Predicting Costs of Care Using a Pharmacy-Based Measure Risk Adjustment in a Veteran Population

Published in: Medical Care, v. 41, no. 6, June 2003, p. 753-760

Posted on on January 01, 2003

by Anne E. Sales, Chuan-Fen Liu, Kevin L. Sloan, Jesse D. Malkin, Paul A. Fishman, Amy K. Rosen, Susan Loveland, W. Paul Nichol, Norman T. Suzuki, Edward Perrin, et al.

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: Although most widely used risk adjustment systems use diagnosis data to classify patients, there is growing interest in risk adjustment based on computerized pharmacy data. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is an ideal environment in which to test the efficacy of a pharmacy-based approach. OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of RxRisk-V to predict concurrent and prospective costs of care in VHA and compare the performance of RxRisk-V to a simple age/gender model, the original RxRisk, and two leading diagnosis-based risk adjustment approaches: Adjusted Clinical Groups and Diagnostic Cost Groups/Hierarchical Condition Categories. METHODS: The study population consisted of 161,202 users of VHA services in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska during fiscal years (FY) 1996 to 1998. The authors examined both concurrent and predictive model fit for two sequential 12-month periods (FY 98 and FY 99) with the patient-year as the unit of analysis, using split-half validation. RESULTS: Our results show that the Diagnostic Cost Group /Hierarchical Condition Categories model performs best (R2 = 0.45) among concurrent cost models, followed by ADG (0.31), RxRisk-V (0.20), and age/sex model (0.01). However, prospective cost models other than age/sex showed comparable R2: Diagnostic Cost Group /Hierarchical Condition Categories R2 = 0.15, followed by ADG (0.12), RxRisk-V (0.12), and age/sex (0.01). CONCLUSIONS: RxRisk-V is a clinically relevant, open source risk adjustment system that is easily tailored to fit specific questions, populations, or needs. Although it does not perform better than diagnosis-based measures available on the market, it may provide a reasonable alternative to proprietary systems where accurate computerized pharmacy data are available.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.