Dataset Information

Validating household reports of health care use in the medical expenditure panel survey.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) is a widely used nationally representative survey of health care use and expenditures. Numerous studies raise concerns that use is underreported in household surveys. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of household reports in the MEPS and the impact of misreporting on descriptive and behavioral analyses. RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants in MEPS with Medicare coverage during 2001-2003 were matched to their Medicare enrollment and claims data (4,045 person-year observations). Household reports of Medicare-covered services for the matched sample were validated against Medicare claims. Standard models of the determinants of health care utilization were estimated with both MEPS and claims-based utilization measures. MEASURES: In-person interviews with household informants obtained data on hospital inpatient, emergency department (ED), and office-based visits. Comparable measures were created from the claims. RESULTS: In the validation sample, households accurately reported inpatient stays (agreement rate=0.96, kappa=0.89) and number of nights (Lin's concordance statistic=0.88). Households underreported ED visits by one-third (Lin's concordance statistic=0.51) and office visits by 19 percent (Lin's concordance statistic=0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Household respondents in the validation sample accurately report inpatient hospitalizations but underreport ED and office visits. Behavioral analyses are largely unaffected because underreporting cuts across all sociodemographic groups.

SUBMITTER: Zuvekas SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2754554 | biostudies-other | 2009 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validating household reports of health care use in the medical expenditure panel survey.

Zuvekas Samuel H SH Olin Gary L GL

Health services research 20090713 5 Pt 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) is a widely used nationally representative survey of health care use and expenditures. Numerous studies raise concerns that use is underreported in household surveys.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the quality of household reports in the MEPS and the impact of misreporting on descriptive and behavioral analyses.<h4>Research design</h4>Participants in MEPS with Medicare coverage during 2001-2003 were matched to their Medicare enrollment a ...[more]

PMID: 19619249

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundCancer increases the risk of developing one or more chronic conditions, yet little research describes the associations between health care costs, utilization patterns, and chronic conditions in adults with cancer. The objective of this study was to examine the treated prevalence of chronic conditions and the association between chronic conditions and health care expenses in US adults with cancer.MethodsThis retrospective observational study used US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component (2010-2015) data sampling adults diagnosed with cancer and one or more of 18 select chronic conditions. The measures used were treated prevalence of chronic conditions, and total and chronic condition-specific health expenses (per-person, per-year). Generalized linear models assessed chronic condition-specific expenses in adults with cancer vs. without cancer and the association of chronic conditions on total health expenses in adults with cancer, respectively, by controlling for demographic and health characteristics. Accounting for the complex survey design in MEPS, all data analyses and statistical procedures applied longitudinal weights for national estimates.ResultsAmong 3657 eligible adults with cancer, 83.9% (n = 3040; representing 16 million US individuals per-year) had at least one chronic condition, and 29.7% reported four or more conditions. Among those with cancer, hypertension (59.7%), hyperlipidemia (53.6%), arthritis (25.6%), diabetes (22.2%), and coronary artery disease (18.2%) were the five most prevalent chronic conditions. Chronic conditions accounted for 30% of total health expenses. Total health expenses were $6388 higher for those with chronic conditions vs. those without (p < 0.001). Health expenses associated with chronic conditions increased by 34% in adults with cancer vs. those without cancer after adjustment.ConclusionsIn US adults with cancer, the treated prevalence of common chronic conditions was high and health expenses associated with chronic conditions were higher than those without cancer. A holistic treatment plan is needed to improve cost outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundKenya is experiencing persistently high levels of inequity in health and access to care services. In 2018, decades of sustained policy efforts to promote equitable, affordable and quality health services have culminated in the launch of a universal health coverage scheme, initially piloted in four Kenyan counties and planned for national rollout by 2022. Our study aims to contribute to monitoring and evaluation efforts alongside policy implementation, by establishing a detailed, baseline assessment of socio-economic inequality and inequity in health care utilization in Kenya shortly before the policy launch.MethodsWe use concentration curves and corrected concentration indexes to measure socio-economic inequality in care use and the horizontal inequity index as a measure of inequity in care utilization for three types of care services: outpatient care, inpatient care and preventive and promotive care. Further insights into the individual and household level characteristics that determine observed inequality are derived through decomposition analysis.ResultsWe find significant inequality and inequity in the use of all types of care services favouring richer population groups, with particularly pronounced levels for preventive and inpatient care services. These are driven primarily by differences in living standards and educational achievement, while the region of residence is a key driver for inequality in preventive care use only. Pro-rich inequalities are particularly pronounced for care provided in privately owned facilities, while public providers serve a much larger share of individuals from lower socio-economic groups.ConclusionsThrough its focus on increasing affordability of care for all Kenyans, the newly launched universal health coverage scheme represents a crucial step towards reducing disparities in health care utilization. However in order to achieve equity in health and access to care such efforts must be paralleled by multi-sectoral approaches to address all key drivers of inequity: persistent poverty, disparities in living standards and educational achievement, as well as regional differences in availability and accessibility of care.

Project description:There is a growing emphasis on the need to engage patients in order to improve the quality of health care and improve health outcomes. However, we are still lacking a comprehensive understanding on how different measures of patient experiences interact with one another or relate to health status. This study takes a network perspective to 1) study the associations between patient characteristics and patient experience in health care and 2) identify factors that could be prioritized to improve health status.This study uses data from the two-year panels from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) initiated between 2004 and 2011 in the United States. The 88 variables regarding patient health and experience with health care were identified through the MEPS documentation. Sex, age, race/ethnicity, and years of education were also included for analysis. The bnlearn package within R (v3.20) was used to 1) identify the structure of the network of variables, 2) assess the model fit of candidate algorithms, 3) cross-validate the network, and 4) fit conditional probabilities with the given structure.There were 51,023 MEPS interviewees aged 18 to 85 years (mean = 44, 95% CI = 43.9 to 44.2), with years of education ranging from 1 to 19 (mean = 7.4, 95% CI = 7.40 to 7.46). Among all, 55% and 74% were female and white, respectively. There were nine networks identified and 17 variables not linked to others, including death in the second years, sex, entry years to the MEPS, and relations of proxies. The health status in the second years was directly linked to that in the first years. The health care ratings were associated with how often professionals listened to them and whether professionals' explanation was understandable.It is feasible to construct Bayesian networks with information on patient characteristics and experiences in health care. Network models help to identify significant predictors of health care quality ratings. With temporal relationships established, the structure of the variables can be meaningful for health policy researchers, who search for one or a few key priorities to initiate interventions or health care quality improvement programs.

Dataset Information

Validating household reports of health care use in the medical expenditure panel survey.

Publications

Validating household reports of health care use in the medical expenditure panel survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets