Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

How well does diagnosis-based risk-adjustment work for comparing ambulatory clinical outcomes?

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the empirical consistency of the Diagnosis Cost Groups/Hierarchical Condition Categories (DCG/HCC) risk-adjustment method for comparing 7-day mortality between hospital-based outpatient departments (HOPDs) and freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). We used patient level data for the three most common outpatient procedures provided during the 1997–2004 period in Florida. We estimated base-line logistic regression models without any diagnosis-based risk adjustment and compared them to logistic regression models with the DCG/HCC risk-adjustment, and to conditional logit models with a matched cohort risk-adjustment approach. We also evaluated models that adjusted for primary diagnoses only, and then for all available diagnoses, to assess how the frequently absent secondary diagnoses fields in ambulatory surgical data affect risk-adjustment. We found that risk-adjustment using both diagnosis-based methods resulted in similar 7-day mortality estimates for HOPD patients in comparison with ASC patients in two out of three procedures. We conclude that the DCG/HCC risk-adjustment method is relatively consistent and stable, and recommend this risk-adjustment method for health policy research and practice with ambulatory surgery data. We also recommend using risk-adjustment with all available diagnoses.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Complete estimation results are available in the appendix.

References

  1. Iezzoni LI (1997) The risks of risk adjustment. JAMA 278(19):1600–1607. doi:10.1001/jama.278.19.1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Romano PS, Mark DH (1994) Bias in the coding of hospital discharge data and its implications for quality assessment. Med Care 32(1):81–90. doi:10.1097/00005650-199401000-00006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jencks S, Williams D, Kay T (1988) Assessing hospital-associated deaths from discharge data. The role of length of stay and comorbidities. JAMA 260(15):2240–2246. doi:10.1001/jama.260.15.2240

    Google Scholar 

  4. MedPAC Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Report to Congress: Medicare Payment Policy (2004). Washington, DC. p. 203–219

  5. Coldiron B, et al (2005) Adverse event reporting: lessons learned from 4 years of Florida office data. Dermatol Surg 31(9 Pt 1):1079–1092. discussion 1093

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fleisher LA, et al (2004) Inpatient hospital admission and death after outpatient surgery in elderly patients: importance of patient and system characteristics and location of care. Arch Surg 139(1):67–72. doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.1.67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleisher LA, Pasternak LR, Lyles A (2007) A novel index of elevated risk of inpatient hospital admission immediately following outpatient surgery. Arch Surg 142(3):263–268. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.3.263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hancox J, et al (2004) The safety of office-based surgery: review of recent literature from several disciplines. Arch Dermatol 140(11):1379–1382. doi:10.1001/archderm.140.11.1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Warner MA, Shields SE, Chute CG (1993) Major morbidity and mortality within 1 month of ambulatory surgery and anesthesia. JAMA 270(12):1437–1441. doi:10.1001/jama.270.12.1437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mezei G, Chung F (1999) Return hospital visits and hospital readmissions after ambulatory surgery. Ann Surg 230(5):721–727. doi:10.1097/00000658-199911000-00016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Winter A (2003) Comparing the mix of patients in various outpatient surgery settings. Health Aff (Millwood) 22(6):68–75. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.22.6.68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vila HJ, et al (2003) Comparative outcomes analysis of procedures performed in physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers. Arch Surg 138(9):991–995. doi:10.1001/archsurg.138.9.991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Deutsch N, Wu C (2003) Patient outcomes following ambulatory anesthesia. Anesthesiol Clin North America 21(2):403–415. doi:10.1016/S0889-8537(02)00078-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Venkat A, et al (2004) Lower adverse event and mortality rates in physician offices compared with ambulatory surgery centers: a reappraisal of Florida adverse event data. Dermatol Surg 30(12 Pt 1):1444–1451. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2004.30501.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chukmaitov A, et al (2007) A comparative study of quality outcomes in freestanding ambulatory surgery centers and hospital-based outpatient departments: 1997–2004. Health Services Research

  16. Pope G, et al (2004) Risk adjustment of Medicare capitation payments using the CMS-HCC model. Health Care Financ Rev 25(4):119–141

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ash A, et al (2003) Using claims data to examine mortality trends following hospitalization for heart attack in medicare. Health Serv Res 38(5):1253–1262. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Petersen L, et al (2005) Comparison of the predictive validity of diagnosis-based risk adjusters for clinical outcomes. Med Care 43(1):61–67

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meciejewski M, et al (2005) The performance of administrative and self-reported measures for risk adjustment of Veterans Affairs expenditures. Health Serv Res 40(3):887–904. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00390.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Classen D, et al (1997) Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 277(4):301–306. doi:10.1001/jama.277.4.301

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bates D, et al (1997) The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. JAMA 277(4):307–311. doi:10.1001/jama.277.4.307

    Google Scholar 

  22. Quan H, Parsons G, Ghali W (2004) Validity of procedure codes in International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification administrative data. Med Care 42(8):801–809. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000132391.59713.0d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. GAO-07-68. (2006) Report to congressional committees. November 2006. Medicare. Payment of ambulatory surgery centers should be based on the hospital outpatient payment system

  24. Chowdhury MM, Dagash H, Pierro A (2007) A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome. Br J Surg 94(2):145–161. doi:10.1002/bjs.5714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shnaider I, Chung F (2006) Outcomes in day surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 19(6):622–629. doi:10.1097/ACO.0b013e328010107e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hancox J, et al (2004) Why are there differences in the perceived safety of office-based surgery? Dermatol Surg 30(11):1377–1379. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2004.30432.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chukmaitov A, et al (2008) A Comparative Study of Quality Outcomes in Freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Hospital-Based Outpatient Departments: 1997–2004. Health Serv Res 43(5):1485–1504. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00809.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. DxCG RiskSmart Stand Alone (release 2.1) software. 2005, DxCG, Inc.: Boston, MA

  29. Breslow N, Day N (1987) Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. The Analysis of Cohort Studies, Vol. 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Kalbfleisch J, Prentice R (1980) The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cox D (1973) Partial likelihood. Biometrika 60:267–278. doi:10.1093/biomet/60.2.267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wooldridge J (2002) ) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. The MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  34. Register F (2006) Medicare Program—Revisions to Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System in Calendar Year 2007 Payment Rates; Final Rule. Vol. 71, No. 226/ November 24, 2006/ Rules and Regulations

  35. Wynn B (2004) "Medicare payment for hospital outpatient services: A historical review of policy options” working paper prepared for medicare payment advisory commission. Rand Health

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Askar S. Chukmaitov.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Full estimation results for colonoscopy procedurea,b
Table 4 Full estimation results for Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy procedure a,b
Table 5 Full estimation results for cataract procedure a,b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chukmaitov, A.S., Harless, D.W., Menachemi, N. et al. How well does diagnosis-based risk-adjustment work for comparing ambulatory clinical outcomes?. Health Care Manag Sci 12, 420–433 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-009-9101-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-009-9101-3

Keywords

Navigation