Advertisement

Are Publicly Funded Health Databases Geographically Detailed and Timely Enough to Support Patient-Centered Outcomes Research?

  • Soojin Min
  • Laurie T. Martin
  • Carolyn M. Rutter
  • Thomas W. Concannon
Perspective
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Emerging health care research paradigms such as comparative effectiveness research (CER), patient-centered outcome research (PCOR), and precision medicine (PM) share one ultimate goal: constructing evidence to provide the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. We argue that to succeed at this goal, it is crucial to have both timely access to individual-level data and fine geographic granularity in the data. Existing data will continue to be an important resource for observational studies as new data sources are developed. We examined widely used publicly funded health databases and population-based survey systems and found four ways they could be improved to better support the new research paradigms: (1) finer and more consistent geographic granularity, (2) more complete geographic coverage of the US population, (3) shorter time from data collection to data release, and (4) improved environments for restricted data access. We believe that existing data sources, if utilized optimally, and newly developed data infrastructures will both play a key role in expanding our insight into what treatments, at what time, work for each patient.

KEY WORDS

PCOR CER PM health database data utility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Daniel A. Waxman, MD, PhD, for his helpful review and comments on the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by contract HHSM-500-2014-00036I (PD Concannon), titled “Evaluation of From Coverage to Care (C2C),” from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CMS. The agency had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the findings, or approval of the finished manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ratner R, Eden J, Wolman D, Greenfield S, Sox H. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Institute of Medicine Washington, DC: National Academies Pr.; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29(12):1692–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kronenfeld JJ, Parmet WE, Zezza MA. Debates on US Health Care. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mirnezami R, Nicholson J, Darzi A. Preparing for precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2012;366(6):489–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Root ED, Thomas DS, Campagna EJ, Morrato EH. Adjusting for geographic variation in observational comparative effectiveness studies: a case study of antipsychotics using state Medicaid data. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14(1):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song Y, Skinner J, Bynum J, Sutherland J, Wennberg JE, Fisher ES. Regional variations in diagnostic practices. N Engl J Med 2010;363(1):45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Openshaw S. The modifiable areal unit problem. Vol 38. Norwich, England: Geobooks; 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372(9):793–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    PCORnet. PCORnet Data. Available at: http://www.pcornet.org/pcornet-data/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  10. 10.
    Erdem E, Korda H, Sennett C. Medicare claims data as public use files: a new tool for public health surveillance. J Public Health Manag Pract 2014;20(4):445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fefferman NH, O'Neil EA, Naumova EN. Confidentiality and confidence: is data aggregation a means to achieve both?, J Public Health Policy 2005;26(4):430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reiter JP, Kinney SK. Commentary: Sharing confidential data for research purposes: a primer. Epidemiology 2011;22(5):632–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Databases. Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/databases.jsp. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NHIS Dataset Documentation. Available at: ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Dataset_Documentation/NHIS/2015/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  15. 15.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Restricted Data. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/rdc/b1datatype/dt100.htm. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  16. 16.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NAMCS and NHAMCS Restricted Data Available at the NCHS Research Data Center. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/Availability_of_NAMCS_and_NHAMCS_Restricted_Data.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  17. 17.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Survey Data and Documentation. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/data_documentation/index.htm. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  18. 18.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. BRFSS State Information. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/state_info/index.htm. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  19. 19.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Data Documentation and Codebooks. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/MCBS/Codebooks.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  20. 20.
    Research Data Assistance Center. Data File Directory. Available at: https://www.resdac.org/cms-data/file-directory. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  21. 21.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Download Data Files, Documentation, and Codebooks. Available at: https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files.jsp. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  22. 22.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Research Datasets. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/cahps-database/data-research/index.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  23. 23.
    All-Payer Claims Database Council. State Data Access. Available at: https://www.apcdcouncil.org/state-data-access. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  24. 24.
    Add Health and Carolina Population Center. Documentation. Available at: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/documentation. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  25. 25.
    National Institute on Aging and the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. Documentation. Available at: https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/documentation. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  26. 26.
    The Urban Institute. Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS) Series. Available at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/series/547. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  27. 27.
    National Cancer Institute. Documentation for the Data Files. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/data/documentation.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  28. 28.
    Lewis DR, Chen HS, Midthune DN, et al. Early estimates of SEER cancer incidence for 2012: approaches, opportunities, and cautions for obtaining preliminary estimates of cancer incidence. Cancer 2015;121(12):2053–2062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davis JC, Holly BP. Regional analysis using Census Bureau microdata at the Center for Economic Studies. Int Reg Sci Rev 2006;29(3):278–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davis JC. RDC Demographic Data. Available at: https://atlantardc.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/davisdemographicdata.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  31. 31.
    Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessing Data. Available at: https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/getting-started/accessing-data. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  32. 32.
    Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. Restricted use. Available at: https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  33. 33.
    Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. SASD Database Documentation. Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/state/sasddbdocumentation.jsp. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  34. 34.
    Hudson K, Lifton R, Patrick-Lake B. The precision medicine initiative cohort program—Building a Research Foundation for 21st Century Medicine. Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, ed. 2015.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Curfman G. All-Payer Claims Databases After Gobeille. Health Aff. 2017;3.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Selby JV, Lipstein SH. PCORI at 3 years—progress, lessons, and plans. N Engl J Med 2014;370(7):592–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fung V, Brand R, Newhouse J, Hsu J. Using medicare data for comparative effectiveness research–opportunities and challenges. Am J Manag Care 2011;17(7):488.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Birkhead GS, Klompas M, Shah NR. Uses of electronic health records for public health surveillance to advance public health. Annu Rev Public Health 2015;36:345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Calderwood MS, Platt R, Hou X, et al. Real-time surveillance for tuberculosis using electronic health record data from an ambulatory practice in eastern Massachusetts. Public Health Rep 2010;125(6):843–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Biering-Sørensen F, Charlifue S, DeVivo MJ, Grinnon ST, Kleitman N, Lu Y, et al. Incorporation of the international spinal cord injury data set elements into the national institute of neurological disorders and stroke common data elements. Spinal Cord 2011;49(1):60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soojin Min
    • 1
  • Laurie T. Martin
    • 2
  • Carolyn M. Rutter
    • 2
  • Thomas W. Concannon
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Economic, Political and Policy SciencesThe University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  2. 2.The RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  3. 3.Tufts Clinical and Translational Science InstituteTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations