Skip to main content
Log in

Can Administrative Data Identify Incident Cases of Colorectal Cancer? A Comparison of Two Health Plans

  • Published:
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although commercial health insurance records are a potentially valuable source of data for cancer outcomes studies, the accuracy of administrative codes for identifying persons with cancer is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of administrative codes for identifying persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. The Washington state SEER cancer registry was linked with enrollment files from two large commercial health plans: a fee-for-service plan and a staff-model HMO with combined enrollment of more than 1.7 million. The accuracy of ICD-9 codes for colorectal cancer for enrollees diagnosed between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1999 was compared for each plan, using SEER records as the “gold standard.”

The positive predictive value of administrative codes was 33.4% at the fee-for-service plan and 30.1% at the HMO plan (difference p = 0.26). The overall sensitivity of administrative codes was 91.7% at the fee-for-service plan and 93.1% at the HMO plan (difference p = 0.09). Positive predictive values were higher for inpatient records, while sensitivity was higher for outpatient records and for those with more advanced tumor stages at diagnosis. In conclusion, administrative records for identifying new cases of colorectal cancer in two large health plans

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society, “Cancer Facts & Figures 2003,” American Cancer Society Statistics, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2003, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/stt/stt_0.asp.

  2. American Cancer Society, “Research scholar grants in health services and health policy for beginning and senior investigators,” American Cancer Society, Inc. Atlanta, GA, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bailes, J., “Managed care and oncology: The quality debate,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 18(4), 705–707, 2000.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barlow, W.E., et al., “Cost comparison of mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer,” J Natl Cancer Inst 93(6), 447–455, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, M.L., Lipscomb, J., and Snyder, C., “The burden of illness of cancer: Economic cost and quality of life,” Annual Review of Public Health 22, 91–113, 2001.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, M.L., et al., “Obtaining long-term disease specific costs of care: Application to Medicare enrollees diagnosed with colorectal cancer,” Med. Care 37(12), 1249–1259, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cooper, G.S., et al., “The sensitivity of Medicare claims data for case ascertainment of six common cancers,” Med. Care 37(5), 436–444, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Earle, C.C., et al., “Identifying cancer relapse using SEER-Medicare data,” Med. Care 40(8 Suppl), IV-75–IV-81, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fishman, P.A. and Wagner, E.H., “Managed care data and public health: The experience of Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound,” Annual Review of Public Health 19, 477–491, 1998.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fowles, J.B., et al., “Taking health status into account when setting capitation rates: A comparison of risk-adjustment methods,” JAMA 276(16), 1316–1321, 1996.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harras, A., “Tapping the SEER database,” Cancer Practice 3(3), 184–186, 1995.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Iezzoni, L.I., “Using administrative diagnostic data to assess the quality of hospital care: Pitfalls and potential of ICD-9-CM,” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 6, 272–281, 1990.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jollis, J.G., et al., “Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems: Implications for outcomes research,” Ann. Intern. Med. 119(8), 844–850, 1993.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahn, L.H., et al., “The validity of hospital administrative data in monitoring variations in breast cancer surgery,” American Journal of Public Health 86(2), 243–245, 1996.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McBean, A.M., Warren, J.L., and Babish, J.D., “Measuring the incidence of cancer in elderly Americans using Medicare claims data,” Cancer 73(9), 2417–2425, 1994.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McClish, D.K., et al., “Ability of Medicare claims data and cancer registries to identify cancer cases and treatment,” American Journal of Epidemiology 145(3), 227–233, 1997.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mechanic, D., “Lessons from the unexpected: The importance of data infrastructure, conceptual models, and serendipity in health services research,” Milbank Quarterly 79(3), 459–477, V, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Merrill, R.M., et al., “Survival and treatment for colorectal cancer Medicare patients in two group/staff health maintenance organizations and the fee-for-service setting,” Med. Care. Res. Rev. 56(2), 177–196, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. National Cancer Institute, “Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS),” National Cancer Institute, Applied Research Program, Outcomes Research Branch, 2003.

  20. Petersen, L.A., et al., “Positive predictive value of the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in an administrative database,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 14, 555–558, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Potosky, A.L., et al., “Prostate cancer treatment and ten-year survival among group/staff HMO and fee-for-service Medicare patients,” Health Services Research 34(2), 525–546, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Potosky, A.L., et al., “Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare-tumor registry database,” Med. Care 31(8), 732–748, 1993.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reis, L.A.G., et al., “SEER cancer statistics review, 1973–1999.” National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, 2002. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1973-1999/.

  24. Riley, G.F., et al., “Stage at diagnosis and treatment patterns among older women with breast cancer: An HMO and fee-for-service comparison,” JAMA 281(8), 720–726, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Riley, G.F., et al., “Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis,” Med. Care 33(8), 828–841, 1995.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sackett, D.L., et al., Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, 2nd ed., Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Srivastava, S., et al., “Accessing NCI’s SEER cancer data base with SeerQuery and CD-ROM,” Public Health Reports 107(4), 397–401, 1992.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang, P.S., et al., “Finding incident breast cancer cases through US claims data and a state cancer registry,” Cancer Causes Control 12(3), 257–265, 2001.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Warren, J.L., et al., “Use of Medicare hospital and physician data to assess breast cancer incidence,” Med. Care 37(5), 445–456, 1999.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Warren, J.L., et al., “Use of Medicare data to identify incident breast cancer cases,” Health Care Financing Review 18(1), 237–246, 1996.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Whittle, J., et al., “Accuracy of Medicare claims data for estimation of cancer incidence and resection rates among elderly Americans,” Med. Care 29(12), 1226–1236, 1991.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott D. Ramsey.

Additional information

Funding Source: Aetna Research Foundation Quality Care Research Fund Award; Dr. Ramsey was also the recipient of the Howard Temin Career Development Award (KO1-CA76189) from the National Cancer Institute. showed poor positive predictive value but high sensitivity. Accuracy did not vary substantially by insurance plan. Researchers without tumor registry or other high-quality sources to verify records should not rely on administrative data alone from commercial health plans to identify incident colorectal cancer cases.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramsey, S.D., Mandelson, M.T., Etzioni, R. et al. Can Administrative Data Identify Incident Cases of Colorectal Cancer? A Comparison of Two Health Plans. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 5, 27–37 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-005-5562-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-005-5562-0

Keywords

Navigation