Performance of Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse algorithms in Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service populations.

Chan Mi Park, Xiecheng Chen, Sandra Shi, Lan Luo, Eunji G Kim, Emilie D Duchesneau, Lily Zhong, Dae Hyun Kim, Ellen P McCarthy
{"title":"Performance of Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse algorithms in Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service populations.","authors":"Chan Mi Park, Xiecheng Chen, Sandra Shi, Lan Luo, Eunji G Kim, Emilie D Duchesneau, Lily Zhong, Dae Hyun Kim, Ellen P McCarthy","doi":"10.1093/gerona/glag230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse (CCW) algorithms are widely used to identify chronic conditions in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims. However, their validity in Medicare Advantage (MA) encounters remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study using the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) linked to Medicare data. We analyzed NHATS rounds 9 and 11, aged ≥ 65 years, with continuous 24-month enrollment in MA or FFS. Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse algorithms were applied to identify 6 conditions: arthritis, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and osteoporosis. Self-reported, physician-diagnosed conditions from NHATS interviews served as the reference standard. Survey-weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and balanced accuracy were compared between MA and FFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 1708 MA and 2239 FFS beneficiaries in round 9 and 1472 MA and 1566 FFS beneficiaries in round 11. Across both rounds, balanced accuracy was similar between MA and FFS for all 6 conditions. Diabetes and hypertension demonstrated high sensitivity (0.88-0.94), while arthritis and osteoporosis showed lower sensitivity but high specificity. Although statistically significant MA-FFS differences were observed for select metrics (diabetes PPV in round 9; chronic lung disease specificity in round 11), absolute differences were minor and not clinically meaningful.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse algorithms perform comparably in MA and FFS Medicare data. These findings support the validity of using CCW algorithms in MA encounter data for epidemiologic research for risk adjustment, facilitating more generalizable studies of the growing MA population.</p>","PeriodicalId":94243,"journal":{"name":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13675083/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glag230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse (CCW) algorithms are widely used to identify chronic conditions in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims. However, their validity in Medicare Advantage (MA) encounters remains uncertain.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) linked to Medicare data. We analyzed NHATS rounds 9 and 11, aged ≥ 65 years, with continuous 24-month enrollment in MA or FFS. Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse algorithms were applied to identify 6 conditions: arthritis, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and osteoporosis. Self-reported, physician-diagnosed conditions from NHATS interviews served as the reference standard. Survey-weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and balanced accuracy were compared between MA and FFS.

Results: We included 1708 MA and 2239 FFS beneficiaries in round 9 and 1472 MA and 1566 FFS beneficiaries in round 11. Across both rounds, balanced accuracy was similar between MA and FFS for all 6 conditions. Diabetes and hypertension demonstrated high sensitivity (0.88-0.94), while arthritis and osteoporosis showed lower sensitivity but high specificity. Although statistically significant MA-FFS differences were observed for select metrics (diabetes PPV in round 9; chronic lung disease specificity in round 11), absolute differences were minor and not clinically meaningful.

Conclusions: Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse algorithms perform comparably in MA and FFS Medicare data. These findings support the validity of using CCW algorithms in MA encounter data for epidemiologic research for risk adjustment, facilitating more generalizable studies of the growing MA population.

慢性病数据仓库算法在医疗保险优势和按服务收费人群中的表现。
背景:医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)慢性病数据仓库(CCW)算法被广泛用于识别医疗保险按服务收费(FFS)索赔中的慢性病。然而,它们在医疗保险优势(MA)遭遇中的有效性仍然不确定。方法:我们使用与医疗保险数据相关的国家健康和老龄化趋势研究进行了横断面研究。我们分析了NHATS第9轮和第11轮,年龄≥65岁,连续24个月入组MA或FFS。CCW算法用于识别六种疾病:关节炎、慢性肺病、糖尿病、心脏病、高血压和骨质疏松症。NHATS访谈中自我报告的、医生诊断的病情作为参考标准。比较了MA和FFS的调查加权敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和平衡准确性。结果:我们在第9轮纳入了1,708名MA和2,239名FFS受益人,在第11轮纳入了1,472名MA和1,566名FFS受益人。在这两轮中,MA和FFS在所有六种情况下的平衡精度相似。糖尿病和高血压敏感性高(0.88-0.94),关节炎和骨质疏松敏感性低但特异性高。虽然在某些指标上观察到具有统计学意义的MA-FFS差异(第9轮为糖尿病PPV,第11轮为慢性肺病特异性),但绝对差异很小,没有临床意义。结论:CCW算法在MA和FFS医保数据中的表现相当。这些发现支持了在MA遭遇数据中使用CCW算法进行风险调整的流行病学研究的有效性,促进了对不断增长的MA人群进行更广泛的研究。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书