ArticleMedical care2013
Risk adjustment for health care financing in chronic disease: what are we missing by failing to account for disease severity?
Article in Medical care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delayed or forgone medical care associated with increased resource utilization and health care expenditures among patients with peripheral artery disease in the United States.Journal of vascular surgery · 2025Article
- Unlocking the Potential of Electronic Health Records for Health Research.International journal of population data science · 2020Article
- Combining Nonclinical Determinants of Health and Clinical Data for Research and Evaluation: Rapid Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2019Review
- Long-Term Effectiveness of the Live Zoster Vaccine in Preventing Shingles: A Cohort Study.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Article
- Identifying Future High Cost Individuals within an Intermediate Cost Population.Quality in primary careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdjustment for differing risks among patients is usually incorporated into newer payment approaches, and current risk models rely on age, sex, and diagnosis codes. It is unknown the extent to which controlling additionally for disease severity improves cost prediction. Failure to adjust for within-disease variation may create incentives to avoid sicker patients. We address this issue among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
methodsCost and clinical data were collected prospectively from 1202 COPD patients at Kaiser Permanente. Baseline analysis included age, sex, and diagnosis codes (using the Diagnostic Cost Group Relative Risk Score) in a general linear model predicting total medical costs in the following year. We determined whether adding COPD severity measures-forced expiratory volume in 1 second, 6-Minute Walk Test, dyspnea score, body mass index, and BODE Index (composite of the other 4 measures)-improved predictions. Separately, we examined household income as a cost predictor.
resultsMean costs were $12,334/y. Controlling for Relative Risk Score, each ½ SD worsening in COPD severity factor was associated with $629 to $1135 in increased annual costs (all P<0.01). The lowest stratum of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (<30% normal) predicted $4098 (95% confidence interval, $576-$8773) additional costs. Household income predicted excess costs when added to the baseline model (P=0.038), but this became nonsignificant when also incorporating the BODE Index.
conclusionsDisease severity measures explain significant cost variations beyond current risk models, and adding them to such models appears important to fairly compensate organizations that accept responsibility for sicker COPD patients. Appropriately controlling for disease severity also accounts for costs otherwise associated with lower socioeconomic status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.