{"title":"Comparison of Census Tract-Level Chronic Disease Prevalence Estimates From 500 Cities and Local Health Claims Data.","authors":"Alyssa Monaghan, Lynda Jones, LuAnn Brink, Karen Hacker","doi":"10.1097/PHH.0000000000001160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare city and census tract-level diabetes and hypertension prevalence using 500 Cities Project modeled estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and insurance claims data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Insurance claims by census tract were collected from 3 local health plans for the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for 2015-2016; conditions were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Crude prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals were downloaded from the CDC 500 Cities Web site to obtain modeled estimates by census tract. Confidence intervals were calculated for claims and compared with modeled estimates; nonoverlapping intervals were considered significant. Pearson correlation coefficients were generated for census tract-level comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>City-level model-based and claims estimates were 9% versus 10% for diabetes and 31% versus 21% for hypertension. At the census tract level, model-based and insurance claims estimates were more concordant for diabetes (r = 0.366) than for hypertension (r = 0.220). Modeled estimates were significantly higher than claims estimates for 89% of census tracts for hypertension and 35% for diabetes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Modeled estimates from the 500 Cites Project were significantly higher than insurance claims estimates for hypertension but were more consistent for diabetes. Utilization of multiple data sources to understand local-level chronic disease burden requires consideration of the strengths and limitations of each.</p>","PeriodicalId":296123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP","volume":" ","pages":"E92-E95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Objectives: To compare city and census tract-level diabetes and hypertension prevalence using 500 Cities Project modeled estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and insurance claims data.
Methods: Insurance claims by census tract were collected from 3 local health plans for the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for 2015-2016; conditions were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Crude prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals were downloaded from the CDC 500 Cities Web site to obtain modeled estimates by census tract. Confidence intervals were calculated for claims and compared with modeled estimates; nonoverlapping intervals were considered significant. Pearson correlation coefficients were generated for census tract-level comparison.
Results: City-level model-based and claims estimates were 9% versus 10% for diabetes and 31% versus 21% for hypertension. At the census tract level, model-based and insurance claims estimates were more concordant for diabetes (r = 0.366) than for hypertension (r = 0.220). Modeled estimates were significantly higher than claims estimates for 89% of census tracts for hypertension and 35% for diabetes.
Conclusions: Modeled estimates from the 500 Cites Project were significantly higher than insurance claims estimates for hypertension but were more consistent for diabetes. Utilization of multiple data sources to understand local-level chronic disease burden requires consideration of the strengths and limitations of each.