Methods

Claims, EMR, And CRM Data

Strong evaluations usually combine three data types: administrative claims, EMR clinical data, and CRM workflow data. Each data source answers a different part of the effectiveness question.

Home / Evidence & Performance / Claims, EMR, And CRM Data

1. Administrative claims data

Claims data is collected primarily for reimbursement, but it is the backbone of population-level evaluation.

  • What it includes: admissions, outpatient visits, SNF/hospice use, DME, pharmacy claims, and coded diagnoses.
  • Strength: available consistently for broad populations, making treatment/comparison design feasible.
  • Strength: supports total-cost and long-horizon utilization analysis across all settings.
  • Limitation: weak on nuanced clinical or social context (for example, functional status or living arrangement details).

2. Clinical EMR data

EMR data captures what clinicians observe and document during care delivery.

  • What it includes: vitals, labs, functional status, care plans, symptom burden, and patient preferences.
  • Strength: identifies disease stage and care needs that claims codes alone may miss.
  • Strength: helps test mechanism (for example, whether blood pressure control improved before admissions fell).
  • Limitation: often unavailable for external comparison groups, which complicates causal inference.

3. CRM data (often overlooked, often valuable)

CRM data is operational metadata about engagement, coordination, and follow-through. It can be messy, but it is highly useful for implementation evaluation.

  • Examples: outbound call attempts, successful contacts, missed follow-up reasons, referral status, care-manager notes.
  • Examples: appointment scheduling lag, task completion timestamps, closed-loop referral completion rates.
  • Strength: reveals whether program activities actually happened with enough intensity and timeliness.
  • Limitation: definitions vary by team, and fields are often inconsistently maintained without governance.

How to use all three together

  • Claims for primary outcomes and fair comparisons.
  • EMR for mechanism and clinical plausibility.
  • CRM for implementation fidelity and operational bottlenecks.

In practice, the best programs show a coherent chain: CRM intensity improves, EMR indicators move in the expected direction, and claims outcomes follow.

Related methods

Previous: How to account for outliers in spending data  |  Next: Why administrative data is preferred for finding a comparison group

For more granular data, more recent data, or scientific analysis support, please email us.

Back to Evidence & Performance