Dataset Information

Risk adjustment and observation time: comparison between cross-sectional and 2-year panel data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Risk adjustment models were used to estimate health care consumption after adjusting for individual characteristics or other factors. The results of this technique were not satisfying. One reason could be that the length of time to document consumption might be associated with the mean and variance of observed health care consumption. This study aims to use a simplified mathematical model and real-world data to explore the relationship of observation time (one or two years) and predictability.

Methods

This study used cross-sectional (one-year) and 2-year panel data sets of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1996 to 2008. Comparisons of the health care consumption (total health expenditure, emergency room (ER) and office-based visits) included ratios of means and standard errors (SEs). Risk adjustment models for one- and two-year data used generalized linear model.

Results

The ratios of mean health care consumption (two-year to one-year total expenditure, ER and office-based visits) seemed to be two in most age groups and the ratios of SEs varied around or above two. The R-squared of two-year models seemed to be slightly better than that of one-year models.

Conclusions

We find health expenditure and ER or office-based visits observed in two consecutive years were about twice those observed in a single year for most age, similar to the ratios predicted in mathematical examples. The ratios of mean spending and visits varied across age groups. The other finding is that the predictability of two-year consumption seems better than that of one-year slightly. The reason is not clear and we will continue studying this phenomenon.

SUBMITTER: Chao YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4340859 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk adjustment and observation time: comparison between cross-sectional and 2-year panel data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).

Chao Yi-Sheng YS Wu Chao-Jung CJ Chen Tai-Shen TS

Health information science and systems 20140725

<h4>Background</h4>Risk adjustment models were used to estimate health care consumption after adjusting for individual characteristics or other factors. The results of this technique were not satisfying. One reason could be that the length of time to document consumption might be associated with the mean and variance of observed health care consumption. This study aims to use a simplified mathematical model and real-world data to explore the relationship of observation time (one or two years) an ...[more]

PMID: 25825669

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo assess associations between usual source of care (USC) type and health status, healthcare access, utilization, and expenses among adult cancer survivors.MethodsThis retrospective cross-sectional analysis using 2013-2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey included 2690 observations representing 31,953,477 adult cancer survivors who were currently experiencing cancer and reporting one of five USC types: solo practicing physician (SPP), a specific person in a non-hospital facility, a specific person in a hospital-based facility, a non-hospital facility, and a hospital-based facility. We used logistic regressions and generalized linear models to determine associations of USC type with health status, healthcare access, utilization, and expenses, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsAll non-SPP USC types were associated with reporting more difficulties contacting USC by telephone during business hours (p < 0.05). Compared to SPP, non-hospital facility was associated with more difficulty getting needed prescriptions (OR: 1.81, p = 0.036) and higher annual expenses ($5225, p = 0.028), and hospital-based facility was associated with longer travel time (OR: 1.61, p = 048), more ED visits (0.13, p = 0.049), higher expenses ($6028, p = 0.014), and worse self-reported health status (OR: 1.93, p = 0.001), although both were more likely to open on nights/weekends (p < 0.05). Cancer survivors with a specific person in a hospital-based facility (vs. SPP) as USC were > twofold as likely (p < 0.05) to report difficulty getting needed prescriptions and contacting USC afterhours.ConclusionsAmong adult cancer survivors who were currently experiencing cancer, having a non-SPP type of UCS was associated with reporting more difficulties accessing care, worse health, more ED visits, and higher total expenses.Implications for cancer survivorsTransitioning to SPP type of USC may result in better healthcare outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundA comprehensive picture of how the US population engages in specialty care use is lacking, even though redesign models focused on specialty care are becoming more popular.ObjectiveTo describe the type of provider, primary care or specialist, most often seen by individuals, to test associations between type of provider most often seen and insurance coverage, and to test associations between the number of generalist and specialist visits and insurance coverage.DesignCross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 Medicaid Expenditure Panel Survey. Logistic and negative binomial models were used in multivariate regression modeling.ParticipantsDepending on the analysis, the study samples include between 71,402 and 79,518 US residents.Main measuresIndividuals' provider type most often seen, primary care visits, and specialist visits were reported.Key resultsMore than half of the sample (55%) predominantly visited primary care providers (or generalists), and 36% predominantly visited specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting generalists, 80% visited only one type of primary care provider, and 24% also visited one or more specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting specialists, 48% visited only one type of specialist, and 47% did not visit any generalists in the year. Among Medicare enrollees, 50% predominantly visited specialists, and 40% predominantly visited generalists. Medicare enrollment was associated with greater odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05), and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment and having no insurance were associated with lower odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05). Medicare enrollment was associated with 13% more generalist visits and 35% more specialist visits, and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment was associated with 38% more generalist visits and 15% more specialist visits (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsGiven the overall frequency of specialty care use and the reliance on multiple specialists in any given year, particularly among Medicare enrollees, public payers are uniquely positioned to promote specialty care redesign and champion improved coordination between specialists.

Dataset Information

Risk adjustment and observation time: comparison between cross-sectional and 2-year panel data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Risk adjustment and observation time: comparison between cross-sectional and 2-year panel data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets