MEPS
Medical Provider Component
Annual Methodology Report
Deliverable Number: M46
Contract Number: 290-02-0005
June 15, 2010
Submitted to:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
540 Gaither Road
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Submitted by:
Westat
1650 Research Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20850-3195
301-251-1500
Westat Reference Number: 2-7-295
Final
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Preparation Activities for MPC Data Collection
2.1 Sample Selection
2.1.1 Identification in the Household Survey
2.1.2 Provider Coding
2.1.3 Authorization Form Acquisition and Processing
2.1.4 Sample for Data Year 2008
2.1.5 Sample Sizes
2.2 Instrument Design
2.3 Recruiting and Training
2.3.1 Data Collection Specialist (DCS) and Abstractor Recruiting
2.3.2 General Overview Training
2.3.3 MPC Project Training for DCSs and Abstractors
3. Data Collection Activities and Results
3.1 Data Collection Procedures
3.1.1 Hospital Data Collection
3.1.2 Separately Billing Doctors
3.1.3 Office-Based Physicians
3.1.4 Health Maintenance Organizations
3.1.5 Home Care Providers
3.1.6 Institutional Care Providers
3.1.7 Pharmacy Providers
3.1.8 Veterans Affairs Facilities and Military and Indian Health Service
Hospitals
3.2 Data Abstraction
3.3 Quality Control
3.4 Data Collection Schedule
3.5 Data Collection Results
3.5.1 Response Rates
3.5.2 Refusal Rates
3.5.3 Timing
Table 2-1 Summary of design factors affecting MPC samples, 2006, 2007, and 2008
Table 2-2 MPC sample sizes for data years 2006-2008
Table 3-1 Abstraction workload for hospital and office-based providers, 2006,
2007 and 2008*
Table 3-2 Schedule for MPC data collection, 2006-2008
Table 3-3 Provider-level response rates, for events in calendar years 2006-2008
Table 3-4 Pair-level response rates, for events in calendar
years 2006-2008
Table 3-5 SBD node-level response, 1998-2008
Table 3-6 Refusal conversion outcomes: Final disposition of cases coded as
refusals during MPC data collection, 2006-2008*
Table 3-7 Reasons for final refusal, 2006, 2007, and 2008*
Table 3-8 Hours per completed MPC patient-provider pair, 2006-2008
Table A-1 MPC sample sizes, provider level, 1996-2008
Table A-2 MPC sample sizes, pair level, 1996-2008
Table A-3 MPC schedule milestones, 1996-2008
Table A-4 MPC data collection results, provider level, 1996-2008
Table A-5 MPC data collection results, patient-provider pair level, 1996-2008
Table A-6 Refusal conversion outcomes, 1998-2008*
Figure 3-1 Hospital providers: Response factors over time
Figure 3-2 Office-based providers: Response factors over time
Figure 3-3 SBDs: Response factors over time
Figure 3-4 Pharmacy providers: Response factors over time
1. Introduction
This report describes the data collection activities and
results of the 2008 Medical Provider Component (MPC) of the Medical Expenditure
Panel Survey (MEPS).
The 2008 MPC sample was drawn from Panel 12 households
completing their second year (Rounds 3, 4, and 5) and Panel 13 households
completing their first year (Rounds 1, 2, and 3) of study participation. While
most activities and procedures carried out for the 2008 MPC did not differ from
prior years, efforts were made, as they are each year, to increase the
efficiency and quality of the data collection operation.
Chapter 2 of this report describes the activities that
occur prior to the start of data collection: sample preparation, forms
development, and recruiting and training of staff.
Chapter 3 details the data collection activities and
describes the data collection protocols for each subcomponent of the MPC:
hospitals, SBDs, office-based providers, health maintenance organizations
(HMOs), home health providers, institutional care providers, and pharmacies.
Also discussed in this chapter are the data abstraction procedures, quality
control activities, schedule, and results of data collection. The tables in
Appendix A summarize the results of data collection for each MPC year from 1996
through 2008.
This report provides an annual update for MPC data
collection activities. For a broader description of all activities associated
with the MPC, refer to the MEPS Medical Provider Component Methodology Report
1996-1999.
