Dataset Information

Validation of Self-reported Cancer Diagnoses Using Medicare Diagnostic Claims in the US Health and Retirement Study, 2000-2016.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The US Health Retirement Study (HRS) is an ongoing population-representative cohort of US adults ages >50 with rich data on health during aging. Self-reported cancer diagnoses have been collected since 1998, but they have not been validated. We compared self-reported cancer diagnoses in HRS interviews against diagnostic claims from linked Medicare records.

Methods

Using HRS-Medicare linked data, we examined the validity of first incident cancer diagnoses self-reported in biennial interviews from 2000 to 2016 against ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic claim records as the gold standard. Data were from 8,242 HRS participants ages ≥65 with 90% continuous enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and κ for first incident invasive cancer diagnoses (all cancers combined, and each of bladder, breast, colorectal/anal, uterine, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers) cumulatively over the follow-up and at each biennial study interview.

Results

Overall, self-reports of first incident cancer diagnoses from 2000 to 2016 had 73.2% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity against Medicare claims (κ = 0.73). For specific cancer types, sensitivities ranged from 44.7% (kidney) to 75.0% (breast), and specificities ranged from 99.2% (prostate) and 99.9% (bladder, uterine, and kidney). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses restricted to individuals with 100% continuous fee-for-service Medicare enrollment and when restricted to individuals with at least 24 months of Medicare enrollment.

Conclusions

Self-reported cancer diagnoses in the HRS have reasonable validity for use in population-based research that is maximized with linkage to Medicare.

Impact

These findings inform the use of the HRS for population-based cancer and aging research.

SUBMITTER: Mullins MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8755623 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOwing to a rapid increase in rates of diagnostic cardiovascular testing in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented a series of payment changes intended to reduce overall spending on fee-for-service testing. Whether guideline-concordant testing has been subsequently affected is unknown to date.ObjectiveTo determine whether changes in overall rates of use of diagnostic cardiovascular tests were associated with changes in high-value testing recommended by guidelines and low-value testing that is expected to provide minimal benefits.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study assessed a national 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 95 years from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed from February 15, 2018, through August 15, 2019.ExposuresEligibility to receive high-value testing (assessment of left ventricular systolic function among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or heart failure) and low-value testing (stress testing before low-risk noncardiac surgery and routine stress testing within 2 years of coronary revascularization not associated with acute care visits).Main outcomes and measuresAge- and sex-adjusted annual rates of overall, high-value, and low-value diagnostic cardiovascular testing.ResultsMean (SD) age was similar over time (75.57 [7.32] years in 2000-2003; 74.82 [7.79] years in 2012-2016); the proportion of women slightly declined over time (63.23% in 2000 to 2003; 57.27% in 2012 to 2016). The rate of overall diagnostic cardiovascular testing per 1000 patient-years among the 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries increased from 275 in 2000 to 359 in 2008 (P?<?.001) and then declined to 316 in 2016 (P?<?.001). High-value testing increased steadily over the entire study period for patients with acute myocardial infarction (85.7% to 89.5%; P?<?.001) and heart failure (72.6% to 80.1%; P?<?.001). Low-value testing among patients undergoing low-risk surgery increased from 2.4% in 2000 to 3.8% in 2008 (P?<?.001) but then declined to 2.5% in 2016 (P?<?.001). Low-value testing within 2 years of coronary revascularization slightly increased from 47.4% in 2000 to 49.2% in 2003 (P?=?.03) but then declined to 30.8% in 2014 (P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceRates of overall and low-value diagnostic cardiovascular testing appear to have declined considerably and rates of high-value testing have increased slightly. Payment changes intended to reduce spending on overall testing may not have adversely affected testing recommended by guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundWith increasing use of real world data in observational health care research, data quality assessment of these data is equally gaining in importance. Electronic health record (EHR) or claims datasets can differ significantly in the spectrum of care covered by the data.ObjectiveIn our study, we link provider specialty with diagnoses (encoded in International Classification of Diseases) with a motivation to characterize data completeness.MethodsWe develop a set of measures that determine diagnostic span of a specialty (how many distinct diagnosis codes are generated by a specialty) and specialty span of a diagnosis (how many specialties diagnose a given condition). We also analyze ranked lists for both measures. As use case, we apply these measures to outpatient Medicare claims data from 2016 (3.5 billion diagnosis-specialty pairs). We analyze 82 distinct specialties present in Medicare claims (using Medicare list of specialties derived from level III Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Codes).ResultsA typical specialty diagnoses on average 4,046 distinct diagnosis codes. It can range from 33 codes for medical toxicology to 25,475 codes for internal medicine. Specialties with large visit volume tend to have large diagnostic span. Median specialty span of a diagnosis code is 8 specialties with a range from 1 to 82 specialties. In total, 13.5% of all observed diagnoses are generated exclusively by a single specialty. Quantitative cumulative rankings reveal that some diagnosis codes can be dominated by few specialties. Using such diagnoses in cohort or outcome definitions may thus be vulnerable to incomplete specialty coverage of a given dataset.ConclusionWe propose specialty fingerprinting as a method to assess data completeness component of data quality. Datasets covering a full spectrum of care can be used to generate reference benchmark data that can quantify relative importance of a specialty in constructing diagnostic history elements of computable phenotype definitions.