Limitations of NHIC claim code-based surveillance and the necessity of UDI implementation in Korea

Abstract

Abstract The E-Health Big Data Evidence Innovation Network (FeederNet) in Korea, based on the observational medical outcomes partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM), had 72.3% participation from tertiary hospitals handling severe diseases as of October 2022. While this contributes to the activation of multi-institutional research, concerns about the comprehensiveness of device data persist due to the adoption of national health insurance corporation (NHIC) claim codes as device identifiers in the medical device field. This study critically evaluated the effectiveness and compatibility of NHIC claim codes and unique device identifier (UDI) within FeederNet to identify the optimal identifier for efficient Post-market surveillance (PMS). Specifically, this study addressed three main questions: (1) the number of UDIs classified as NHIC-covered items, (2) the number of UDIs included in each NHIC claim code, and (3) the number of NHIC claim codes each UDI covers. Among the 1,979,655 UDIs registered domestically, only 36.02% (712,983) were classified as covered by National Health Insurance. NHIC-covered medical devices were limited to categories (A) medical devices, (B) medical supplies, and (C) dental materials, excluding most software and in vitro diagnostics (IVD). Multiple UDIs could be registered under a single NHIC claim code, and a single UDI could be registered under multiple NHIC claim codes. Only 32.62% (13,756/42,171) of NHIC claim codes had registered UDIs, with an average of 53 UDIs per claim code. Of the UDIs listed as NHIC covered, 92.39% (659,046/713,341) had one claim code, while 7.25% (51,652) had multiple claim codes. Additionally, 2643 UDIs were listed as NHIC covered but had no registered claim codes. Due to this complex relationship, NHIC claim code-based PMS may pool safe and unsafe models or disperse problematic models across multiple claim codes, leading to a lower problem rate or insignificant differences between claim codes, thus reducing signal detection sensitivity compared to UDI-based PMS. In conclusion, NHIC claim code-based PMS has limitations in granularity and signal detection sensitivity, necessitating the adoption of UDI-based PMS to address these issues. The UDI system can enhance the accuracy of medical device identification and tracking, playing a crucial role in generating real-world evidence (RWE) by integrating data from various sources. Future research should explore specific strategies for integrating and utilizing UDI with NHIC claim codes, contributing to the implementation of a more reliable and comprehensive PMS in Korea’s healthcare system.