Estimating the completeness of physician billing claims for diabetes case ascertainment: a multiprovince investigation. / Estimation de l'exhaustivité des demandes de remboursement des médecins dans une optique de détermination des cas de diabète : étude menée dans plusieurs provinces.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has suggested that how physicians are paid may affect the completeness of billing claims for estimating chronic disease. The purpose of this study is to estimate the completeness of physician billings for diabetes case ascertainment. METHODS: We used administrative data from eight Canadian provinces covering the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2016. The patient cohort was stratified into two mutually exclusive groups based on their physician remuneration type: fee-for-service (FFS), for those paid only on that basis; and non-fee-for-service (NFFS). Using diabetes prescription drug data as our reference data source, we evaluated whether completeness of disease case ascertainment varied with payment type. Diabetes incidence rates were then adjusted for completeness of ascertainment. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 86 110 patients. Overall, equal proportions received their diabetes medications from FFS and NFFS physicians. Overall, physician payment method had little impact upon the percentage of missed diabetes cases (FFS, 14.8%; NFFS, 12.2%). However, the difference in missed cases between FFS and NFFS varied widely by province, ranging from -1.0% in Nova Scotia to 29.9% in Newfoundland and Labrador. The difference between the observed and adjusted disease incidence rates also varied by province, ranging from 22% in Prince Edward Island to 4% in Nova Scotia. CONCLUSION: The difference in the loss of cases by physician remuneration method varied across jurisdictions. This loss may contribute to an underestimation of disease incidence. The method we used could be applied to other chronic diseases for which drug therapy could serve as reference data source.

Myocarditis and/or pericarditis risk after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination: A Canadian head to head comparison of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Canadian and international data suggest the risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis is elevated during the week after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in younger age groups, in males, and after second doses. OBJECTIVES: This article examines whether there is a product-specific difference in the risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis between the two mRNA vaccines administered in Canada: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna Spikevax). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reporting rates of myocarditis and/or pericarditis were calculated from reports received by the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System from December 2020-March 2022. Excess cases and attributable incidence among individuals aged 18-39 were estimated for each vaccine in comparison with background rates from 2015 to 2019. Head-to-head comparisons used Poisson regression, conditioned on week of vaccine administration, to estimate rate ratios for the week after mRNA-1273 vaccination versus the week after BNT162b2, by age and sex as well as overall. Analyses were restricted to May 30-March 13, 2021, when heightened media awareness was unlikely to have affected reporting rates for the two products differentially. RESULTS: In 18-29 year-old males who received a second dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, attributable risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis was found to be 5.69 (95% CI: 4.07 - 7.95; p < 0.001) times higher among mRNA-1273 recipients (n = 106) as compared to BNT162b2 recipients (n = 33). In the same group, Poisson regression modelling estimated that the risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis was 4.72 (p-value = <0.001) times higher after mRNA-1723 compared to BNT162b2 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis is higher after mRNA-1723 vaccination than BNT162b2 vaccination in those aged 18-39 years, especially in males aged 18-29 years, where the risk is several times higher.

Population coverage of the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System: a survey of the contents of health insurance registries across Canada. / Couverture de la population dans le Système canadien de surveillance des maladies chroniques : enquête sur le contenu des registres d'assurance-maladie au Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Health insurance registries, which capture insurance coverage and demographic information for entire populations, are a critical component of population health surveillance and research when using administrative data. Lack of standardization of registry information across Canada's provinces and territories could affect the comparability of surveillance measures. We assessed the contents of health insurance registries across Canada to describe the populations covered and document registry similarities and differences. METHODS: A survey about the data and population identifiers in health insurance registries was developed by the study team and representatives from the Public Health Agency of Canada. The survey was completed by key informants from most provinces and territories and then descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Responses were received from all provinces; partial responses were received from the Northwest Territories. Demographic information in health insurance registries, such as primary address, date of birth and sex, were captured in all jurisdictions. Data captured on familial relationships, ethnicity and socioeconomic status varied among jurisdictions, as did start and end dates of coverage and frequency of registry updates. Identifiers for specific populations, such as First Nations individuals, were captured in some, but not all jurisdictions. CONCLUSION: Health insurance registries are a rich source of information about the insured populations of the provinces and territories. However, data heterogeneity may affect who is included and excluded in population surveillance estimates produced using administrative health data. Development of a harmonized data framework could support timely and comparable population health research and surveillance results from multi-jurisdiction studies.