Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The objective of this study was to apply the Knowledge Discovery in Databases process to find out if beneficiaries of a private healthcare insurance would belong, at least once, to the ‘very high cost’ and ‘complex cases’ groups throughout the 12 months after the month when algorithms were applied. Datasets were built containing information on beneficiaries’ effective use of their health plan, as well as their characteristics. Five machine learning algorithms were used, namely Random forest, Extra tree, Xgboost, Naive bayes and K-nearest neighbor. The K-nearest neighbor algorithm had a recall rate of 81.12%, 83.77% precision and an Area Under the Curve (AUC) value of 0.9045. The study also revealed that categorization occurs, on average, 8.11 months before a beneficiary entering, for the first time, a high-risk group, considering the dataset classification from January 2019 to June 2020.

Keywords

data mining healthcare health insurance knowledge discovery in databases machine learning

Introduction

Health is a fundamental right and instrument of citizenship. In 1946 the World Health Organization (WHO) defined health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not just the absence of disease or infirmity.¹ In Brazil, the guarantee of access to health is determined by the Constitution and, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Brazil allocated 9.6% of its GDP to health expenditures in 2019.²

The health system in Brazil is composed of the public and private subsystems. The public subsystem is characterized by the Unified Health System (SUS), which aims to ensure full, universal and free access for the entire population of the country,³ with a tripartite financing model, in which the Union, states and municipalities are responsible for transferring resources to the SUS.⁴ Meanwhile, the private subsystem is represented by two models: the classic model, in which the patient makes direct payment to the service provider through their own resources, and also by the supplementary health model, which is formed by the services financed by the health plan providers.⁵ The performance of the private sector in health enables access to health services for a significant portion of the Brazilian population, as it makes up for the inefficiencies of the public sector. In 2019, health plan providers were responsible for serving 47.07 million beneficiaries,⁶ representing 22.2% of the Brazilian population. In addition, health in Brazil is more dependent on the private subsystem when compared to other countries,² financing 55% of health expenditures, while the total observed in OECD countries was 25%.

However, despite the economic representativeness and the number of beneficiaries assisted, health care providers in Brazil face a scenario of uncertainty. The loss ratio of providers, which is the expenditure-to-revenue ratio, was 83.24% in 2019.⁶ In recent decades, 564 health care providers have ceased their activities, with the number of providers dropping from 1289 in December 2000, to 725 in December 2019.⁶ In addition, between 2014 and 2019, Brazil went through a period of economic downturn, in which GDP shrank on average 0.3% per year,⁷ impacting the generation and maintenance of jobs, seeing a decrease of 3.46 million beneficiaries in the same period.⁶

From a financial standpoint, projections indicate that Brazil’s health expenditure in relation to GDP can grow from 9.6% in 2019 to 12.6% in 2040, perhaps even up to 13.3% considering additional cost pressures.² This increase surpasses the estimates for the OECD countries, which averages at 10.8% in 2040.

Given this scenario, techniques should be adopted that enable the creation of effective strategies and assist managers in decision making. In health, data is an important raw material and is present in the various stages of the process, from the request for health services by individuals and execution of care by health professionals, to the allocation of goods and human resources. KDD (Knowledge Discovery in Databases) is the nontrivial process of identifying patterns in valid, novel, potentially useful and understandable data.⁸ Applied to the context of health, the KDD process can assist in interpreting consumption patterns, predict deterioration in a patient’s general health condition, or even determine the transition between risk levels of a hospitalized patient, etc.

Studies show that a small group of beneficiaries tends to have high representation in medical expenses and, consequently, should be evidenced and analyzed in relation to the others.^9–11 Given this perspective, in recent years, initiatives can be observed in the use of algorithms for the identification of high-cost patients.^12–18

With this, motivation emerged in identifying high-cost beneficiaries in a private health insurance company. In September 2021, the provider in which the study was conducted had 161,893 beneficiaries, and 1.04% of the beneficiaries with the highest care expenditure represented 34.77% of the costs. The purpose of this work was to identify high-risk beneficiaries using the knowledge discovery process in databases. Thus, with the use of mechanisms to highlight a small group of beneficiaries, the effort of the professionals involved tends to become centralized, in addition to enabling more personalized decision-making.

