Comparison of Approaches to Select a Propensity Score Matched Control Group in the Absence of an Obvious Start of Follow Up for this Group: An Example Study on the Economic Impact of the DMP Bronchial Asthma

Background Claims data are a valuable data source to investigate the economic impact of new health care services. While the date of enrollment into the new service is an obvious start of follow-up for participants, the strategy to select potential controls is not straightforward due to a missing start of follow-up to ascertain possible confounders. The aim of this study was to compare different approaches to select controls via Propensity Score Matching (PSM) using the disease management program (DMP) bronchial asthma (BA) as an example. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of BA patients between 2013 and 2016 to examine total one-year health care costs and all-cause mortality. We implemented different scenarios regarding the selection of potential controls: I) allotment of a random index date with subsequent PSM, II) calendar year-based PSM (landmark analysis) and III) calendar quarter-based PSM. In scenario I, we applied 2 approaches to assign a random index date: a) assign random index date among all quarters with a BA diagnosis and b) assign random index date and thereafter examine if a BA diagnosis was documented in that quarter. Results No significant differences in total one-year health care costs between DMP BA participants and non-participants were observed in any of the scenarios. This could to some extent be explained by the higher mortality in the control groups in all scenarios. Conclusion If the loss of potential controls can be compensated, scenario Ib is a pragmatic option to select a control group. If that is not the case, scenario III is the more sophisticated approach, with the limitation that baseline characteristics prior PSM cannot be depicted and computational time or memory size needed to conduct the analysis need to be sufficient.