1 / 23

Anne T. Kearney U.S. Census Bureau John P. Sommers Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Switching From Retrospective to Current Year Data Collection in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC). Anne T. Kearney U.S. Census Bureau John P. Sommers Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ICES III Session 7. Important Terms.

christina-stathis
Download Presentation

Anne T. Kearney U.S. Census Bureau John P. Sommers Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Switching From Retrospective to Current Year Data Collection in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) Anne T. Kearney U.S. Census Bureau John P. Sommers Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ICES III Session 7

  2. Important Terms • Retrospective Design: collects data for the year prior to the collection period • Current Year Design: collects data in effect at the time of collection • Survey Year: the year of data being collected in the field • Single Unit Establishment vs. Multi-Unit Establishment

  3. Outline • Background on MEPS-IC • Why Switch to Current?/Barriers to Switching • Impact on Frame and Reweighting Methodology • Details of Current Year Trial Methods • Results • Summary

  4. Background on MEPS-ICGeneral • Annual establishment survey that provides estimates of insurance availability and costs • Sample of 42,000 private establishments • National and state-level estimates • Retrospective design

  5. Background on MEPS-ICTiming Example • Let’s say retrospective design in survey year 2002 • Create frame/sample in March 2003 using 2001 data from the business register (BR) • Create SU birth frame with 2002 data from BR • In the field from roughly July-December 2003 • Reweighting in March-April 2004 using 2002 data from the BR • Estimation and publication in May-June 2004

  6. Why Switch to a Current Year Design? • Estimates published about 1 year sooner • Some establishments report current data already; current data is at their fingertips • Most survey estimates are conducive to current year design • Better coverage of businesses that closed after the survey year and before the field operation • Some data users in favor of going current

  7. Barriers to Switching to a Current Year Design • One year older data for frame building • One year older data for reweighting • These could possibly make our estimates very different which we believe means worse • Other data users believe retrospective design is better for collecting certain items

  8. Impact on Frame Example: Let’s use 2002 survey year again:

  9. Impact on ReweightingNonresponse Adjustment • We use an iterative raking procedure • We do the NR Adjustment using 3 sets of • cells: • Sector Groups • SU/MU • State by Size Group

  10. Impact on ReweightingPoststratification • We use an iterative raking procedure using 2 • sets of cells: • State by Size Group and SU/MU • Under the retrospective design for the 2002 survey:

  11. Details of Trial Methods • One issue for frame: • What to do with the births • One issue for nonresponse adjustment: • What employment data to use for cell assignments • Three issues for poststratification: • What employment data to use for cell assignments • What employment data to use for total employment • What payroll data to use to create the list of establishments for total employment

  12. Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey

  13. Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey

  14. Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey

  15. Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey

  16. Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey

  17. ResultsDefinitions • National level estimates • Estimates by firm size • Establishments categorized by their firm employment

  18. ResultsSurvey Year 2002 * Indicates significant difference

  19. ResultsSurvey Year 2002 * Indicates significant difference

  20. ResultsSurvey Year 2003 * Indicates significant difference

  21. Summary • Many positives with going current – timing • Possible frame and reweighting problems but prior year data are a good substitute • Tested 4 Trial Methods and found: • Estimates of premiums look good and rates looked reasonable • Establishment and employment estimates are different but not most important estimates

  22. Summary (cont.) • We are planning to switch to a current year design for survey year 2008 using a methodology similar to Method 5. • We have similar research planned for the governments sample and also plan to continue the research on the private sector with more recent data.

  23. Anne.Theresa.Kearney@census.gov John.Sommers@ahrq.hhs.gov

More Related