Author
Listed:
- Eman Metwally
- Sarah E Soppe
- Jennifer L Lund
- Sharon Peacock Hinton
- Caroline A Thompson
Abstract
Background: Investigators often use claims data to estimate the diagnosis timing of chronic conditions. However, misclassification of chronic conditions is common due to variability in healthcare utilization and in claims history across patients. Objective: We aimed to quantify the effect of various Medicare fee-for-service continuous enrollment period and lookback period (LBP) on misclassification of COPD and sample size. Methods: A stepwise tutorial to classify COPD, based on its diagnosis timing relative to lung cancer diagnosis using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry linked to Medicare insurance claims. We used 3 approaches varying the LBP and required continuous enrollment (i.e., observability) period between 1 to 5 years. Patients with lung cancer were classified based on their COPD related healthcare utilization into 3 groups: pre-existing COPD (diagnosis at least 3 months before lung cancer diagnosis), concurrent COPD (diagnosis during the -/+ 3months of lung cancer diagnosis), and non-COPD. Among those with 5 years of continuous enrollment, we estimated the sensitivity of the LBP to ascertain COPD diagnosis as the number of patients with pre-existing COPD using a shorter LBP divided by the number of patients with pre-existing COPD using a longer LBP. Results: Extending the LBP from 1 to 5 years increased prevalence of pre-existing COPD from ~ 36% to 51%, decreased both concurrent COPD from ~ 34% to 23% and non-COPD from ~ 29% to 25%. There was minimal effect of extending the required continuous enrollment period beyond one year across various LBPs. In those with 5 years of continuous enrollment, sensitivity of COPD classification (95% CI) increased with longer LBP from 70.1% (69.7% to 70.4%) for one-year LBP to 100% for 5-years LBP. Conclusion: The length of optimum LBP and continuous enrollment period depends on the context of the research question and the data generating mechanisms. Among Medicare beneficiaries, the best approach to identify diagnosis timing of COPD relative to lung cancer diagnosis is to use all available LBP with at least one year of required continuous enrollment. Author summary: Healthcare data such as electronic health records and health insurance claims is a rich resource to study outcomes of chronic medical conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it can be tricky to determine the optimal period of searching the claims to identify the first diagnosis time of a chronic condition. In this study, we explored three approaches to optimize classification of COPD diagnosis based on a variety of Medicare claims search periods and observability (required continuous periods of enrollment) periods. We used a large dataset of Medicare claims linked to SEER cancer registry including more than 158,000 Medicare beneficiaries to identify diagnosis timing of COPD relative to lung cancer diagnosis. We observed that the most efficient approach to classify COPD diagnosis timing is to use all available historical claims data while requiring a minimum of one year of Medicare continuous enrollment. Our findings will help researchers concerned about accuracy of diagnosis timing of chronic conditions such as COPD and loss in sample size, especially when long periods of continuous insurance enrollment isn’t feasible.
Suggested Citation
Eman Metwally & Sarah E Soppe & Jennifer L Lund & Sharon Peacock Hinton & Caroline A Thompson, 2024.
"Impact of observability period on the classification of COPD diagnosis timing among Medicare beneficiaries with lung cancer,"
PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-14, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000633
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000633
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.