Materials and methods

This study was carried out in a private healthcare insurance company, in the State of Paraná, Brazil. In 2021, the organization had 161,893 beneficiaries, and its entire network consisted of 843 doctors, 50 clinics and 13 hospitals in 23 different cities. Nevertheless, since the company in question is part of a national private healthcare system, its beneficiaries can be assisted in health care facilities spread across the country. Considering the age range proposed by the National Supplementary Health Agency,¹⁹ which is the entity that regulates private healthcare in Brazil, the profile of the company’s beneficiaries in September 2021 was as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The company’s beneficiaries in september 2021, divided into age groups. Source: the authors.

In the organization in which the study was carried out, considering the costs generated by the beneficiaries, they were divided every month into five risk groups: very high cost, complex cases, chronic illnesses, diagnosed patients and well-being. Users in the ‘very high cost’ and ‘complex cases’ groups represent 1.04% of all beneficiaries. On the other hand, they are responsible for 34.77% of all costs (Table 1).

Table 1.

Stratification of beneficiaries by risk group, average percentage of beneficiaries, and costs to be covered by the healthcare insurance company.

Description	Number of beneficiaries(%)	Costs(%)
1 – Very high cost	0.03	5.32
2 – Complex cases	1.01	29.45
3 – Chronic illnesses	5.85	27.19
4 – Diagnosed patients	6.60	12.01
5 – Well-being	86.51	26.02

Source: the authors

Comparing the very high cost and complex cases groups with the other risk groups, some relevant characteristics can be observed, such as the average expenditure of beneficiaries in the highest risk strata in September 2021 was USD 2190.68, representing a value 50.6 times higher than the average expenditure of a beneficiary present in the other strata, which was USD 43.29. In the 12-month period prior to the month analyzed, 73.99% of the beneficiaries in the strata with the highest assistance risk had some hospitalization, while 9.87% of beneficiaries in the other strata were hospitalized. Finally, 48.40% of the beneficiaries have some propensity for disease, while 14.28% of beneficiaries in the other strata have some propensity. In Table 2 it is possible to observe the main characteristics of the beneficiaries of the very high cost and complex cases strata compared to the others.

Table 2.

Comparison of the characteristics belonging to beneficiaries of the very high cost and complex cases strata in relation to the other risk strata.

Characteristic	Very high cost and complex cases	Other strata
Average number of beneficiaries	1688 benefs	160,205 benefs
Average age	53.5 years	37.66 years
Male	53.32%	49.67%
Women	46.68%	50.33%
Average monthly spend	USD 2190.68	USD 43.29
Average number of consultations in the last 12 months per beneficiary	7.81 consultations	2,57 consultations
Average number of hospitalizations in the last 12 months per beneficiary	1.74 hospitalization	0.13 hospitalization
Percentage of beneficiaries hospitalized in the last 12 months	73.99%	9.87%
Percentage of beneficiaries with clinical hospitalization in the last 12 months	56.64%	4.10%
Percentage of beneficiaries with clinical surgical hospitalization in the last 12 months	34.36%	5.90%
Percentage of beneficiaries with some propensity for disease	48.40%	14.28%
Percentage of beneficiaries with a propensity for diabetes	41.94%	12.02%
Percentage of beneficiaries with a propensity for hypertension	7.29%	1.93%

Source: the authors

The objective of this study was to discover if beneficiaries would belong, at least once, to the ‘very high cost’ and ‘complex cases’ groups in the 12 months after the month when machine learning was applied. For the execution of the study’s experiments, we adopted a process based on KDD (Knowledge Discovery in Databases),⁸ thus following the steps: selection, preprocessing, transformation, data mining and interpretation.

Selection

Data selection consists of creating a dataset on which knowledge discovery must be performed.⁸ For the formation of datasets for the period between January 2019 and June 2020, for the training, testing, classification activities, in addition to the validation of the values obtained by the machine learning process, data from the period between January 2017 and July 2021 were used, provided by organization, collected from the organization’s management system and data warehouse, totaling 54 different data files. All the data was anonymized to avoid exposing sensitive beneficiaries’ data.

