使用医疗补助分析提取方法识别活产的比较。

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sara E Heins, Laura J Faherty, Ashley M Kranz
{"title":"使用医疗补助分析提取方法识别活产的比较。","authors":"Sara E Heins,&nbsp;Laura J Faherty,&nbsp;Ashley M Kranz","doi":"10.1007/s10742-021-00252-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medicaid claims are an important, but underutilized source of data for neonatal health services research in the United States. However, identifying live births in Medicaid claims data is challenging due to variation in coding practices by state and year. Methods of identifying live births in Medicaid claims data have not been validated, and it is not known which methods are most appropriate for different research questions. The objective of this study is to describe and validate five approaches to identifying births using Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) from 45 states (2006-2014). We calculated total number of MAX births by state-year using five definitions: (1) any claim within 30 days of birth date listed in personal summary (PS) file, (2) any claim within 7 days of PS birth date, (3) live birth ICD-9 in inpatient or other therapies file, (4) live birth ICD-9 code in inpatient file, (5) live birth ICD-9 in inpatient file with matching PS birth date. We then compared the number of MAX births by state and year to expected counts using outside data sources. Definition 1 identified the most births (14,189,870) and was closest to total expected count (98.3%). Each definition produced over- and underestimates compared to expected counts for given state-years. Findings suggest that the broadest definition of live births (Definition 1) was closest to expected counts, but that the most appropriate definition depends on research question and state-years of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":45600,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10742-021-00252-w","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of approaches to identify live births using the medicaid analytic extract.\",\"authors\":\"Sara E Heins,&nbsp;Laura J Faherty,&nbsp;Ashley M Kranz\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10742-021-00252-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Medicaid claims are an important, but underutilized source of data for neonatal health services research in the United States. However, identifying live births in Medicaid claims data is challenging due to variation in coding practices by state and year. Methods of identifying live births in Medicaid claims data have not been validated, and it is not known which methods are most appropriate for different research questions. The objective of this study is to describe and validate five approaches to identifying births using Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) from 45 states (2006-2014). We calculated total number of MAX births by state-year using five definitions: (1) any claim within 30 days of birth date listed in personal summary (PS) file, (2) any claim within 7 days of PS birth date, (3) live birth ICD-9 in inpatient or other therapies file, (4) live birth ICD-9 code in inpatient file, (5) live birth ICD-9 in inpatient file with matching PS birth date. We then compared the number of MAX births by state and year to expected counts using outside data sources. Definition 1 identified the most births (14,189,870) and was closest to total expected count (98.3%). Each definition produced over- and underestimates compared to expected counts for given state-years. Findings suggest that the broadest definition of live births (Definition 1) was closest to expected counts, but that the most appropriate definition depends on research question and state-years of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10742-021-00252-w\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-021-00252-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-021-00252-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

医疗补助索赔是一个重要的,但未充分利用的数据来源,为新生儿健康服务研究在美国。然而,由于各州和年份编码实践的差异,确定医疗补助索赔数据中的活产是具有挑战性的。在医疗补助申请数据中识别活产婴儿的方法尚未得到验证,也不知道哪种方法最适合不同的研究问题。本研究的目的是描述和验证使用医疗补助分析提取(MAX)从45个州(2006-2014)确定出生的五种方法。我们使用五种定义按州-年份计算最大出生总数:(1)个人总结(PS)文件中列出的出生日期30天内的任何索赔,(2)PS出生日期7天内的任何索赔,(3)住院或其他治疗文件中的活产ICD-9,(4)住院文件中的活产ICD-9代码,(5)住院文件中与PS出生日期相匹配的活产ICD-9。然后,我们将各州和年份的最大出生人数与使用外部数据源的预期数量进行了比较。定义1确定了最多的出生数(14,189,870),并且最接近总预期数(98.3%)。与给定州年的预期数量相比,每个定义都高估或低估了。研究结果表明,最广泛的活产定义(定义1)最接近预期数,但最合适的定义取决于研究问题和国家感兴趣的年份。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A comparison of approaches to identify live births using the medicaid analytic extract.

A comparison of approaches to identify live births using the medicaid analytic extract.

A comparison of approaches to identify live births using the medicaid analytic extract.

Medicaid claims are an important, but underutilized source of data for neonatal health services research in the United States. However, identifying live births in Medicaid claims data is challenging due to variation in coding practices by state and year. Methods of identifying live births in Medicaid claims data have not been validated, and it is not known which methods are most appropriate for different research questions. The objective of this study is to describe and validate five approaches to identifying births using Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) from 45 states (2006-2014). We calculated total number of MAX births by state-year using five definitions: (1) any claim within 30 days of birth date listed in personal summary (PS) file, (2) any claim within 7 days of PS birth date, (3) live birth ICD-9 in inpatient or other therapies file, (4) live birth ICD-9 code in inpatient file, (5) live birth ICD-9 in inpatient file with matching PS birth date. We then compared the number of MAX births by state and year to expected counts using outside data sources. Definition 1 identified the most births (14,189,870) and was closest to total expected count (98.3%). Each definition produced over- and underestimates compared to expected counts for given state-years. Findings suggest that the broadest definition of live births (Definition 1) was closest to expected counts, but that the most appropriate definition depends on research question and state-years of interest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal reflects the multidisciplinary nature of the field of health services and outcomes research. It addresses the needs of multiple, interlocking communities, including methodologists in statistics, econometrics, social and behavioral sciences; designers and analysts of health policy and health services research projects; and health care providers and policy makers who need to properly understand and evaluate the results of published research. The journal strives to enhance the level of methodologic rigor in health services and outcomes research and contributes to the development of methodologic standards in the field. In pursuing its main objective, the journal also provides a meeting ground for researchers from a number of traditional disciplines and fosters the development of new quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods by statisticians, econometricians, health services researchers, and methodologists in other fields. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology publishes: Research papers on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods; Case Studies describing applications of quantitative and qualitative methodology in health services and outcomes research; Review Articles synthesizing and popularizing methodologic developments; Tutorials; Articles on computational issues and software reviews; Book reviews; and Notices. Special issues will be devoted to papers presented at important workshops and conferences.
×
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