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.