Return To Table Of Contents
2. Preparation Activities for
MPC Data Collection
This chapter describes activities associated with the
startup of MPC data collection. These activities include identification and
preparation of the sample for each subcomponent (hospital and office-based
providers, pharmacies, and separately billing doctors or SBDs); updating of data
collection forms and questionnaires; and recruiting and training of data
collection specialists (DCS) and abstractors.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.1 Sample Selection
2.1.1 Identification in
the Household Survey
Providers asked to participate in the MPC are identified
by Household Component respondents. The household respondents are asked to
identify all medical providers associated with health care services received by
each member of the household. Within the Household Component, medical providers
are broadly defined to include any type of practitioner contacted by the
household for what the household considers to be health care. In addition to
hospitals, clinics, HMOs, medical doctors, dentists, and home care providers,
the Household Component collects information about care obtained from
optometrists, podiatrists, chiropractors, psychologists, and other
practitioners. The sample for the MPC is drawn from among specified categories
of this wide range of providers.
In general, eligibility for the MPC is restricted to
services rendered in a hospital or by (or under the supervision of) a medical
doctor or doctor of osteopathy. Services provided by dentists, optometrists,
psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and other kinds of health care
practitioners who do not provide care under the supervision of a medical doctor
or doctor of osteopathy are excluded. Care provided by home care agencies
represents an exception to this rule; the sample design includes all care
provided through a home care agency. Pharmacies reported as sources of
prescription medicines obtained by household respondents make up the final group
of MPC respondents.
The following types of providers are considered eligible
for the MPC sample.
- Providers of Hospital-Based Care. All providers associated with
events reported as occurring at a hospital are eligible for the MPC.
Included are any providers associated with a hospital outpatient clinic or
emergency room event, as well as an inpatient stay.
- Providers of Long-Term Health Care. Although the
institutionalized population is not the primary target population for MEPS,
long-term health care facilities reported by household respondents are
included in the MPC data collection.
- Pharmacies from Which Household Respondents Report Obtaining
Prescription Medicines. Respondents who report obtaining/purchasing one
or more prescription medicines during the survey year are asked to identify
all of the pharmacies from which they obtained/purchased their medicines.
- Physicians (Medical Doctors/Doctors of Osteopathy) Associated with
Nonhospital Ambulatory Office Visits. All reported office-based
physicians are eligible for the MPC.
- Separately Billing Doctors (SBDs). These providers are not
identified by household respondents but by MPC hospital respondents. They
are identified by the hospital as health professionals who provide care to a
patient during an inpatient hospital stay, an emergency room visit, or an
outpatient hospital visit. The charges and payments for these services are
not included with those reported for the facility by the hospital’s patient
accounts office.
- Home Care Agencies. Any provider associated with a home care
agency who provides care in the home of a household respondent is eligible
for the MPC. Providers who are not associated with an agency are not
included in the MPC.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.1.2 Provider Coding
The process of relating provider names, addresses, and
telephone numbers to an operationally manageable, unduplicated list of MPC
sampled providers was carried out in essentially the same manner as in previous
years. The first stage of provider coding occurs in the household interview as
field interviewers use the online provider directory to identify providers named
by the household respondents. The version of the directory distributed on the
interviewer laptops has not been updated since MEPS was first fielded in 1996.
As a result, the number of providers who cannot be located in the directory has
increased over time, and much of the provider coding workload has shifted from
the interview to between-round processing at the home office. Home office
clerical staff have online access to an enhanced version of the directory, which
they use to code any providers not coded during the interview. Providers to whom
a new identification number is assigned at the home office are added to the
enhanced version of the directory accessible at the home office.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.1.3 Authorization Form
Acquisition and Processing
The MEPS protocol requires that a signed form
authorizing the project to contact a provider be obtained for each
person-provider pair identified for the MPC sample. The protocol for obtaining
authorization forms from household respondents has remained unchanged, but the
content of the form was revised in 2002 to conform to the requirements of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This form was
revised again in 2007 to remove the patient’s Social Security number and to add
words about opting out of participation. The form remained stable in 2008.
