Dataset Information

A cardiovascular disease risk prediction algorithm for use with the Medicare current beneficiary survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score that can be used to quantify CVD risk in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS).

Data sources

We used 1999-2013 MCBS data.

Study design

We used a backward stepwise approach and cox proportional hazards regressions to build and validate a new CVD risk score, similar to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), using only information available in MCBS. To assess its performance, we calculated C statistics and examined calibration plots.

Data collection/extraction methods

We studied 21 968 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older without pre-existing CVD. We obtained risk factors from both survey and claims data. We used claims data to derive "CVD event within 3 years" following the FRS definition of CVD.

Principal findings

About five percent of MCBS participants developed a CVD event over a mean follow-up period of 348 days. Our final MCBS-based model added morbidity burden, reported general health status, and functional limitation to the traditional FRS predictors of CVD. This model had relatively fair discrimination (C statistic = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.71) and performed well on validation (C = 0.68; CI, 0.66-0.70). More importantly, the plot of observed CVD outcomes versus predicted ones showed that this model had a good calibration.

Conclusions

Our new CVD risk score can be calculated using MCBS data, thereby extending the survey's ability to quantify CVD risk in the Medicare population and better inform both health policy and health services research.

SUBMITTER: Fouayzi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7376003 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite substantial geographic variation in Medicare per beneficiary spending in the US, little is known about the extent to which social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with this variation.ObjectiveTo determine the associations between SDoH and county-level price-adjusted Medicare per beneficiary spending.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used county-level data on 2017 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age and gender) and clinical risk score, supply of health care resources (eg, number of hospital beds), and SDoH measures (eg, median income and unemployment rate) from multiple sources. Multivariable regressions were used to estimate the association of the variation in spending across quintiles with SDoH.Main outcomes and measures2017 county-level price-adjusted Medicare Parts A and B spending per beneficiary. SDoH measures included socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, social relationships, and residential and community context.ResultsAmong 3038 counties with 33 495 776 Medicare FFS beneficiaries (18 352 336 [54.8%] women; mean [SD] age, 72 [1.5] years), mean Medicare price-adjusted per beneficiary spending for counties in the highest spending quintile was $3785 (95% CI, $3706-$3862) higher, or 49% higher, than spending for bottom-quintile counties (mean [SD] spending per beneficiary, $11 464 [735] vs $7679 [522]; P < .001). The total contribution (including through both direct and indirect pathways) of SDoH was 37.7% ($1428 of $3785) of this variation, compared with 59.8% ($2265 of $3785) by patient clinical risk, 14.5% ($549 of $3785) by supply of health care resources, and 19.8% ($751 of $3785) by patient demographic characteristics. When all factors were included within the same model, the direct contribution of SDoH was associated with 5.8% of the variation, compared with 4.6% by supply, 4.7% by patient demographic characteristics, and 62.0% by patient clinical risk.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest social determinants of health are associated with considerable proportions of geographic variation in Medicare spending. Policies addressing SDoH for disadvantaged patients in certain regions have the potential to contain health care spending and improve the value of health care; patient SDoH may need to be accounted for in publicly reported physician performance, and in value-based purchasing incentive programs for health care professionals.