The dataset was built from the information referring to the 18 months prior to the month analyzed, consisting of 118 variables divided into eight information groups, namely, information on the beneficiaries, medical specialty of the professional who requested assistance, assistance procedures, frequency of claims, types of assistance, categories of hospitalization, disease propensity and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) found in medical records. In the dataset, each line represents an active beneficiary in the target month. For example, in January 2019, 139,833 active beneficiaries are observed. Therefore, the dataset used for the classification task consists of 139,833 lines (ignoring the header). To assess the accuracy of the algorithm, the target class was entered, informing whether the beneficiary will be in the “Very high cost” and “Complex cases” risk groups in the next 12 months. In Figure 2, it is possible to observe the schematization of the formation of the data file using the month of January 2019 as an example.

Figure 2.

Schematic of a record present in the dataset. Source: the authors.

Regarding training tasks and tests of the machine learning process, information related to 18 months prior to the month analyzed was used, and the records for each month were randomly divided into a 90/10 proportion (90% training and 10% testing). This balanced division of records over time aims to reduce the impact of claims’ seasonality on the classification process. In this study, we chose to divide the datasets for the classification and testing tasks, instead of using cross-validation. This is due to the fact that the dataset for training is on average 9 times larger than that of tests and on average 16 times greater than the set used for the classification task, and preliminary tests showed that the gain in recall rate was not significant enough to justify the computational increase by the use of cross-validation.

The datasets (training, testing and classification) involved in the process have the same characteristics, meaning active beneficiaries in each month, variables, risk class etc. It is worth noting that all active beneficiaries in each month are included in the dataset, with no chance of any of them being removed for any reason. Therefore, beneficiaries who had joined the plan recently and those excluded before the end of the 12-month period were also considered in the analysis. Furthermore, no process of dimensionality reduction or treatment of unbalanced data was applied to the datasets.

Preprocessing

The preprocessing stage aims to improve the quality of the data that will be used for the transformation, applying operations such as noise elimination, missing value treatment and outlier correction.⁸

The data were extracted from the operator’s data warehouse environment, so it was only necessary to process some records, as the process of noise elimination and consolidating information had already been carried out previously by the organization. Regarding the treatment of missing values, 67 beneficiaries were observed who did not have the age group information, consequently causing an error during the execution of the machine learning algorithms. For these cases, the missing value was replaced by the number 0 (zero). It is worth noting that the number of records with a missing age group was not very representative in the study. Considering all datasets from January 2019 to June 2020, 2.5 million beneficiaries are observed that make up these datasets.

Regarding outliers, it was not necessary to carry out any type of treatment since, with the exception of the primary key of the beneficiary and the age group, all other variables are binary, evidently preventing the presence of values outside the 0 and one range.

Transformation

The data transformation step consists of finding useful resources to represent the data that will be used in the data mining step.⁸

For the data set used in the classification process, information was defined that could highlight the common characteristics of the beneficiaries present in the “Very high cost” and “Complex cases” risk groups, distinguishing them from the beneficiaries in the other groups. The dataset used for the classification was composed of 118 variables (considering the primary key of identification for the beneficiary and in the training and testing masses the binary variable of classification). The information chosen for the composition of the datasets can be observed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Groups of information used to build the dataset.

Information type	No. of variables	Method
Beneficiary data	5	—
Medical specialty of the professional who requested assistance	36	Ratio between strata
Assistance procedures	40	Ratio between strata
Types of assistance	11	Ratio between strata
Categories of hospitalization	1	Ratio between strata
Frequency of claims	12	Average of high-risk groups
Disease propensity	7	Average of high-risk groups
International classification of diseases (ICD-10) used for medical records	6	Ratio between strata

Source: the authors

For information related to the “medical specialty of the professional who requested assistance”, “Assistance procedures”, “Types of assistance”, “Categories of hospitalization” and “International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) used for medical records” the difference in proportion between the risk strata was used, and the greater the difference between the proportions, the greater the priority of the variable in the dataset. While for the “frequency of requests for assistance” and “propensity to disease” types, the observed average for beneficiaries belonging to the “Very high cost” and “Complex cases” classes was defined. Regarding the ICD-10, only a small number of medical bills have it (about 10% in the observed period), this is due to the fact that the ICD is not mandatory information.

As discussed earlier, with the exception of attributes related to the primary key and age group, all other attributes were represented using binary values, with the number 1 (one) representing the existence of the value, while the number 0 (zero) represents the absence of the value. This decision was made so that values present in certain attributes don’t negatively impact the learning of the model. In Figure 3, it is possible to observe the process of extracting the data sets, using the month of January 2019 as a pivot.

