A potential explanation for this behavior is that the Dutch RA model overpays insurers for healthy people.

Methods: We identify healthy groups using 3 types of ex-ante information (ie, information available before the start of the health insurance contract): administrative data on prior spending for specific health care services (N = 17 m), diagnoses from electronic patient records (N = 1.3 m), and health survey data (N = 457 k). In a second step, we calculate the under/overpayment for these groups under the Dutch RA model (version: 2021).

Results: We distinguish eight groups of healthy people using various "identifiers." Although the Dutch RA model substantially reduces the predictable profits that insurers face for these groups, significant profits remain. The mean per person overpayment ranges from 38 euros (people with hospital spending below the third quartile in each of 3 prior years) to 167 euros (those without any medical condition according to their electronic patient record).

Conclusions: The Dutch RA model does not eliminate the profitability of healthy groups. The identifiers used for flagging these groups, however, seem inappropriate for serving as risk adjuster variables. An alternative way of exploiting these identifiers and eliminating the profitability of healthy groups is to estimate RA models with "constrained regression."

Introduction: Predictive models have proliferated in the health system in recent years and have been used to predict both health services utilization and medical outcomes. Less is known, however, on how these models function and how they might adapt to different contexts. The purpose of the current study is to shed light on the inner workings of a large-scale predictive model deployed in 2 distinct populations, with a particular emphasis on adaptability issues.

Methods: We compared the performance and functioning of a predictive model of avoidable hospitalization in 2 very different populations: Medicaid and Medicare enrollees in Maryland. Specifically, we assessed characteristics of the risk scores from March 2022 for the 2 populations, the predictive ability of the scores, and the driving risk factors behind the scores. In addition, we created and assessed the performance of an "unadapted" model by applying coefficients from the Medicare model to the Medicaid population.

Results: The model adapted to, and performed well in, both populations, despite demographic differences in these 2 groups. However, the most salient risk factors and their relative weightings differed, sometimes dramatically, across the 2 populations. The unadapted Medicaid model displayed poor performance relative to the adapted model.

Conclusions: Our findings speak to the need to "peek behind the curtain" of predictive models that may be applied to different populations, and we caution that risk prediction is not "one size fits all": for optimal performance, models should be adapted to, and trained on, the target population.

Background: Practice guidelines recommend patient management based on scientific evidence. Quality indicators gauge adherence to such recommendations and assess health care quality. They are usually defined as adverse event rates, which may not fully capture guideline adherence over time.

Methods: For assessing process indicators where compliance to the recommended treatment can be assessed by evaluating a patient's trace in linked routine databases, we propose using restricted mean survival time or restricted mean time lost, which are applicable even in competing risk situations. We demonstrate their application by assessing the compliance of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to high-power statins over 12 months in Austria's political districts, using pseudo-observations and employing causal inference methods to achieve regional comparability.

Results: We analyzed the compliance of 31,678 AMI patients from Austria's 116 political districts with index AMI between 2011 and 2015. The results revealed considerable compliance variations across districts but also plausible spatial similarities.

Conclusions: Restricted mean survival time and restricted mean time lost provide interpretable estimates of patients' expected time in compliance (lost), well-suited for risk-adjusted entity comparisons in the presence of (measurable) confounding, censoring, and competing risks.