商业保险索赔数据中妊娠队列的发展:对住院与门诊索赔中确定的分娩的评估。

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":"商业保险索赔数据中妊娠队列的发展:对住院与门诊索赔中确定的分娩的评估。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:使用保险索赔数据来识别妊娠的研究很少能够直接评估妊娠/分娩的有效性。住院和门诊分娩索赔可能提供不同水平的证据,但更严格的要求可能导致排除真正的怀孕。我们从住院和门诊环境中识别出分娩代码,并检查了可能的确认证据,表明分娩确实发生了。方法:使用美国商业保险数据库(2006-2021),我们通过来自提供者和/或设施的分娩索赔来识别潜在的怀孕。我们将分娩分为住院分娩(住院期间的索赔日期)和门诊分娩(非住院期间的索赔日期)。我们确定了每次交付可能的确认证据,包括:(1)供应商和设施交付代码的存在;(2)同时存在诊断和程序交付代码;(3)劳务和配送收入代码;(4)胎龄诊断代码;(五)妊娠相关护理规范;(六)与婴儿索赔有关联的;(7)婴儿保险参保与生身父母联动。我们通过分娩环境量化有确认证据的分娩比例。在确认证据≥1份的分娩中,我们通过明显的分娩环境比较患者特征。结果:4 084 474次分娩中,96.4%为住院,3.6%为门诊。99.9%的住院分娩和94.0%的门诊分娩有≥1份确认性证据。妊娠相关护理代码是最常见的确认证据类型(住院99.0%,门诊85.7%)。被归类为住院病人的分娩发生在年龄较大和临床更复杂的患者中(即,更多的妊娠并发症、慢性病和处方药)。结论:绝大多数分娩有明确的证据,无论明显的设置。患者特征因分娩环境而异。纳入门诊分娩可能会增加研究人群的样本量,提高研究结果的普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of a Pregnancy Cohort in Commercial Insurance Claims Data: Evaluation of Deliveries Identified From Inpatient Versus Outpatient Claims.

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
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信