Figure 3.

Creation of the dataset used in the machine learning process. Source: the authors.

Data mining

The data mining step is the search for patterns of interest according to the objective established for the activity, such as classification, regression, association and grouping. Emphasizing that the proper execution of the previous steps can significantly help in this step.⁸

After the datasets were created, the machine learning algorithms Random forest,²⁰ Extra tree,²¹ Xgboost,²² K-nearest neighbor²³ and Naive bayes²⁴ were used to classify all beneficiaries. It is worth mentioning that preliminary tests showed that these algorithms obtained the best results. Python 3.6.8 was used for the experiments. Extra tree, Random forest, KNN and Naive bayes algorithms are present in the scikit-learn library (version 0.24.2) and Xgboost (version 1.5.1).

First, it was necessary to define what the best parameters for the execution of the algorithms would be. To automate the parameter testing process, GridSearchCV was used for the Extra tree, Random forest, Xgboost and KNN algorithms. The tests used cross validation, which consists of dividing the dataset into equal parts defined by the value “k” and the training, and evaluation activities are performed so that each iteration uses a part of the dataset.²⁵ To conduct the tests, the value “k = 10” was used in the training set for the month of June 2020. The process of evaluating the parameters for the algorithms took a total of 27 days, 7 h, 16 min and 51 s. On the other hand, to analyze the performance of Naive bayes, four different implementations were tested (BernoulliNB, CategoricalNB, GaussianNB and MultinomialNB), using the data sets for the period from January 2019 to June 2020, totaling 72 tests. This decision was made due to the fact that different Naive bayes implementations do not have a wide variety of parameters and values. The computational time of all tests related to Naive bayes was 27 min and 45 s.

In summary, in Table 4, it is possible to observe the main information regarding the tests of the chosen algorithms. In Table 5, it is possible to observe the values obtained for the parameters and, in the following sections, the main observations related to the tests of each of the algorithms are presented.

Table 4.

Summary of the results obtained in the parameter tests.

Algorithm	Qty. of tests	Best recall(%)	Execution time
Extra Tree	1680	77.26	8 days, 14 h, 37 min and 57 s
Random Forest	1680	75.89	5 days, 17 h, 56 min and 51 s
XGBoost	2520	80.31	6 days, 32 min and 24 s
KNN	120	84.92	8 days, 22 h and 9 min
Naive Bayes	72	67.45	27 min and 45 s

Source: the authors

Table 5.

Algorithms and parameters used in the machine learning process.

Algorithm	Parameters
Random Forest	n_estimators = 1000, criterion = ‘gini’, min_samples_split = 2, min_samples_leaf = 1, n_jobs = −1
Extra Tree	n_estimators = 500, criterion = ‘gini’, min_samples_split = 2, min_samples_leaf = 1, n_jobs = −1
XGBoost	n_estimators = 1000, booster = ‘gbtree’, max_depth = 15, subsample = 1, verbosity = 0, n_jobs = −1
KNN	n_neighbors = 1, metric = ‘minkowski’, algorithm = ‘auto’, weights = ‘distance’, p = 2, n_jobs = −1
Naive Bayes	GaussianNB()

Source: the authors

After defining the best parameters, machine learning algorithms were used to classify the information present in the data sets from January 2019 to June 2020, and the results obtained were used to compare the algorithms and to assess the beneficiary transition across risk groups and cost evolution.

Interpretation

Interpreting the data involves viewing the extracted patterns and models or viewing the data provided by the models.⁸ Since this study used machine learning algorithms to classify health plan beneficiaries as part of high risk groups, its confusion matrix was the resource used to evaluate the algorithms’ execution. A Confusion Matrix is an effective descriptive resource for organizing and presenting results,²⁶ combining observed values with predicted ones. Based on the confusion matrix, four metrics, namely recall, accuracy, precision and F1-Score were chosen to evaluate the results (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Confusion matrix layout. Source: the authors.

As discussed earlier, in the present study, the positive classification is represented by the incidence of the beneficiary’s entry into the very high cost risk groups and complex cases in the next 12 months in relation to the base month. The formulas of the metrics chosen for the evaluation of the algorithms can be seen in equations (1) through (4), adapted from.²⁷

Recall = \frac{TP}{TP + FN}

(1)

Accuracy = \frac{TP + TN}{TP + FP + TN + FN}

(2)

Precision = \frac{TP}{TP + FP}

(3)

F 1 Score = 2 * \frac{Precision * Recall}{Precision + Recall}

(4)

In addition to the confusion matrix and the aforementioned metrics, the ROC/AUC curve was used to evaluate the machine learning algorithms. The ROC curve (Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) is obtained by the true positive rate and the false positive rate, whereas the AUC (Area Under the Curve) is determined by trapezoidal integration, after obtaining the points on the ROC curve. The AUC represents the probability of obtaining true-positive and true-negative results, at random.^27,28

Results

Machine learning algorithms were used to classify the information present in the data sets from January 2019 to June 2020, and the results obtained were applied to the confusion matrix. Due to the fact that binary values (1-Yes; 0-No) are used to represent the incidence of the beneficiary in the strata of greater assistance risk (target class), only four logical values are possible: true-positive, false-positive, false-negative and true-negative. Figure 5 shows the average results obtained by each algorithm over the analyzed period applied to the confusion matrix.

Figure 5.

Results of the algorithms applied to the confusion matrix. Source: the authors.

Recall helps to understand the number of beneficiaries who are correctly classified within the high-risk groups (true-positive) in relation to all beneficiaries classified (false-negative and true-positive). It is the most relevant metric, taking into consideration the objective of this study. Regarding execution of the machine learning algorithms throughout the analysis period, the average values are shown in Table 4. The recall rate ranged from 67.45% to 81.12% (values obtained by the Naive bayes and KNN algorithms, respectively).

Precision represents the number of true-positive results in relation to all positive classifications (true-positive and false-positive). It is an important metric for the study, as it characterizes the probability of a beneficiary classified as positive for incidence in the high-risk groups to have been correctly classified. Extra tree was the algorithm with the best precision (90.99%) rate, while Naive bayes had the worst one (11.22%).

The F1-Score is the combination of precision and recall, combining them into a single value. K-nearest neighbor had the best average rate (82.42%). Random forest, Extra tree and Xgboost achieved rates similar to each other, with little variability over the months. Naive bayes had the worst performance (19.24%).

Accuracy aims to evaluate the quantity of correct values (true-positive and true-negative) obtained during the classification process in relation to the dataset. Except for Naive bayes (with an average of 90.05%), the average accuracy rate of all the other algorithms was equal to or greater than 99.3%. The unbalance within the dataset helps to explain the accuracy rate obtained by the algorithms, since beneficiaries from the high-risk groups represent about 1% of the total number of beneficiaries.

Based on the execution of the learning algorithms during the evaluation period, the mean AUC values ranged from 0.8546 to 0.9650, respectively obtained by the Naive bayes and Random forest algorithms. Random forest, Extra tree and Xgboost had similar values.

A comparison of the performances of the best and worst algorithms for each of the metrics of the confusion matrix indicates that K-nearest neighbor had the best average rates for recall (81.12%), F1-Score (82.42%) and accuracy (99.39%), while Extra tree was the best algorithm regarding precision (90.99%). Random forest, however, had the best AUC value (0.9650). Conversely, Naive bayes had the worst results for all metrics evaluated.

The values of the metrics obtained by the classification processes of the algorithms in the evaluated period can be observed in Table 7, and Figure 6 presents the ROC curve obtained by the machine learning algorithms for the training/test and classification processes for the months of January 2019 and June 2020, which represent the first and last months analyzed, respectively, noting that each of the months of the observed period has its respective ROC curve. Table 6 shows the average values obtained by the algorithms in the evaluated period.

Figure 6.

ROC curve obtained by the algorithm classification process for the month: (a) january, 2019; (b) june, 2020. Source: the authors.

Table 6.

Results obtained by machine learning processes.

Algorithm	Recall(%)	Precision(%)	F1-Score(%)	Accuracy(%)	AUC
K-nearest neighbor	81.12	83.77	82.42	99.39	0.9045
Xgboost	71.79	90.30	79.99	99.37	0.9585
Extra tree	69.75	90.99	78.97	99.35	0.9625
Random forest	67.61	90.25	77.31	99.30	0.9650
Naive bayes	67.45	11.22	19.24	90.05	0.8546

Source: the authors

Discussion

As previously observed, machine learning algorithms were used to classify the information present in the datasets, and the values obtained were applied in a confusion matrix. In this section, the types of “true-positive” classifications, the time interval of classifications, the displacement of the beneficiary between the risk strata and the evolution of expenditures will be presented. The analysis considered only the first true-positive classifications for each beneficiary, and only those classifications in which the result preceded an event. This is due to the fact that the same beneficiary may have been classified several times during the analysis period (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Example of the distribution of true-positive classifications over time for the same beneficiary.

Classification types

The values applied to the confusion matrix only compare the classification obtained by an algorithm with the actual value. Therefore, in this study, a distinction was made to define the moment in time when the true-positive classification was obtained in relation to the occurrence of an event. It is also necessary that classification precedes an event, so that professionals have time to take the necessary measures. Thus, the true-positive results are divided as follows:

(1) legitimate, if classification was prior to the occurrence of an event;

(2) obvious, for classification within the month when a beneficiary entered the high-risk groups;

(3) lagged, when classification comes after the event.

Evidently, obtaining legitimate classifications is the objective of the study, as they correspond to the beneficiaries toward which it is possible to take action aiming at mitigating future problems. However, the obvious results are also relevant, as they help to ensure that the model is correct.

K-nearest neighbor obtained the highest amount of legitimate classifications and the highest proportion when compared to obvious and lagged classifications. Random forest, Extra tree and Xgboost had very similar results to each Other. Naive bayes had the worst amount of absolute results and the worst ratio between legitimate and obvious classifications. Table 7 presents the division of the classifications, while the values obtained refer to the first classifications for different beneficiaries.

Table 7.

Division of the true-positive results of the algorithms.

Algorithm	Legitimate	Obvious	Lagged
K-nearest neighbor	2644	1391	10
Xgboost	2499	1442	8
Extra tree	2459	1444	9
Random forest	2424	1451	10
Naive bayes	1724	1665	11

Source: the authors

Time interval

Considering the first legitimate classifications observed for each beneficiary, among the evaluated algorithms, K-nearest neighbor showed the longest time interval between classification and the occurrence of events (8.11 months). However, all algorithms had very similar results, and the difference between best (KNN) and worst (Naive bayes) was 0.65 months, as seen in Table 8.

Table 8.

Average time interval between classification and event occurrences.

Algorithm	Time interval
K-nearest neighbor	8.11 months
Extra tree	7.86 months
Xgboost	7.84 months
Random forest	7.75 months
Naive bayes	7.46 months

Source: the authors

By expanding the analysis to verify the number of beneficiaries in relation to the number of months between the algorithms, it is possible to note that, within a 1-month interval, the algorithms are able to classify 132 beneficiaries on average. As for an interval of 10 months, the average increases to 422 beneficiaries. Finally, an 11-months interval allowed for an average of 452.4 beneficiaries, although KNN managed to classify 811 beneficiaries within this same period. Although Naive bayes had considerably worse results compared to the other algorithms, it was able to predict a large number of beneficiaries within the 12-month period (564 beneficiaries), whereas the other algorithms managed to classify few beneficiaries. Figure 8 shows the distribution of the number of months between classification and incidence obtained by the algorithms.

Figure 8.

Distribution of month differences between legitimate classification and event occurrence. Source: the authors.

Strengths, limitations and future work

A positive aspect of the work, by design choice, variables and attributes belonging to the TISS standard were used, which aims to establish the standard for electronic data communication between different health promotion agents²⁹ and are used nationwide and defined by the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS), thus facilitating the replication of the study. In order to make this experiment replicable by researchers from other countries, it would be recommended to translate procedure codes and terminology based on international standards, such as HL7.^30,31

Another strength to be highlighted is the variability of the metrics evaluated during the analysis period, especially considering that, since March 2020, Brazil has been facing the SARS-COV-2 pandemic,³² which has had a strong impact in healthcare, due to the restrictions imposed by social distancing, and also to the abrupt increase in the costs generated by beneficiaries whose health conditions were worsened by the disease. For example, K-nearest neighbor presented a 5.98% difference for the recall rate, considering the subtraction between best and worst results. Extra tree and Random forest, however, reached 7.25%, while Xgboost presented 7.32%. The algorithm with the greatest difference in results was Naive bayes, with 15.32%.

This study faced some limitations, such as the fact that the company provided data from January 2017 to July 2021. Therefore, the datasets for the learning process (training/testing) were created after 18 months, and not until January 2020 could they be considered complete. For instance, in a study by,³³ it took 36 months to create the dataset. Some studies^{15,17,34–36} have added anthropometric information, test results, information from medical records and even socioeconomic information related to beneficiaries. However, this study relied mostly on information related to the use beneficiaries make of the health care provided by their carrier.

Conclusions

The objective of this study was to classify beneficiaries of a healthcare insurance by using machine learning methods, defining classes by the presence of beneficiaries in high-risk groups during a period of 12 months after the month under analysis. Information obtained by machine learning processes can reveal the beneficiaries who are more susceptible to serious health problems than others, which helps health professionals to take action before the occurrence of an event, in order to mitigate future problems.

The datasets were based on actual information regarding beneficiaries’ use of their healthcare plan. Even though the company in question provided consolidated information, it was necessary to choose the most relevant attributes and treat them in order to avoid negative impacts on the model learning. In addition, no active beneficiaries were eliminated from the dataset. A beneficiary could be excluded before the 12-month period, thus, impacting the measurement of the event incidence, or they could be included at any point, and without any previous usage information that could assist in the machine learning process.

Five machine learning algorithms were analyzed, namely, Extra tree, Random forest, Xgboost, K-nearest neighbor and Naive bayes. The best parameters for the algorithms were chosen by using GridSearchCV and, after that, the algorithms were run for the 18-months datasets, which allowed us to see the variation over the analysis period.

Due to the characteristics of the study, recall is considered the most important metric, and its average rate ranged from 67.45% to 81.12%. The time interval between classification and the occurrence of events ranged from 7.46 months to 8.11 months, which are results obtained by Naive bayes and K-nearest neighbor, respectively. The results of the classification processes indicated that K-nearest neighbor had the best results for three metrics, they being recall, accuracy and F1-Score. Moreover, it had the longest time interval between the result and the incidence of events. Extra tree, in turn, had the best precision rate, while Random forest had the best AUC value. On the other hand, Naive bayes had the worst results for all metrics, in addition to the greatest recall loss.

With the information obtained, we hope to facilitate the establishment of health care processes and the identification of beneficiaries’ characteristics. In addition, the mechanisms for extracting information, forming datasets and executing machine learning algorithms, when applied on a monthly basis, tend to create a flow of new beneficiaries to the analysis, thus enabling real-world application and the combination with other data visualization mechanisms available by organizations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

Ethical statement

ORCID iDs

Adauto Santos

Gislaine Camila Lapasini

Renato Balancieri

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References

WHO . World health organization - constitution, https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution Accessed 17 December 2021).

OECD . Estudos Da OCDE sobre os Sistemas de Saúde: Brasil 2021: Brasil 2021. Paris Cedex, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2021.

ANS . Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS): estrutura, princípios e como funciona. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/saude-de-a-a-z/s/sus-estrutura-principios-e-como-funciona/sistema-unico-de-saude-sus-estrutura-principios-e-como-funciona, Accessed 13 October 2021).

BRASIL . Ministério da Saúde; Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde. Brazil: Financiamento público de saúde, 2013.

Pietrobon

Prado

Caetano

. Suplemental health in Brazil: the role of the national agency of suplemental health in the sector’s regulation. Physis: Revista de Saude Coletiva 2008; 18: 767–783.

TabNet . TabNet Linux 2.6a: receitas e Despesas (Dados do 1o trimestre de 2023 – data de corte 12/06/2023. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ans.gov.br/anstabnet/cgi-bin/dh?dados/tabnet_rc.def, Accessed 10 December 2021).

IBGE . Portal do IBGE. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ibge.gov.br/, Accessed 15 December 2021).

Fayyad

Piatetsky-Shapiro

Smyth

. From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Mag 1996; 17(3): 37–37.

Calver

Brameld

Preen

, et al. High-cost users of hospital beds in Western Australia: a population-based record linkage study. Med J Aust 2006; 184(8): 393–397.

10.

Powers

Chaguturu

. ACOs and high-cost patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 374(3): 203–205.

11.

Wammes

JJG

Tanke

Jonkers

, et al. Characteristics and healthcare utilization patterns of high-cost beneficiaries in The Netherlands: a cross-sectional claims database study. BMJ Open 2017; 7(11): e017775.

