anne t. kearney u.s. census bureau john p. sommers agency for healthcare research and quality
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Switching From Retrospective to Current Year Data Collection in the Medical Expenditure
Panel Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC)
Anne T. KearneyU.S. Census Bureau
John P. SommersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
ICES IIISession 7
2
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
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
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
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
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
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
8
Impact on FrameExample: Let’s use 2002 survey year again:
Retrospective Current Year
Create Frame in March 2003 March 2002SU data available 2001 2001MU data available 2001 2000
Pick up SU Births? Yes, 2002 No
Drop SU Deaths? Yes, 2002 No
9
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
10
• 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:
Impact on ReweightingPoststratification
i
n
iNR
N
ii
NRPS
EMPAdjwgt
EMPAdjwgtAdjwgt
R
2002_*
2002_*
1
11
11
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
12
Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey
Method # Employment Data for Cells/Poststrat
Totals
Inscope List ID’d Using Data from..
Drop Births from
Sample?
SU MU SU MU SU MUProduction 2002 2002 2002 2002 No No
1 2001 2001 2001 2001 No No
2 2002 2001 2001 2001 No No
3 2002 2001 2002 2001 No No
4 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes No
5 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes Yes
13
13
Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey
Method # Employment Data for Cells/Poststrat
Totals
Inscope List ID’d Using Data from..
Drop Births from
Sample?
SU MU SU MU SU MUProduction 2002 2002 2002 2002 No No
1 2001 2001 2001 2001 No No
2 2002 2001 2001 2001 No No
3 2002 2001 2002 2001 No No
4 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes No
5 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes Yes
14
14
Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey
Method # Employment Data for Cells/Poststrat
Totals
Inscope List ID’d Using Data from..
Drop Births from
Sample?
SU MU SU MU SU MUProduction 2002 2002 2002 2002 No No
1 2001 2001 2001 2001 No No
2 2002 2001 2001 2001 No No
3 2002 2001 2002 2001 No No
4 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes No
5 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes Yes
15
15
Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey
Method # Employment Data for Cells/Poststrat
Totals
Inscope List ID’d Using Data from..
Drop Births from
Sample?
SU MU SU MU SU MUProduction 2002 2002 2002 2002 No No
1 2001 2001 2001 2001 No No
2 2002 2001 2001 2001 No No
3 2002 2001 2002 2001 No No
4 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes No
5 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes Yes
16
16
Details of Trial Methods2002 Survey
Method # Employment Data for Cells/Poststrat
Totals
Inscope List ID’d Using Data from..
Drop Births from
Sample?
SU MU SU MU SU MUProduction 2002 2002 2002 2002 No No
1 2001 2001 2001 2001 No No
2 2002 2001 2001 2001 No No
3 2002 2001 2002 2001 No No
4 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes No
5 2002 2001 2002 2001 Yes Yes
17
17
ResultsDefinitions
• National level estimates• Estimates by firm size
– Establishments categorized by their firm employment
Size Number of EmployeesLarge 1000+
Medium 50 – 999Small 1 - 49
18
18
ResultsSurvey Year 2002
Estimate: % Estabs that
offer insurance ProdTrial Method (Method minus Prod)
1 2 3 5
Natl 57.16 1.22* 1.07* 0.80* 0.45*
L Firm 98.82 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.04
M Firm 93.65 -0.07 -0.01 0.04 0.08
S Firm 44.72 0.84* 0.67* 0.41* 0.57*
* Indicates significant difference
19
19
ResultsSurvey Year 2002
Estimate: Avg. Single
Premium ProdTrial Method (Method minus Prod)
1 2 3 5
Natl $3,191 -$5* -$3 -$1 -$4
L Firm $3,136 -$1 $1 $1 -$7
M Firm $3,134 $2 -$4 -$2 -$6
S Firm $3,374 -$25* -$9* -$4 $4
* Indicates significant difference
20
20
ResultsSurvey Year 2003
Estimate: % Estabs that offer insurance
ProdTrial Method
(Method minus Prod)3 5
Natl 56.16 0.72* -0.11
L Firm 98.68 -0.01 0.10
M Firm 90.80 0.10 -0.00
S Firm 43.49 0.64* 0.01* Indicates significant difference
21
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
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.