When the signed authorization form is received at
Westat’s home office, the image is scanned and the scanned image is printed for
the MPC for inclusion in interviewer materials and the electronic image is faxed
to the provider.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.1.4 Sample for Data Year 2008
The 2008 MPC sample was generated from two MEPS
household panels: Panel 12 households completing their second year of MEPS and
Panel 13 households completing their first year of the study. The Panel 12
portion of the sample was drawn from Rounds 3, 4, and 5 of that panel; the Panel
13 portion was drawn from Rounds 1, 2, and 3.
The total sample is fielded in three main groupings. The
first and largest group includes hospitals, office-based doctors (OBDs), home
care agencies, HMOs, and long-term care institutions. The second group is the
pharmacies, whose authorization form collection schedule differs from that of
the other providers. The third is the SBDs, who are identified by the hospitals
and fielded as the hospital data collection draws to a close. The providers in
each of these groupings are fielded in two or more waves.
The first wave of the 2008 sample, fielded in late
February 2009, included hospital, office-based doctors, home care, HMO, and
institutional providers identified in the household interviewing rounds that
ended in December 2008 (Panel 12, Rounds 3 and 4; Panel 13, Rounds 1 and 2).
Providers identified in the rounds ending in May-June (Panel 12, Round 5 and
Panel 13, Round 3) were fielded in July 2009. The authorization form "cutoff"
used in prior years was implemented again for the 2008 sample. This "cutoff"
allowed the timely fielding of the second wave of the MPC by eliminating, with
one exception, person-provider pairs associated with authorization forms
received after May 31. The exceptions to this rule were pairs that met the
criteria for "targeting"—that is, those expected to be associated with high
medical expenditures because of multiple or extended inpatient stays or
end-of-life care. Providers associated with a targeted person were fielded even
if the authorization form was received after May 31.
The pharmacy sample was fielded in two waves, with the
first wave being fielded at the end of May 2009. The pharmacy sample is fielded
later in the year than the hospital, OBD, home care, HMO, and institutional
providers because pharmacy authorization forms are collected only during the
spring rounds each year (Rounds 3 and 5). For the pharmacy sample, the first
wave is identified midway through Rounds 3 and 5, at a point when a substantial
portion of the interviewing has been completed. For the 2008 sample, the first
pharmacy wave was identified as of April 15, 2009; the pharmacies associated
with authorization forms signed as of that date were designated as the first
wave. Sample review, printing, and assembly were completed to allow data
collection to begin the last week of May.
Since the identification of SBDs is dependent upon the
completion of hospital data collection, the first waves of SBDs were released in
October 2009, when most of the hospital interviewing was complete. The last wave
was released in February 2010.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.1.5 Sample Sizes
Table 2-1 summarizes several aspects of the household
design that affect the annual MPC sample. Over the last several years, prior to
Panel 12, the number and location of the primary sampling units (PSUs) in which
household interviewing occurred, has remained stable at 195. For Panel 12 the
number of PSUs (and the location of some) has changed from 195 to 183.
As indicated in Table 2-1, the office-based providers
have been subsampled in each of the years shown. Table 2-2 shows MPC sample
sizes for data years 2006 through 2008 before and after the subsampling. The
subsampling is implemented using the household respondents’ characterization of
their providers as office-based. The table, however, shows providers as
classified for the MPC, which adjusts the household characterization based on
the project’s experience with the provider in prior years. These differences
between household and MPC characterizations of providers account for the changes
shown in the table for providers other than office-based physicians.
Table 2-1. Summary of design
factors affecting MPC samples, 2006, 2007, and 2008
|
2006
Panel 10,
Year 2 |
2006
Panel 11,
Year 1 |
2007
Panel 11,
Year 2 |
2007
Panel 12,
Year 1 |
2008
Panel 12,
Year 2 |
2008
Panel 13,
Year 1 |
No. of PSUs for household sample |
195 |
195 |
195 |
183 |
183 |
183 |
No. of household interviews |
6,461 |
7,007 |
6,781 |
5,383 |
5,182 |
7,648 |
Subsampling of office-based providers in
CAPI |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Subsampling of office-based providers after
CAPI |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
As shown in Table 2-2, the components of the MPC sample
have remained stable ("Initial Yield" column) over the last two years with some
decrease since 2006. There is also some variation, especially among OBDs, in the
number of providers fielded. As shown in the "After subsampling" column in the
table there were 13,473 OBDs fielded in 2006, 15,273 in 2007, and 10,762 in
2008. This variation is a direct result of the subsampling rates applied.
Table 2-2. MPC sample sizes for
data years 2006-2008
|
2006
Initial yield |
2006
After
subsampling |
2007
Initial yield |
2007
After
subsampling |
2008
Initial yield |
2008
After
subsampling |
Provider level, Hospital providers |
7,447 |
5,884 |
7,110 |
5,708 |
6,470 |
5,126 |
Provider level, Office-based providers |
27,620 |
13,473 |
25,052 |
15,273 |
25,537 |
10,762 |
Provider level, HMO providers |
333 |
284 |
501 |
316 |
517 |
243 |
Provider level, Home health providers |
655 |
648 |
534 |
516 |
505 |
498 |
Provider level, Institutional providers |
80 |
80 |
76 |
75 |
81 |
77 |
Provider level, SBDs |
21,126 |
21,126 |
19,435 |
19,435 |
19,262 |
19,262 |
Provider level, Pharmacy providers |
8,471 |
8,471 |
8,619 |
8,619 |
7,799 |
7,799 |
Total
|
65,731 |
49,966 |
61,327 |
49,942 |
60,171 |
43,767 |
Person-provider pair level, Hospital
providers |
13,071 |
11,911 |
11,220 |
10,646 |
11,374 |
10,672 |
Person-provider pair level, Office-based
providers |
37,576 |
17,139 |
30,812 |
19,021 |
32,546 |
13,917 |
Person-provider pair level, HMO providers |
694 |
594 |
852 |
621 |
968 |
572 |
Person-provider pair level, Home health
providers |
719 |
719 |
574 |
572 |
566 |
564 |
Person-provider pair level, Institutional
providers |
80 |
80 |
78 |
78 |
81 |
80 |
Person-provider pair level, SBDs |
31,058 |
31,058 |
26,407 |
26,407 |
27,496 |
27,496 |
Person-provider pair level, Pharmacy
providers |
21,090 |
20,090 |
19,052 |
19,052 |
19,678 |
19,678 |
Total |
104,285 |
81,591 |
88,995 |
76,398 |
92,709 |
72,979 |
Return To Table Of Contents
2.2 Instrument Design
For 2008 data collection, specific calendar year
references were updated. In addition to calendar year reference changes, the
following changes were made to the Contact Guide and Event Forms:
Contact Guide
- The script within the contact guide for all provider types was changed
to allow the data collection specialist to provide the names of the patients
to the respondent prior to sending the authorization forms.
Event Form
- The form was changed to allow a maximum of five diagnoses were collected
from all provider types except SBD providers and pharmacy providers.
- Diagnosis was deleted from SBD forms.
- The form was revised such that the "Expecting Additional Payment" payer
source categories VA and TRICARE/CHAMPVA/CHAMPUS on all provider type event
forms was changed to "VA/CHAMPVA" and TRICARE, respectively, to match the
payer source categories used in Household Component data collection.
The MEPS Medical Provider Component Methodology Report
1996-1999 provides a detailed description of each of the data collection
instruments.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.3 Recruiting and Training
2.3.1 Data Collection
Specialist (DCS) and Abstractor Recruiting
With 2008 being the last year of the MPC contract, all
candidates were recruited through employment agencies. Agencies sent resumes and
asked their candidates to call Westat for a screening interview. Candidates who
passed the telephone screening were invited for a personal interview, during
which they were asked to read a "mini" questionnaire to test their reading
ability and their facility for pronouncing common medical terms. References were
checked and, if all "checked out" they were invited to training. The number of
new DCSs and abstractors recruited was determined by the schedule, sample size,
attrition rate, and average hours expected per week by each data collection
specialist. In 2009 for the 2008 data year, 25 new abstractor and DCS staff were
recruited.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.3.2 General Overview Training
New DCSs and abstractors are welcomed to Westat with a
series of videos and presentations about Westat, about AHRQ, and about MEPS.
