Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15960696›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2005

The performance of administrative and self-reported measures for risk adjustment of Veterans Affairs expenditures.

Matthew L Maciejewski, Chuan-Fen Liu, Ann Derleth, Mary McDonell, Steve Anderson, Stephan D Fihn

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Can patient-reported data improve predictions about who will be a high-need, high-cost patient in British Columbia?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Trends in the Timing and Clinical Context of Maintenance Dialysis Initiation.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2015
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Matthew L MaciejewskiHealth Services Research and Development Northwest Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Chuan-Fen Liu
Ann Derleth
Mary McDonell
Steve Anderson
Stephan D Fihn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of different prospective risk adjustment models of outpatient, inpatient, and total expenditures of veterans who regularly use Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care. DATA SOURCES: We utilized administrative, survey and expenditure data on 14,449 VA patients enrolled in a randomized trial that gave providers regular patient health assessments. STUDY

designThis cohort study compared five administrative data-based, two self-report risk adjusters, and base year expenditures in prospective models. DATA EXTRACTION

methodsVA outpatient care and nonacute inpatient care expenditures were based on unit expenditures and utilization, while VA expenditures for acute inpatient care were calculated from a Medicare-based inpatient cost function. Risk adjusters for this sample were constructed from diagnosis, medication and self-report data collected during a clinical trial. Model performance was compared using adjusted R2 and predictive ratios. PRINCIPAL

findingsIn all expenditure models, administrative-based measures performed better than self-reported measures, which performed better than age and gender. The Diagnosis Cost Groups (DCG) model explained total expenditure variation (R2=7.2 percent) better than other models. Prior outpatient expenditures predicted outpatient expenditures best by far (R2=42 percent). Models with multiple measures improved overall prediction, reduced over-prediction of low expenditure quintiles, and reduced under-prediction in the highest quintile of expenditures.

conclusionsPrediction of VA total expenditures was poor because expenditure variation reflected utilization variation, but not patient severity. Base year expenditures were the best predictor of outpatient expenditures and nearly the best for total expenditures. Models that combined two or more risk adjusters predicted expenditures better than single-measure models, but are more difficult and expensive to apply.

Indexed as

Self DisclosureAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth ExpendituresHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth StatusHospitals, VeteransHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk Adjustment

Identifiers

PMID15960696
PMCPMC1361173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.