The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Health care databases provide a widely used source of data for health care research, but their accuracy remains uncertain. We analyzed data from the 1985 National DRG Validation Study, which carefully reabstracted and reassigned ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes from a national sample of 7050 medical records, to determine whether coding accuracy had improved since the Institute of Medicine studies of the 1970s and to assess the current coding accuracy of specific diagnoses and procedures. METHODS. We defined agreement as the proportion of all reabstracted records that had the same principal diagnosis or procedure coded on both the original (hospital) record and on the reabstracted record. We also evaluated coding accuracy in 1985 using the concepts of diagnostic test evaluation. RESULTS. Overall, the percentage of agreement between the principal diagnosis on the reabstracted record and the original hospital record, when analyzed at the third digit, improved from 73.2% in 1977 to 78.2% in 1985. However, analysis of the 1985 data demonstrated that the accuracy of diagnosis and procedure coding varies substantially across conditions. CONCLUSIONS. Although some diagnoses and all major surgical procedures that we examined were accurately coded, the variability in the accuracy of diagnosis coding poses a problem that must be overcome if claims-based research is to achieve its full potential.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nonadherence to adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in women with primary breast cancer
Partridge, A. H., Wang, P. S., Winer, E. P., & Avorn, J. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.07.071 · Cited by 676
Dementia Risk After Traumatic Brain Injury vs Nonbrain Trauma: The Role of Age and Severity
Gardner, R. C., Burke, J. F., Nettiksimmons, J., Kaup, A., Barnes, D. E., & Yaffe, K. (2014) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.2668 · Cited by 451
Hospital Volume and Operative Mortality in the Modern Era
Reames, B. N., Ghaferi, A. A., Birkmeyer, J. D., & Dimick, J. B. (2014) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000375 · Cited by 445
The Accuracy of Medicare Claims as an Epidemiological Tool: The Case of Dementia Revisited
Taylor, Jr., Østbye, T., Langa, K. M., Weir, D., & Plassman, B. L. (2009) · Journal of Alzheimer's Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-2009-1099 · Cited by 354
Clinical characteristics and economic costs of patients with painful neuropathic disorders
Berger, A., Dukes, E. M., & Oster, G. (2004) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2003.12.004 · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, E. S., Whaley, F. S., Krushat, W. M., Malenka, D. J., Fleming, C., Baron, J. A., & Hsia, D. C.
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 1992-02
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 243-248
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- OpenAlex
- W2104333617
- Cited by
- 709
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2105/ajph.82.2.243
- The paper
- Fisher, E. S., Whaley, F. S., Krushat, W. M., Malenka, D. J., Fleming, C., Baron, J. A., & Hsia, D. C. (1992). The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain. American Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.82.2.243
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.