• Karl A Lorenz, Steven M Asch, Elizabeth M Yano, Mingming Wang, and Lisa V Rubenstein.
• VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles CA, USA. karl.lorenz@med.va.gov.
• Popul Health Metr. 2005 Feb 24; 3 (1): 2.

BackgroundWe aimed to determine optimal strategies for complete mortality ascertainment comparing death certificates and United States (US) Veterans Administration (VA) records. MethodsWe constructed a cohort of California veterans who died in fiscal year (FY) 2000 and used VA services the year before death. We determined decedent status using California death certificates linked to VA utilization data and the VA Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator System (BIRLS) death file. We compared the characteristics of decedents who would not have been identified by either single source (e.g., VA BIRLS alone or California death certificates alone) with the rest of the cohort. ResultsA total of 8,813 veteran decedents were identified from both VA decedent files and death certificates. Of all decedents, 5,698 / 8,813 (65%) veterans were identified in both source files, but 2,426 / 8,813 (28%) decedents were not identified in VA BIRLS, and 689 / 8,813 (8%) were not identified in death certificates. Compared to the rest of the cohort, decedents whose mortality status was ascertained through either single source differed by race / ethnicity, marital status, and California residence. Clinically, veterans identified from either single source had less comorbidity and were less likely to have been users of VA inpatient or long term care, but equally or more likely to have been users of VA outpatient services. ConclusionAs single sources, VA decedent files and death certificates each provided an incomplete record, and death ascertainment was improved by using both source files. Potential bias may vary depending on analytic interest.

1 keywords...

hide…