• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

识别风险调整中由多个属性定义的补偿不足群体。

Identifying undercompensated groups defined by multiple attributes in risk adjustment.

机构信息

PhD Candidate in Health Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care & Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021 Sep;28(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100414.

DOI:10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100414
PMID:34535447
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8451283/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To identify undercompensated groups in plan payment risk adjustment that are defined by multiple attributes with a systematic new approach, improving on the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of existing evaluations.

METHODS

Extending the concept of variable importance for single attributes, we construct a measure of 'group importance' in the random forests algorithm to identify groups with multiple attributes that are undercompensated by current risk adjustment formulas. Using 2016-2018 IBM MarketScan and 2015-2018 Medicare claims and enrolment data, we evaluate two risk adjustment scenarios: the risk adjustment formula used in the individual health insurance Marketplaces and the risk adjustment formula used in Medicare.

RESULTS

A number of previously unidentified groups with multiple chronic conditions are undercompensated in the Marketplaces risk adjustment formula, while groups without chronic conditions tend to be overcompensated in the Marketplaces. The magnitude of undercompensation when defining groups with multiple attributes is many times larger than with single attributes. No complex groups were found to be consistently undercompensated or overcompensated in the Medicare risk adjustment formula.

CONCLUSIONS

Our method is effective at identifying complex undercompensated groups in health plan payment risk adjustment where undercompensation creates incentives for insurers to discriminate against these groups. This work provides policy-makers with new information on potential targets of discrimination in the healthcare system and a path towards more equitable health coverage.

摘要

目的

通过一种系统的新方法,识别支付计划风险调整中被多个属性定义的补偿不足群体,改进现有评估方法的任意性和不一致性。

方法

扩展单一属性的变量重要性概念,我们在随机森林算法中构建了一种“群体重要性”度量方法,以识别当前风险调整公式补偿不足的多属性群体。利用 2016-2018 年 IBM MarketScan 和 2015-2018 年医疗保险索赔和参保数据,我们评估了两种风险调整情景:医疗保险市场中使用的风险调整公式和医疗保险中使用的风险调整公式。

结果

在医疗保险市场风险调整公式中,一些以前未被识别的具有多种慢性病的群体被补偿不足,而没有慢性病的群体在医疗保险市场中往往被过度补偿。当用多个属性定义群体时,补偿不足的程度比用单一属性时要大得多。在医疗保险风险调整公式中,没有发现复杂群体被一致地补偿不足或过度补偿。

结论

我们的方法能够有效地识别医疗保险支付风险调整中复杂的补偿不足群体,补偿不足会导致保险公司对这些群体产生歧视。这项工作为政策制定者提供了医疗保健系统中潜在歧视目标的新信息,以及实现更公平的医疗保险覆盖的途径。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29e0/8451283/6471a4aea74b/bmjhci-2021-100414f03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29e0/8451283/fe04806df5c0/bmjhci-2021-100414f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29e0/8451283/517f3dc56ae2/bmjhci-2021-100414f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29e0/8451283/6471a4aea74b/bmjhci-2021-100414f03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29e0/8451283/fe04806df5c0/bmjhci-2021-100414f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29e0/8451283/517f3dc56ae2/bmjhci-2021-100414f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29e0/8451283/6471a4aea74b/bmjhci-2021-100414f03.jpg

相似文献

1
Identifying undercompensated groups defined by multiple attributes in risk adjustment.识别风险调整中由多个属性定义的补偿不足群体。
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2021 Sep;28(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100414.
2
Turmoil in the Health Insurance Marketplaces.医疗保险市场的动荡。
LDI Issue Brief. 2016 Oct;21(1):1-5.
3
The power of reinsurance in health insurance exchanges to improve the fit of the payment system and reduce incentives for adverse selection.再保险在医疗保险交易所中改善支付系统适配性并减少逆向选择诱因的作用。
Inquiry. 2013 Nov;50(4):255-74. doi: 10.1177/0046958014538913.
4
Fair regression for health care spending.公平回归医疗支出。
Biometrics. 2020 Sep;76(3):973-982. doi: 10.1111/biom.13206. Epub 2020 Jan 6.
5
Estimated Costs of a Reinsurance Program to Stabilize the Individual Health Insurance Market: National- and State-Level Estimates.稳定个人健康保险市场的再保险计划的估计成本:国家和州层面的估计。
Inquiry. 2019 Jan-Dec;56:46958019836060. doi: 10.1177/0046958019836060.
6
The Big Five Health Insurers' Membership And Revenue Trends: Implications For Public Policy.五大健康保险公司的会员和收入趋势:对公共政策的影响。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Dec;36(12):2185-2194. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0858.
7
How Insurers Competed in the Affordable Care Act's First Year.保险公司在《平价医疗法案》实施第一年的竞争方式。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2015 Jun;18:1-16.
8
Regulated Medicare Advantage And Marketplace Individual Health Insurance Markets Rely On Insurer Competition.规范的联邦医疗保险优势计划和市场个人医疗保险市场依赖于保险公司之间的竞争。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Sep 1;36(9):1578-1584. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0613.
9
Improving risk equalization for individuals with persistently high costs: Experiences from the Netherlands.提高持续高额费用个体的风险均衡:荷兰的经验。
Health Policy. 2017 Nov;121(11):1169-1176. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.09.007. Epub 2017 Sep 14.
10
Does Risk Adjustment Reduce Vaccination in the Elderly? Evidence From Medicare Advantage.风险调整是否会降低老年人的疫苗接种率?来自 Medicare Advantage 的证据。
Med Care Res Rev. 2020 Apr;77(2):176-186. doi: 10.1177/1077558718785559. Epub 2018 Jul 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Algorithms to Improve Fairness in Medicare Risk Adjustment.改善医疗保险风险调整公平性的算法
JAMA Health Forum. 2025 Aug 1;6(8):e252640. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.2640.
2
Assessing Algorithmic Fairness With a Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Model in Men of African and Non-African Origin on NRG Oncology Prostate Cancer Phase III Trials.在NRG肿瘤学前列腺癌III期试验中,使用多模态人工智能模型评估非洲裔和非非洲裔男性的算法公平性。
JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2025 May;9:e2400284. doi: 10.1200/CCI-24-00284. Epub 2025 May 9.
3
Algorithms to Improve Fairness in Medicare Risk Adjustment.

