OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github

New concept_ids for cost and payer_plan in Korea

(Dmytry Dymshyts) #21

and get medical types 1 or 2. So it is Coverage under another plan.
And then start of medical types 1 or 2 will be coded using payer_concept_id. Does it make sense?

The link I provided is just an example. So, you need to provide the link payer and cost concepts can be obtained by.

(Yoonjin) #22

Thank you for your reply.
I have understood what you said.

However I have a question,
In Athena, “Entitlement to Medicare” has a specific concept ID in “plan stop reason”.
Why is it not mapped to “Coverage under another plan”, but given the concept “Entitlement to Medicare”?

I’ll fill out the format and upload the file you mentioned. I’m writing the list but there’s still work to be done,
So I’m gonna need a little more time. I apologize for the delay.
Also, Do I need upload a detailed form not only for the “payer_concept_id” but also “stop_reason_concept_id” and “revenue_code_concept_id”?

Thank you
Yoonjin Kim

(Dmytry Dymshyts) #23

Haven’t noticed that before. So, then we can make it consistent to US concepts and make “Entitlement to Medical care type 1 or 2” a Standard Plan stop Reason concept.

@Christian_Reich why really?

Yes, please.

(Yoonjin) #24

Thank you @Dymshyts
I apologize for the late response.
It took time to search for the references.

In Korea, we don’t have any sites that provide and manage vocabulary ID for social insurances or costs.
These concepts bring from a hospital under the Korea Health Insurance Corporation and the criterion is in common.

To help your understand, I have attached a site that describes our social security system in English.
Please check the list and let me know if these are acceptable or not.


payer paln_cost.xlsx (12.6 KB)

(Dmytry Dymshyts) #25

No problem at all!

Ok, that means we have to name the vocabularies somehow. Any suggestions?

Now I’m even more confused. In the original file there were

  • 3 categories, which well fit inot OMOP model: payer_concept_id, stop_reason_concept_id, revenue_code_concept_id. ( I suppose 3 vocabularies should be added based on these categories);
  • 70 concept representing actual terms

The latest file has

  • 33 concepts stated as vocabulary_name
  • 3 groups.
  1. Do you mean concept_name, not a vocabulary_name?
  2. Why there are less concepts?
  3. I suppose there are same 3 groups - payer, stop reason, revenue code, right?

(Yoonjin) #26


1.Oh, sorry for the confusion. yes, all of these are concept names not vocabulary names.

2.I deleted any concepts that can be mapped to existing concepts In the original file.
For example, in payer_concept_id category, No.1 “자동차보험” can mapped to “Auto Insurance” and it already exists in Athena, so I deleted it. and also deleted any overlapping concepts.
In other words, i would like to add the concepts that exist in latest file.
Do you understand me?

3.Right, these are same 3 groups - payer, stop reason, revenue code.

(Dmytry Dymshyts) #27

how you know the mapping then?

That mean

you add them as Standard,
but those that have mapping - non-Standard.

(Yoonjin) #28


There may have been some confusion, since this is the first time we have requested concepts regarding cost or payer.
We compared the data from several hospitals and found that each of them had a different list of categories: payer, stop reason and revenue.
So we want to add the concepts based on those listed in HIRA(HEALTH INSURANCE REVIEW & ASSESSMENT SERVICE) and NHIS(National Health Information System), not on the initial list.
Since “Payer” has different standards in Korea, we would like to create a separate Vocabulary, but in “revenue code” we want to add several concepts not in OMOP.
Also, the “Stop reason” list has unclear criteria, so we want to hold the application.
Will it be possible?
If possible, are there any necessary concepts that should be added, except as previously stated?
If there is anything, I will attach a new list.

Thank you

(Dmytry Dymshyts) #29

No problem.

Indeed. It is what I was asking - official sources.

Well, you have to decide what you want to be included to reflect the Korean data.

(Yoonjin) #30


A description of the newly attached file is below.

1.“NO.” just represents numbers I’ve generated.
2. Of these, the yellow ones that you see are the concepts we would like to add to OMOP.
3. Concepts in “Payer_concept_id” are from NHIS and I attached a link in which the terms were mentioned.
4. Concepts in “revenue_code_concept_id” are from the attached form used for medical bills from HIRA.
5. In the case of s~w at the form, those are ambiguous terms to request the content of a large category, so we request the concepts in the details.
6. We need both of the concepts that are just about (medication/medical practice/medical supply) and that include medications and related medical practices. So we want to add those concepts separately.
7. In the revenue code category, No.2 “투약료” includes medicines for the external use only as well as oral medicines.

Please let me know if I should add or modify anything else. Thank you.

payer and revenure code.xlsx (12.7 KB)

(Christian Reich) #31

Looks good to me.

Why only the yellow ones?

(Yoonjin) #32

Because others have alternative concepts in OMOP.
The alternative concepts are written in the file i have attached (as existing concept id & name)

Thank you for your answer.
If you have other questions, please let me know.