Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 22, 2026
Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Differences in the Measurement of Comorbidities Based on ICD-10-CM Coding Definitions Using Medicare Advantage
Emilie D Duchesneau1, Allison Musty1, Elyse Miller1,2
1Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
Background:
Medicare Advantage (MA) encounter data became available for research in 2019; data quality concerns remain.
Objectives:
We evaluated the consistency of ICD-10-CM comorbidity coding between MA and Fee-For-Service (FFS) data.
Methods:
We used round 7 (2017) of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) linked to Medicare enrollment, MA encounter, and FFS claims (2016-2017). We included participants continuously enrolled in MA or FFS for 1 year before round 7. Comorbidities were identified using ICD-10-CM codes from the Gagne combined comorbidity index. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical covariates from NHATS for FFS beneficiaries were standardized to resemble those for MA beneficiaries. We estimated crude and standardized comorbidity prevalence differences (PDs) between MA and FFS beneficiaries.
Results:
Among 5158 beneficiaries (MA: 40%, FFS: 60%), MA beneficiaries were more likely to be Black, Hispanic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged. After standardization, comorbidity prevalence was similar between groups. Peripheral vascular disorder (PD=7.2%, 95% CI: 3.8%-10.6%) and renal failure (PD=3.7%, 95% CI: 0.9%-6.5%) were more common in MA beneficiaries; fluid/electrolyte disorders (PD=-3.2%, 95% CI: -5.5 to -1.0%) and deficiency anemias (PD=-5.0%, 95% CI: -7.6 to -2.3%) were more common in FFS beneficiaries. Other PDs were less than 3 percentage points.
Conclusions:
Discrepancies in comorbidity prevalence may reflect true differences or coding variations influenced by provider incentives, documentation standards, or diagnostic priorities. Comorbidity prevalence was largely consistent between MA encounters and FFS claims, supporting the reliability of MA encounter data for aging research. Additional validation studies should address remaining discrepancies.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
02:57Definition and Measurement of Pressure: Atmospheric Pressure, Barometer, and Manometer
01:10Acid–Base Equilibria: Activity-Based Definition of pH
In solutions of very low ionic strength—for example, pure water—the...
01:11Testing a Claim about Mean: Known Population SD
Estimating a population mean requires the samples to be distributed normally. The data should be collected from the randomly selected samples having no sampling bias. The sample size needed to be higher than 30, and most importantly, the population standard deviation should be already known.
In most realistic situations, the population standard deviation is often unknown, but in rare circumstances, when it...
02:39lncRNA - Long Non-coding RNAs
01:24Testing a Claim about Population Proportion
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...
01:19Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...