12.

Chechulin

Nazerian

Rais

, et al. Predicting patients with high risk of becoming high-cost healthcare users in Ontario (Canada). Healthc Policy 2014; 9(3): 68.

13.

Shenas

SAI

Raahemi

Tekieh

, et al. Identifying high-cost patients using data mining techniques and a small set of non-trivial attributes. Comput Biol Med 2014; 53: 9–18.

14.

Hao

Jin

, et al. Online prediction of health care utilization in the next six months based on electronic health record information: a cohort and validation study. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17(9): e4976.

15.

Schubert-Bast

Zöllner

Ansorge

, et al. Burden and epidemiology of status epilepticus in infants, children, and adolescents: a population-based study on German health insurance data. Epilepsia 2019; 60(5): 911–920.

16.

Osawa

Goto

Yamamoto

, et al. Machine-learning-based prediction models for high-need high-cost patients using nationwide clinical and claims data. NPJ Digit Med 2020; 3(1): 148.

17.

Qin

Wang

, et al. Health status prediction for the elderly based on machine learning. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020; 90: 104121.

18.

Nomura

Ishii

Chiba

, et al. Does last year's cost predict the present cost? An application of machine learning for the Japanese area-basis public health insurance database. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2021; 18(2): 565.

19.

ANS . legislação - resolução normativa - RN N° 63. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ans.gov.br/component/legislacao/?view=legislacao&task=TextoLei&format=raw&id=NzQ4, Accessed 23 November 2021).

20.

Breiman

. Random forests. Mach Learn 2001; 45(1): 5–32.

21.

Geurts

Ernst

Wehenkel

. Extremely randomized trees. Mach Learn 2006; 63(1): 3–42.

22.

Chen

Guestrin

(eds) Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, San Francisco California USA, 13–17 August 2016.

23.

Guo

Wang

Bell

, et al. (eds) KNN model-based approach in classification. In: OTM Confederated international conferences “on the move to meaningful internet systems, Catania, Sicily, Italy, 3–7 November 2003. Springer.

24.

Mitchell

. Machine learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

25.

Refaeilzadeh

Tang

Liu

. Cross-validation. In: Liu

Özsu

(eds). Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Salmon Tower Building New York City: Springer US, 2009, pp. 532–538.

26.

Stehman

. Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic classification accuracy. Rem Sens Environ 1997; 62(1): 77–89.

27.

Bradley

. The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recogn 1997; 30(7): 1145–1159.

28.

Hanley

McNeil

. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143(1): 29–36.

29.

ANS . TISS - troca de Informações de Saúde. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ans.gov.br/prestadores/tiss-troca-de-informacao-de-saude-suplementar, Accessed April 20, 2022.

30.

HL7 . Health level seven international. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.hl7.org/(Accessed 12 December 2021).

31.

Mukhiya

Lamo

. An HL7 FHIR and GraphQL approach for interoperability between heterogeneous electronic health record systems. Health Inf J 2021; 27(3): 14604582211043920.

32.

Matta

Rego

Souto

, et al. Os impactos sociais da Covid-19 no Brasil: populações vulnerabilizadas e respostas à pandemia. In: Série Informação para ação na Covid-19. Brazil: Série Informação para ação na Covid-19|Fiocruz, 2021.

33.

Crooks

. Managing high-risk, high-cost patients: the southern California kaiser permanente experience in the medicare ESRD demonstration project. Perm J 2005; 9(2): 93.

34.

Kartchner

Merrill

Wrathall

. Cost reduction via patient targeting and outreach: a statistical approach. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE international conference on healthcare informatics ICHI), Park City, Utah, 23–26 August 2017, pp. 513–517.

35.

Zahi

Achchab

. Clustering of the population benefiting from health insurance using K-means. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on smart city applications, Casablanca, Morocco, 2–4 October 2019, pp. 1–6.

36.

dos Santos

Dias

Chiavegatto Filho

. Machine learning and national health data to improve evidence: finding segmentation in individuals without private insurance. Health Policy Technol 2021; 10(1): 79–86.

Identification of high-risk beneficiaries in private healthcare insurance

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Selection

Preprocessing

Transformation

Data mining

Interpretation

Results

Discussion

Classification types

Time interval

Strengths, limitations and future work

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical statement

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References