Focusing on cost-concept in this post
Note: the domain_id is new here, and the domain_id is ‘Cost’. Not ‘Cost Type’
Two new concept_class_id’s are being proposed to avoid ambiguity
concept_class_id: Summary
concept_class_id: Detail
I think we need to develop conventions for use of ‘Detail’ vs ‘Summary’, but almost always depends on how the source data gives us the data. In US claims, one header claim record, may have one or more detail record. Costs may be attached to the header claim record, and/or the detail claim record. Generally (depends on the quality of source data), sum of costs in detail claim record = cost in the header claim record. e.g. if there is one inpatient claim record header with 10,000$s and this header record has 5 detail record with 5 revenue codes each for room and board, ICU stay, blood transfusion, ambulance etc then each of the revenue_code would have a cost attached to it. See post by @jenniferduryea Proposal for a Unified Cost Table - #12 by jenniferduryea If the source data does not give us information on whether the data is summary or detail, then we default it as ‘Summary’. We should not be adding up, ‘Summary’ and ‘Detail’ - because then that would be double counting
Agree with you that current proposed vocabulary_id ‘Cost Type’ creates ambiguity. I chose that vocabulary_id to represent the new concept_id’s to avoid needing to create a new vocabulary_id. We could create a new vocabulary_id called ‘Financial’ or just ‘Cost’. @Christian_Reich, should we create a new OMOP vocabulary_id or should reuse existing OMOP vocabulary_id? If we re-use ‘Cost Type’ vocabulary_id, then the same vocabulary_id would be used across domain_id (‘Type Concept’ and ‘Cost’).