Each is focused on familiarizing new staff with the MPC and the work they will
be doing. Both abstractors and telephone data collection specialists are then
trained in general interviewing techniques that introduces new trainees to the
basic skills needed for interviewing: gaining respondent cooperation, listening,
probing, and conventions for recording answers. General training also includes
the AHRQ and Westat mandated training on security and confidentiality as well as
the policies and procedures of Westat and MPC operations. Both DCS and
abstractor staff attend this training; abstractors because they must make data
retrieval and clarification calls.
Return To Table Of Contents
2.3.3 MPC Project Training
for DCSs and Abstractors
For the 2008 MPC, there was just one training session
for the office-based and hospital components. This differed from previous years
because of a lower than usual attrition rate among current staff and a slightly
smaller OBD sample. Staff new to the MPC were trained on OBDs in mid March 2009
and in mid April 2009 for hospitals. The project also conducted refresher
training sessions for existing Westat staff for all components, beginning in
February, 2009.
The hospital training for new staff included two
different types of training: (1) Hospital contact guide training which covered
contacting hospital providers, identifying the correct respondent, and sending
the appropriate respondent materials and authorization forms and (2) Hospital
contact guide and event form training, which covered hospital contact
guide training as well as administering the event form.
Experienced DCSs and abstractors, those who had been
trained and worked on components in prior years, attended refresher trainings
for each component to which they were assigned. The refresher trainings were
designed to update staff on procedural changes and to hone their skills before
beginning work on 2008 data collection.
As the project workload required, DCSs with very strong
skills were selected for specialized training to collect data from specific
types of providers: institutional and home care providers, large HMOs, and
Veterans Affairs facilities. A special training session was conducted to prepare
DCSs to collect data from large pharmacy chains. Additional training sessions
were held to prepare selected staff for work as editors, provider locators, and
refusal and disavowal converters.
The subject matter and presentation styles of the 2008
project-specific training sessions were essentially unchanged from the previous
year. Videos, scripts and PowerPoint presentations were all employed during the
trainings. Additionally, the camera system (ELMO) was used to capture and
project images of the trainer recording on actual forms (not transparencies)
onto a screen. Role plays for DCSs and practice abstractions were also
conducted.
Return To Table Of Contents
3. Data Collection
Activities and Results
Most of the MPC instruments and procedures used for
contacting different types of providers for data year 2008 continued the
protocols established during the previous cycles of the survey as described in
earlier reports of the methodology series, especially the MEPS Medical Provider
Component Methodology Report 1996-1999.
This chapter provides a brief summary of the data
collection procedures. Although the chapter focuses primarily on the 2008 cycle
of data collection, most of the tables presented cover the years 2006 to 2008.
Data for 2006 and 2007 are provided for context and comparison. Tables
summarizing results from the first year of MPC data collection through 2008 are
presented in Appendix A.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1 Data Collection
Procedures
The MPC instruments and procedures were designed to
support data collection by telephone, but with the flexibility to use mail or
fax, as needed, to accommodate respondent preferences. As described in the MEPS
Medical Provider Methodology Report 1996-1999, a unique Event Form was developed
for each provider/sample type. The Event Forms are variations on a common theme;
adaptations were made as needed to collect the core set of MPC data items in
different provider settings. The forms collect a common set of data items for
each event that occurred during the target calendar year for each MEPS patient
seen by the provider.
The MPC event-level data are collected independently of
the specific events reported by the household respondents. With the exception of
separately billing doctors, discussed in Section 3.1.2, telephone data
collection specialists and medical providers are not given the dates of care
reported by the household respondents. The medical providers are asked to report
all events in their records for the target year, irrespective of what has been
reported by the household. The data collection specialists are, however, given a
count by event type of the household reports. This count serves as a prompt for
the data collection specialist to probe for additional events when the number of
events reported by the provider is less than the household report.
The data collection specialist (DCS) uses a Contact
Guide to provide structure to the initial conversation with each provider.
During the initial contact, the DCS identifies the appropriate respondents
within the provider setting, explains the MPC request, mails or sends a fax with
authorization forms, and documents steps for proceeding with the data
collection.
The following sections describe the MPC data collection
protocol and the procedural variations for each provider type.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.1 Hospital Data Collection
The first contact with the hospital is made by a
telephone data collection specialist.
In the initial call, the data collection specialist
verifies that the number reached is in fact a hospital. If the place is not a
hospital, the data collection specialist determines whether the place is
eligible for MPC data collection as another type of provider and, if so,
documents this fact and prepares the case for interviewing with the appropriate
Event Form. If the place contacted is a hospital, the data collection specialist
asks to speak to someone in the medical records department, the first of three
points of contact in the hospital protocol.
When the data collection specialist reaches a
representative in the medical records department, he or she explains the nature
of the data collection request and makes arrangements to fax or mail a packet of
survey materials. These materials explain the study and identify the patients
for whom information is being requested. Copies of the authorization forms
signed by the household respondents are also included in the packet. Faxing is
the preferred and most frequent mode for sending materials to the hospital
because of the speed with which it can be completed and the capability it
provides for prompt followup with the hospital contact. Upon ending the call
with the medical record department, the data collection specialist asks to be
transferred to the patient accounts department to request the remaining data
items—services provided, charges, and sources and amounts of payment.
Once medical records and patient accounts are received
by the provider, they are logged and sent to "abstraction" where the data are
abstracted and recorded in the Event Form as discussed in Section 3.2.
If the medical records and/or patient accounts are not
received after a prescribed period of time (which varies according to whether
material was faxed or mailed to the respondent), the data collection specialist
calls the specific department again and asks them to either send the records or,
if they prefer, to collect the data by telephone. If collected by telephone, the
data collection specialist asks for an initial set of data items from the
medical record department and the patient accounts department for each event in
the targeted calendar year. Of note, the medical records department contact is
also asked to report the name and specialty of each health professional who saw
the patient during the hospital event and who charged for services separately
from the hospital’s main facility billing. These health professionals, referred
to as separately billing doctors or SBDs, constitute the final segment of the
MPC sample (discussed in Section 3.1.2). After being identified by the hospital,
they are contacted by telephone and asked about the services they provided
during the events reported by the hospital. Medical records are the critical
source for identifying SBDs.
Upon receipt of medical records and patient accounts,
the data collection specialist contacts the hospital’s administrative offices to
ascertain the billing status of each health professional identified by the
medical records department and to obtain locating information for the followup
contacts with the providers who billed separately from the facility.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.2 Separately Billing
Doctors
The separately billing doctor or SBD portion of the MPC
sample is identified not by the household respondents but by MPC hospital
respondents. As explained in Section 3.1.1, SBDs are identified by the hospital
as health professionals who provide care during a hospital-based event but whose
charges and payments are not included in those reported by the hospital’s
patient accounts office. To capture this critical part of the costs of hospital
care, the MPC asks the hospital to identify all health professionals who provide
care during each hospital event, to indicate which of these bill separately from
the hospital, and to provide contact information for those who bill separately.
Once identified by the hospital, the SBDs enter a stream
of processing that prepares them for fielding. As a first step in this
processing, MPC edit staff review the completed hospital Event Forms to ensure
that the original hospital data collection specialist or abstractor followed the
appropriate steps to identify all SBDs associated with each event. Certain kinds
of events have a high likelihood of having one or more SBDs. The MPC edit staff
verify that the expected SBDs have been identified or that the data collection
specialist or abstractor has explicitly noted the hospital’s response to probing
for information about SBDs. For inpatient surgeries, for example, the hospital
is expected to identify at least a surgeon and an anesthesiologist. If the
completed case does not include the expected SBDs or an explanation for the
omission, the case is referred back for a retrieval call.
The edited hospital Event Forms are sent for data entry
and the information relating to the identification of the SBDs is keyed. Each
newly reported SBD is checked against previously reported providers and assigned
a provider-level identification (ID) number. The SBD sample is built and
unduplicated on a continuing basis as additional hospital cases are completed
and keyed. At appropriate points, the project staff define a "wave" of SBD
cases, generate case materials and authorization forms for the pairs in the
wave, assemble the materials, and incorporate them into the SBD data collection,
the schedule for which is discussed in Section 3.5.
