Development of a Pregnancy Cohort in Commercial Insurance Claims Data: Evaluation of Deliveries Identified From Inpatient Versus Outpatient Claims.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Jacob C Kahrs, Katelin B Nickel, Mollie E Wood, Sascha Dublin, Michael J Durkin, Sarah S Osmundson, Dustin Stwalley, Elizabeth A Suarez, Anne M Butler
{"title":"Development of a Pregnancy Cohort in Commercial Insurance Claims Data: Evaluation of Deliveries Identified From Inpatient Versus Outpatient Claims.","authors":"Jacob C Kahrs, Katelin B Nickel, Mollie E Wood, Sascha Dublin, Michael J Durkin, Sarah S Osmundson, Dustin Stwalley, Elizabeth A Suarez, Anne M Butler","doi":"10.1002/pds.70115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Studies using insurance claims data to identify pregnancies are rarely able to directly assess the validity of the pregnancy/delivery. Inpatient versus outpatient delivery claims may provide different levels of evidence, but more stringent requirements could result in exclusion of true pregnancies. We identified delivery codes from the inpatient and outpatient settings and examined possible confirmatory evidence suggesting that a delivery truly occurred.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a US commercial insurance database (2006-2021), we identified potential pregnancies by presence of delivery claims from a provider and/or facility. We classified deliveries as inpatient (claim date during inpatient admission) or outpatient (claim date not during inpatient admission). We identified possible confirmatory evidence for each delivery including: (1) Presence of both provider and facility delivery codes; (2) presence of both diagnosis and procedure delivery codes; (3) labor and delivery revenue codes; (4) gestational age diagnosis codes; (5) pregnancy-related care codes; (6) linkage to an infant claim; and (7) infant insurance enrollment and linkage to a birthing parent. We quantified the proportion of deliveries with confirmatory evidence by delivery setting. Among deliveries with ≥ 1 piece of confirmatory evidence, we compared patient characteristics by apparent delivery setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 4 084 474 delivery episodes, 96.4% were classified as inpatient and 3.6% outpatient. 99.9% of inpatient and 94.0% of outpatient deliveries had ≥ 1 piece of confirmatory evidence. Pregnancy-related care codes were the most common type of confirmatory evidence (99.0% inpatient, 85.7% outpatient). Deliveries classified as inpatient occurred among patients who were older and more clinically complex (i.e., more pregnancy complications, chronic diseases, and prescription medications).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The vast majority of deliveries had confirmatory evidence regardless of apparent setting. Patient characteristics differed by delivery setting. Inclusion of apparent outpatient deliveries may increase the sample size of the study population and improve the generalizability of study results.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 3","pages":"e70115"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11844750/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70115","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Studies using insurance claims data to identify pregnancies are rarely able to directly assess the validity of the pregnancy/delivery. Inpatient versus outpatient delivery claims may provide different levels of evidence, but more stringent requirements could result in exclusion of true pregnancies. We identified delivery codes from the inpatient and outpatient settings and examined possible confirmatory evidence suggesting that a delivery truly occurred.

Methods: Using a US commercial insurance database (2006-2021), we identified potential pregnancies by presence of delivery claims from a provider and/or facility. We classified deliveries as inpatient (claim date during inpatient admission) or outpatient (claim date not during inpatient admission). We identified possible confirmatory evidence for each delivery including: (1) Presence of both provider and facility delivery codes; (2) presence of both diagnosis and procedure delivery codes; (3) labor and delivery revenue codes; (4) gestational age diagnosis codes; (5) pregnancy-related care codes; (6) linkage to an infant claim; and (7) infant insurance enrollment and linkage to a birthing parent. We quantified the proportion of deliveries with confirmatory evidence by delivery setting. Among deliveries with ≥ 1 piece of confirmatory evidence, we compared patient characteristics by apparent delivery setting.

Results: Among 4 084 474 delivery episodes, 96.4% were classified as inpatient and 3.6% outpatient. 99.9% of inpatient and 94.0% of outpatient deliveries had ≥ 1 piece of confirmatory evidence. Pregnancy-related care codes were the most common type of confirmatory evidence (99.0% inpatient, 85.7% outpatient). Deliveries classified as inpatient occurred among patients who were older and more clinically complex (i.e., more pregnancy complications, chronic diseases, and prescription medications).

Conclusions: The vast majority of deliveries had confirmatory evidence regardless of apparent setting. Patient characteristics differed by delivery setting. Inclusion of apparent outpatient deliveries may increase the sample size of the study population and improve the generalizability of study results.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信