4.5 Article

The Accuracy of Medicare Claims as an Epidemiological Tool: The Case of Dementia Revisited

Journal

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 807-815

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2009-1099

Keywords

Dementia costs; medicare; sensitivity; specificity

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute on Nursing Research (NINR), National Institutes of Health [R01 NR008763]
  2. The National Institute on Aging (NIA) [U01 AG09740, R01 AG027010]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [R01NR008763] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [U01AG009740, R01AG027010] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our study estimates the sensitivity and specificity of Medicare claims to identify clinically-diagnosed dementia, and documents how errors in dementia assessment affect dementia cost estimates. We compared Medicare claims from 1993-2005 to clinical dementia assessments carried out in 2001-2003 for the Aging Demographics and Memory Study (ADAMS) cohort (n = 758) of the Health and Retirement Study. The sensitivity and specificity of Medicare claims was 0.85 and 0.89 for dementia (0.64 and 0.95 for AD). Persons with dementia cost the Medicare program (in 2003) $7,135 more than controls (P < 0.001) when using claims to identify dementia, compared to $5,684 more when using ADAMS (P < 0.001). Using Medicare claims to identify dementia results in a 110% increase in costs for those with dementia as compared to a 68% increase when using ADAMS to identify disease, net of other variables. Persons with false positive Medicare claims notations of dementia were the most expensive group of subjects ($11,294 versus $4,065, for true negatives P < 0.001). Medicare claims overcount the true prevalence of dementia, but there are both false positive and negative assessments of disease. The use of Medicare claims to identify dementia results in an overstatement of the increase in Medicare costs that are due to dementia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available