Validity and Predictors of Medical Claims Coding for the Identification of Patients with Obesity

Background The evolving obesity treatment landscape requires examining clinical and economic outcomes, but ICD-10-CM coding inconsistencies hinder patient identification in claims databases. Objectives This study aims to validate obesity diagnosis codes and identify factors influencing their utilization. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized claims and clinical data from the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD®) to identify adults with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, spanning the period from June 2021 to October 2022. The study examined the use of ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for obesity across two distinct timeframes: a 6-month period before and after the index date for prevalence and modeling purposes, and a 60-day window around the index date for validity calculations. For validation, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ICD-10-CM codes were measured, classifying patients as true or false positives or negatives based on their BMI and coding presence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors predicting obesity coding, guided by clinical reasoning, statistical results, and refined through backward elimination regression. Results Out of 2 218 115 patients with available BMI data during the relevant period, 966 427 (44%) had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or above. The study identified 380,606 true positives, 17 422 false positives, 1 234 266 true negatives, and 585 821 false negatives, resulting in a PPV of 95.6%, a NPV of 67.8%, a specificity of 98.6%, and a sensitivity of 39.4%. The prevalence of obesity coding was 54%. Increased likelihood of coding was associated with being female, over the age of 24, non-White, insured by Medicare Advantage, having lower socioeconomic status, higher BMI, and receiving weight management interventions. Conclusion ICD-10-CM codes demonstrate high specificity and PPV but low sensitivity, indicating that while coded cases are likely true obesity, many patients with obesity are not captured in claims.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of health economics and outcomes research
Published
2026-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36469/001c.164460
Primary Topic
Medical Coding and Health Information
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validity and Predictors of Medical Claims Coding for the Identification of Patients with Obesity

Effie Kuti, Christopher L. Crowe, Emma Richard, Vincent Willey et al.
Journal of health economics and outcomes research
Medical Coding and Health Information
article

Validity and Predictors of Medical Claims Coding for the Identification of Patients with Obesity

Effie Kuti, Christopher L. Crowe, Emma Richard, Vincent Willey, Kevin Schott, Bonnie Donato
article en

Abstract

Background The evolving obesity treatment landscape requires examining clinical and economic outcomes, but ICD-10-CM coding inconsistencies hinder patient identification in claims databases. Objectives This study aims to validate obesity diagnosis codes and identify factors influencing their utilization. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized claims and clinical data from the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD®) to identify adults with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, spanning the period from June 2021 to October 2022. The study examined the use of ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for obesity across two distinct timeframes: a 6-month period before and after the index date for prevalence and modeling purposes, and a 60-day window around the index date for validity calculations. For validation, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ICD-10-CM codes were measured, classifying patients as true or false positives or negatives based on their BMI and coding presence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors predicting obesity coding, guided by clinical reasoning, statistical results, and refined through backward elimination regression. Results Out of 2 218 115 patients with available BMI data during the relevant period, 966 427 (44%) had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or above. The study identified 380,606 true positives, 17 422 false positives, 1 234 266 true negatives, and 585 821 false negatives, resulting in a PPV of 95.6%, a NPV of 67.8%, a specificity of 98.6%, and a sensitivity of 39.4%. The prevalence of obesity coding was 54%. Increased likelihood of coding was associated with being female, over the age of 24, non-White, insured by Medicare Advantage, having lower socioeconomic status, higher BMI, and receiving weight management interventions. Conclusion ICD-10-CM codes demonstrate high specificity and PPV but low sensitivity, indicating that while coded cases are likely true obesity, many patients with obesity are not captured in claims.

Journal of health economics and outcomes researchVol. 13(2)
Wilmington University (US), Boehringer Ingelheim (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Medical Coding and Health Information
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.