2016
DOI: 10.1097/mlr.0000000000000073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of SEER Treatment Data With Medicare Claims

Abstract: Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
337
4
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 405 publications
(351 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(24 reference statements)
9
337
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, consistent reporting by Medicare of whether a patient received chemotherapy varies according to the primary cancer site, with overall sensitivity ranges between 7.2% and 84.4%. 43 Additionally, only intravenous or intravenous-equivalent drugs are claimed in Medicare, which would bias the data toward specific drugs. It is therefore important for future studies to further investigate the role of this important treatment modality.…”
Section: Neurooncologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, consistent reporting by Medicare of whether a patient received chemotherapy varies according to the primary cancer site, with overall sensitivity ranges between 7.2% and 84.4%. 43 Additionally, only intravenous or intravenous-equivalent drugs are claimed in Medicare, which would bias the data toward specific drugs. It is therefore important for future studies to further investigate the role of this important treatment modality.…”
Section: Neurooncologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17,18 The Medicare files used included the Patient Entitlement and Diagnosis Summary File, the Outpatient file (institutional Medicare Part B claims), the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file (inpatient Medicare Part A claims), the National Claims History file (provider Medicare Part B claims), Durable Medical Equipment files, and Medicare Part D file (prescription drug coverage for beneficiaries who purchase the benefit; ;60% of the beneficiaries). 19 …”
Section: Data Sourcementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it remains possible that information from those patients who had missing data could significantly alter results in either direction. Additionally, there have been reports that SEER underreports RT use, potentially missing approximately 20 % of patients treated with RT, which could further confound any analysis of the effect of RT [39,40]. This inherently limits the length of follow up in this cohort, which only reached a median of 4 years.…”
Section: Metro/non-metro Effectsmentioning
confidence: 84%