IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0213258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the use of machine learning for risk adjustment: A comparison of standard and penalized linear regression models in predicting health care costs in older adults

Author

Listed:
  • Hong J Kan
  • Hadi Kharrazi
  • Hsien-Yen Chang
  • Dave Bodycombe
  • Klaus Lemke
  • Jonathan P Weiner

Abstract

Background: Payers and providers still primarily use ordinary least squares (OLS) to estimate expected economic and clinical outcomes for risk adjustment purposes. Penalized linear regression represents a practical and incremental step forward that provides transparency and interpretability within the familiar regression framework. This study conducted an in-depth comparison of prediction performance of standard and penalized linear regression in predicting future health care costs in older adults. Methods and findings: This retrospective cohort study included 81,106 Medicare Advantage patients with 5 years of continuous medical and pharmacy insurance from 2009 to 2013. Total health care costs in 2013 were predicted with comorbidity indicators from 2009 to 2012. Using 2012 predictors only, OLS performed poorly (e.g., R2 = 16.3%) compared to penalized linear regression models (R2 ranging from 16.8 to 16.9%); using 2009–2012 predictors, the gap in prediction performance increased (R2:15.0% versus 18.0–18.2%). OLS with a reduced set of predictors selected by lasso showed improved performance (R2 = 16.6% with 2012 predictors, 17.4% with 2009–2012 predictors) relative to OLS without variable selection but still lagged behind the prediction performance of penalized regression. Lasso regression consistently generated prediction ratios closer to 1 across different levels of predicted risk compared to other models. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the advantages of using transparent and easy-to-interpret penalized linear regression for predicting future health care costs in older adults relative to standard linear regression. Penalized regression showed better performance than OLS in predicting health care costs. Applying penalized regression to longitudinal data increased prediction accuracy. Lasso regression in particular showed superior prediction ratios across low and high levels of predicted risk. Health care insurers, providers and policy makers may benefit from adopting penalized regression such as lasso regression for cost prediction to improve risk adjustment and population health management and thus better address the underlying needs and risk of the populations they serve.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong J Kan & Hadi Kharrazi & Hsien-Yen Chang & Dave Bodycombe & Klaus Lemke & Jonathan P Weiner, 2019. "Exploring the use of machine learning for risk adjustment: A comparison of standard and penalized linear regression models in predicting health care costs in older adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213258
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213258
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213258&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0213258?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason Brown & Mark Duggan & Ilyana Kuziemko & William Woolston, 2014. "How Does Risk Selection Respond to Risk Adjustment? New Evidence from the Medicare Advantage Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3335-3364, October.
    2. Thomas G. McGuire & Jacob Glazer, 2000. "Optimal Risk Adjustment in Markets with Adverse Selection: An Application to Managed Care," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1055-1071, September.
    3. Friedman, Jerome H. & Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Rob, 2010. "Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 33(i01).
    4. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Addendum: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 768-768, November.
    5. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(2), pages 301-320, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sriubaite, I. & Harris, A. & Jones, A.M. & Gabbe, B., 2020. "Economic Consequences of Road Traffic Injuries. Application of the Super Learner algorithm," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 20/20, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Sha, Yezhou, 2022. "Rating manipulation and creditworthiness for platform economy: Evidence from peer-to-peer lending," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Marica Iommi & Savannah Bergquist & Gianluca Fiorentini & Francesco Paolucci, 2022. "Comparing risk adjustment estimation methods under data availability constraints," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), pages 1368-1380, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sungchul Park & Anirban Basu, 2018. "Alternative evaluation metrics for risk adjustment methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(6), pages 984-1010, June.
    2. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    3. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    4. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    5. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Immanuel Bayer & Philip Groth & Sebastian Schneckener, 2013. "Prediction Errors in Learning Drug Response from Gene Expression Data – Influence of Labeling, Sample Size, and Machine Learning Algorithm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-13, July.
    7. Mostafa Rezaei & Ivor Cribben & Michele Samorani, 2021. "A clustering-based feature selection method for automatically generated relational attributes," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 303(1), pages 233-263, August.
    8. Gustavo A. Alonso-Silverio & Víctor Francisco-García & Iris P. Guzmán-Guzmán & Elías Ventura-Molina & Antonio Alarcón-Paredes, 2021. "Toward Non-Invasive Estimation of Blood Glucose Concentration: A Comparative Performance," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(20), pages 1-13, October.
    9. Christopher Kath & Florian Ziel, 2018. "The value of forecasts: Quantifying the economic gains of accurate quarter-hourly electricity price forecasts," Papers 1811.08604, arXiv.org.
    10. Karim Barigou & Stéphane Loisel & Yahia Salhi, 2020. "Parsimonious Predictive Mortality Modeling by Regularization and Cross-Validation with and without Covid-Type Effect," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Gurgul Henryk & Machno Artur, 2017. "Trade Pattern on Warsaw Stock Exchange and Prediction of Number of Trades," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 18(1), pages 91-114, March.
    12. Michael Funke & Kadri Männasoo & Helery Tasane, 2023. "Regional Economic Impacts of the Øresund Cross-Border Fixed Link: Cui Bono?," CESifo Working Paper Series 10557, CESifo.
    13. Camila Epprecht & Dominique Guegan & Álvaro Veiga & Joel Correa da Rosa, 2017. "Variable selection and forecasting via automated methods for linear models: LASSO/adaLASSO and Autometrics," Post-Print halshs-00917797, HAL.
    14. Zichen Zhang & Ye Eun Bae & Jonathan R. Bradley & Lang Wu & Chong Wu, 2022. "SUMMIT: An integrative approach for better transcriptomic data imputation improves causal gene identification," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Štefan Lyócsa & Petra Vašaničová & Branka Hadji Misheva & Marko Dávid Vateha, 2022. "Default or profit scoring credit systems? Evidence from European and US peer-to-peer lending markets," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Peter Bühlmann & Jacopo Mandozzi, 2014. "High-dimensional variable screening and bias in subsequent inference, with an empirical comparison," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 407-430, June.
    17. Peter Martey Addo & Dominique Guegan & Bertrand Hassani, 2018. "Credit Risk Analysis Using Machine and Deep Learning Models," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Capanu, Marinela & Giurcanu, Mihai & Begg, Colin B. & Gönen, Mithat, 2023. "Subsampling based variable selection for generalized linear models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Abhinav Kaushik & Diane Dunham & Xiaorui Han & Evan Do & Sandra Andorf & Sheena Gupta & Andrea Fernandes & Laurie Elizabeth Kost & Sayantani B. Sindher & Wong Yu & Mindy Tsai & Robert Tibshirani & Sco, 2022. "CD8+ T cell differentiation status correlates with the feasibility of sustained unresponsiveness following oral immunotherapy," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Tomáš Plíhal, 2021. "Scheduled macroeconomic news announcements and Forex volatility forecasting," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(8), pages 1379-1397, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pone00:0213258. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.