Key result
Combined use of Medicare Parts A and B billing claims demonstrated a 90.9% sensitivity for identifying clinically verified cardiovascular events after kidney transplant.
Why the study?
Are Medicare billing claims sensitive for identifying cardiovascular events in kidney transplant recipients?
Observational (n=571)
No
Are Medicare billing claims sensitive for identifying cardiovascular events in kidney transplant recipients?
Combined use of Medicare Parts A and B billing claims provides a highly sensitive measure for identifying cardiovascular events in kidney transplant recipients.
Medicare billing claims sensitively identify cardiovascular events after transplant; supports expanded use as outcomes in observational transplant research.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Billing claims are increasingly examined beyond administrative functions as outcomes measures in observational research. Few studies have described the performance of billing claims as surrogate measures of clinical events among kidney transplant recipients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We investigated the sensitivity of Medicare billing claims for clinically verified cardiovascular diagnoses (five categories) and procedures (four categories) in a novel database linking Medicare claims to electronic medical records of one transplant program. Cardiovascular events identified in medical records for 571 Medicare-insured transplant recipients in 1991 through 2002 served as reference measures. RESULTS: Within a claims-ascertainment period spanning +/-30 d of clinically recorded dates, aggregate sensitivity of single claims was higher for case definitions incorporating Medicare Parts A and B for diagnoses and procedures (90.9%) compared with either Part A (82.3%) or Part B (84.6%) alone. Perfect capture of the four procedures was possible within +/-30 d or with short claims window expansion, but sensitivity for the diagnoses trended lower with all study algorithms (91.2% with window up to +/-90 d). Requirement for additional confirmatory diagnosis claims did not appreciably reduce sensitivity. Sensitivity patterns were similar in the early compared with late periods of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Combined use of Medicare Parts A and B billing claims composes a sensitive measure of cardiovascular events after kidney transplant. Further research is needed to define algorithms that maximize specificity as well as sensitivity of claims from Medicare and other insurers as research measures in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lentine et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Kidney transplant recipients (n=571). Medicare billing claims (Parts A and B) vs. Clinical medical records (reference standard) was evaluated on Sensitivity for clinically verified cardiovascular diagnoses and procedures. Combined use of Medicare Parts A and B billing claims demonstrated a 90.9% sensitivity for identifying clinically verified cardiovascular events after kidney transplant.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: