Effect of risk adjustment method on comparisons of health care utilization between complementary and alternative medicine users and nonusers

Bonnie Lind, Mary M. Gerkovich, Daniel C. Cherkin, Richard (Rick) Deyo, Karen J. Sherman, William E. Lafferty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers are becoming more integrated into the United States health care system. Because patients self-select CAM use, risk adjustment is needed to make the groups more comparable when analyzing utilization. This study examined how the choice of risk adjustment method affects assessment of CAM use on overall health care utilization. Design and subjects: Insurance claims data for 2000-2003 from Washington State, which mandates coverage of CAM providers, were analyzed. Three (3) risk adjustment methods were compared in patients with musculoskeletal conditions: Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG), Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCG), and the Charlson Index. Relative Value Units (RVUs) were used as a proxy for expenditures. Two (2) sets of median regression models were created: prospective, which used risk adjustments from the previous year to predict RVU in the subsequent year, and concurrent, which used risk adjustment measures to predict RVU in the same year. Results: The sample included 92,474 claimants. Prospective models showed little difference in the effect of CAM use on RVU among the three risk adjustment methods, and all models had low predictive power (R2 ≤0.05). In the concurrent models, coefficients were similar in direction and magnitude for all risk adjustment methods, but in some models the predicted effect of CAM use on RVU differed by as much as double between methods. Results of DCG and ACG models were similar and were stronger than Charlson models. Conclusions: Choice of risk adjustment method may have a modest effect on the outcome of interest.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)250-256
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2013

Fingerprint

Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Risk Adjustment
Complementary Therapies
Costs and Cost Analysis
Proxy
Health Expenditures
Insurance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Complementary and alternative medicine

Cite this

Effect of risk adjustment method on comparisons of health care utilization between complementary and alternative medicine users and nonusers. / Lind, Bonnie; Gerkovich, Mary M.; Cherkin, Daniel C.; Deyo, Richard (Rick); Sherman, Karen J.; Lafferty, William E.

In: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 3, 01.03.2013, p. 250-256.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a4a47af3e5b64a6a89b46c5126b1c1fc,
title = "Effect of risk adjustment method on comparisons of health care utilization between complementary and alternative medicine users and nonusers",
abstract = "Objectives: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers are becoming more integrated into the United States health care system. Because patients self-select CAM use, risk adjustment is needed to make the groups more comparable when analyzing utilization. This study examined how the choice of risk adjustment method affects assessment of CAM use on overall health care utilization. Design and subjects: Insurance claims data for 2000-2003 from Washington State, which mandates coverage of CAM providers, were analyzed. Three (3) risk adjustment methods were compared in patients with musculoskeletal conditions: Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG), Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCG), and the Charlson Index. Relative Value Units (RVUs) were used as a proxy for expenditures. Two (2) sets of median regression models were created: prospective, which used risk adjustments from the previous year to predict RVU in the subsequent year, and concurrent, which used risk adjustment measures to predict RVU in the same year. Results: The sample included 92,474 claimants. Prospective models showed little difference in the effect of CAM use on RVU among the three risk adjustment methods, and all models had low predictive power (R2 ≤0.05). In the concurrent models, coefficients were similar in direction and magnitude for all risk adjustment methods, but in some models the predicted effect of CAM use on RVU differed by as much as double between methods. Results of DCG and ACG models were similar and were stronger than Charlson models. Conclusions: Choice of risk adjustment method may have a modest effect on the outcome of interest.",
author = "Bonnie Lind and Gerkovich, {Mary M.} and Cherkin, {Daniel C.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and Sherman, {Karen J.} and Lafferty, {William E.}",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/acm.2011.0707",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "250--256",
journal = "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine",
issn = "1075-5535",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of risk adjustment method on comparisons of health care utilization between complementary and alternative medicine users and nonusers

AU - Lind, Bonnie

AU - Gerkovich, Mary M.

AU - Cherkin, Daniel C.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Sherman, Karen J.

AU - Lafferty, William E.

PY - 2013/3/1

Y1 - 2013/3/1

N2 - Objectives: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers are becoming more integrated into the United States health care system. Because patients self-select CAM use, risk adjustment is needed to make the groups more comparable when analyzing utilization. This study examined how the choice of risk adjustment method affects assessment of CAM use on overall health care utilization. Design and subjects: Insurance claims data for 2000-2003 from Washington State, which mandates coverage of CAM providers, were analyzed. Three (3) risk adjustment methods were compared in patients with musculoskeletal conditions: Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG), Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCG), and the Charlson Index. Relative Value Units (RVUs) were used as a proxy for expenditures. Two (2) sets of median regression models were created: prospective, which used risk adjustments from the previous year to predict RVU in the subsequent year, and concurrent, which used risk adjustment measures to predict RVU in the same year. Results: The sample included 92,474 claimants. Prospective models showed little difference in the effect of CAM use on RVU among the three risk adjustment methods, and all models had low predictive power (R2 ≤0.05). In the concurrent models, coefficients were similar in direction and magnitude for all risk adjustment methods, but in some models the predicted effect of CAM use on RVU differed by as much as double between methods. Results of DCG and ACG models were similar and were stronger than Charlson models. Conclusions: Choice of risk adjustment method may have a modest effect on the outcome of interest.

AB - Objectives: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers are becoming more integrated into the United States health care system. Because patients self-select CAM use, risk adjustment is needed to make the groups more comparable when analyzing utilization. This study examined how the choice of risk adjustment method affects assessment of CAM use on overall health care utilization. Design and subjects: Insurance claims data for 2000-2003 from Washington State, which mandates coverage of CAM providers, were analyzed. Three (3) risk adjustment methods were compared in patients with musculoskeletal conditions: Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG), Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCG), and the Charlson Index. Relative Value Units (RVUs) were used as a proxy for expenditures. Two (2) sets of median regression models were created: prospective, which used risk adjustments from the previous year to predict RVU in the subsequent year, and concurrent, which used risk adjustment measures to predict RVU in the same year. Results: The sample included 92,474 claimants. Prospective models showed little difference in the effect of CAM use on RVU among the three risk adjustment methods, and all models had low predictive power (R2 ≤0.05). In the concurrent models, coefficients were similar in direction and magnitude for all risk adjustment methods, but in some models the predicted effect of CAM use on RVU differed by as much as double between methods. Results of DCG and ACG models were similar and were stronger than Charlson models. Conclusions: Choice of risk adjustment method may have a modest effect on the outcome of interest.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875455225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875455225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/acm.2011.0707

DO - 10.1089/acm.2011.0707

M3 - Article

C2 - 23036140

AN - SCOPUS:84875455225

VL - 19

SP - 250

EP - 256

JO - Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

JF - Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

SN - 1075-5535

IS - 3

ER -