本文引用的文献

1
Improving the Performance of Risk Adjustment Systems: Constrained Regressions, Reinsurance, and Variable Selection.提升风险调整系统的性能:约束回归、再保险与变量选择
Am J Health Econ. 2021 Fall;7(4):497-521. doi: 10.1086/716199. Epub 2021 Oct 4.
2
Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare.医疗保健中的伦理机器学习。
Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2021 Jul;4:123-144. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-092820-114757. Epub 2021 May 6.
3
All Models are Wrong, but are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneously.
改善医疗保险风险调整公平性的算法
medRxiv. 2025 Jan 27:2025.01.25.25321057. doi: 10.1101/2025.01.25.25321057.
4
The Challenges Ahead: Concepts, Analytics, and Ethics of Value-Based Care in Applied Behavior Analysis.未来的挑战:应用行为分析中基于价值的护理的概念、分析方法与伦理
Behav Anal Pract. 2024 Jun 5;17(4):949-966. doi: 10.1007/s40617-024-00937-x. eCollection 2024 Dec.
5
A framework for ex-ante evaluation of the potential effects of risk equalization and risk sharing in health insurance markets with regulated competition.一个用于对具有监管竞争的健康保险市场中风险均等化和风险分担的潜在影响进行事前评估的框架。
Health Econ Rev. 2024 Jul 24;14(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13561-024-00540-4.
6
Health equity assessment of machine learning performance (HEAL): a framework and dermatology AI model case study.机器学习性能的健康公平性评估(HEAL):一个框架及皮肤病学人工智能模型案例研究
EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Mar 14;70:102479. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102479. eCollection 2024 Apr.
7
Scope and Incentives for Risk Selection in Health Insurance Markets With Regulated Competition: A Conceptual Framework and International Comparison.具有监管竞争的健康保险市场中的风险选择范围和激励措施:概念框架与国际比较。
Med Care Res Rev. 2024 Jun;81(3):175-194. doi: 10.1177/10775587231222584. Epub 2024 Jan 29.
8
Emerging approaches to multiple chronic condition assessment.新兴的多重慢性病评估方法。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Sep;70(9):2498-2507. doi: 10.1111/jgs.17914. Epub 2022 Jun 14.
9
Operationalising fairness in medical algorithms.实现医学算法中的公平性
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2022 Jun;29(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2022-100617.
所有模型都是有缺陷的,但都是有用的:通过同时研究一整个类别的预测模型来了解变量的重要性。
J Mach Learn Res. 2019;20.
4
Fair regression for health care spending.公平回归医疗支出。
Biometrics. 2020 Sep;76(3):973-982. doi: 10.1111/biom.13206. Epub 2020 Jan 6.
5
Advertising and Risk Selection in Health Insurance Markets.医疗保险市场中的广告与风险选择。
Am Econ Rev. 2018 Mar;108(3):828-67.
6
Random Forests Based Group Importance Scores and Their Statistical Interpretation: Application for Alzheimer's Disease.基于随机森林的组重要性得分及其统计解释:在阿尔茨海默病中的应用
Front Neurosci. 2018 Jun 29;12:411. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00411. eCollection 2018.
7
Robust Machine Learning Variable Importance Analyses of Medical Conditions for Health Care Spending.医疗支出的医学状况稳健机器学习变量重要性分析。
Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct;53(5):3836-3854. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12848. Epub 2018 Mar 11.
8
Exploring the predictive power of interaction terms in a sophisticated risk equalization model using regression trees.使用回归树探索复杂风险均衡模型中交互项的预测能力。
Health Econ. 2018 Feb;27(2):e1-e12. doi: 10.1002/hec.3523. Epub 2017 May 23.
9
Computational health economics for identification of unprofitable health care enrollees.用于识别无盈利性医疗保健参保人的计算健康经济学
Biostatistics. 2017 Oct 1;18(4):682-694. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxx012.
10
Risk-Adjustment Simulation: Plans May Have Incentives To Distort Mental Health And Substance Use Coverage.风险调整模拟:计划可能存在扭曲心理健康和物质使用保险范围的激励措施。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Jun 1;35(6):1022-8. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1668.