Although they are referred to as separately billing
"doctors," many of the providers identified in medical records are not doctors
but other types of health professionals who bill separately for services
provided in a hospital setting. All health professionals who participated in the
hospital event and who bill separately are included in the SBD sample for
contact. Similarly, many of the ultimate respondents in the SBD data collection
are not the offices of physicians or other health professionals, but are billing
services. Over time, the SBD sample has included an increasing number of large
billing services that manage the records for providers who are widely dispersed
geographically.
Processing and fielding of SBDs differ from the
procedures for other provider types in several ways. Before a wave of SBDs can
be fielded, the providers in that wave must be compared with providers
previously fielded in the office-based sample. Because a physician named as an
SBD by a hospital may also have been named by the household respondent as a
physician seen in an office-based setting, and thus may have already been
contacted as an office-based provider, this check is made to avoid duplication
in the data collection. If the household respondent reported seeing the
physician in an office-based setting, information about the services the
physician provided in connection with the hospital event may have already have
been obtained in the course of the office-based data collection. The check
ensures that information about the event is not collected twice, and that
information collected about services in the hospital setting is processed as
part of the SBD event data rather than the office-based event data.
To support this check for overlaps between the
office-based and SBD samples, cases in each wave of the SBD sample are compared
electronically to the office-based sample to identify those that match on
patient-provider ID, event type, and event date. Based on the outcome of this
check, the new wave is handled as two waves: one wave with the cases containing
events that matched, one wave with those that did not match. For the cases with
a match, the office-based data for the event are reviewed to verify the match.
If the match is verified, the SBD case is not fielded and the office-based data
are used in subsequent SBD processing. Because of differences in the way
households and hospitals report the same providers, the electronic matching does
not identify all of the overlap cases. Consequently, the cases in the wave that
did not match on patient-provider ID are further reviewed for the possibility
that the data needed for the SBD were collected in the office-based component,
but under a different provider ID. Additional overlap cases are identified
through this review.
The SBD data collection protocol also differs from the
protocol for office-based physicians in another important way. When an MPC data
collection specialist calls an office-based physician, he or she requests
information about all events in the provider’s records for that patient
during the survey’s target year. SBD data collection, in contrast, focuses on
the specific events reported by the hospital. The SBD data collection specialist
is provided with the dates of service reported by the hospital and probes
specifically for services provided on those dates. Throughout collection and
processing, the SBD data are linked to the specific events identified by the
hospital.
The authorization form sent to SBDs identifies the
hospital as being authorized to release information and, in small print, states
that the release includes all providers who supplied services during the
hospital event. However, since many respondents do not read the small print DCSs
must explain how the authorization form does, indeed, cover the SBDs.
During hospital data collection, the hospital
administrative office respondents, who typically are the source of SBD contact
information, often cannot say definitely whether a given physician identified in
the records for a particular patient does or does not bill separately or whether
the physician did or did not bill separately for a specific event for the
patient. When the hospital administrative office respondent cannot make this
determination, the physician is included in the sample provisionally, pending
the outcome of the SBD data collection effort. During SBD data collection, when
the data collection specialist learns that a physician did not bill separately,
the SBD event created on the basis of the hospital report is assigned an
out-of-scope disposition.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.3 Office-Based
Physicians
The survey instrument and data collection protocols for
office-based providers were designed with the aim of making it possible for a
single respondent—a contact in the provider’s billing office—to provide all of
the requested data items. Whereas access to medical records is essential to the
collection of SBD names for hospital events, the office-based provider contact
was designed to eliminate the need for direct access to medical records and any
requirement for direct involvement of the physician. Typically, all of the
requested information is available from the provider’s billing records.
The Contact Guide for office-based providers leads the
data collection specialist through the process of identifying the place
contacted, verifying that services were provided at that location by (or under
the supervision of) a physician, and contacting a respondent with access to
billing records. Having contacted the billing respondent, the data collection
specialist explains the study, solicits cooperation, and makes arrangements to
fax or mail the survey documents and authorization forms. If the respondent
chooses to provide the billing records by phone, rather than sending them by
mail or fax, the data collection specialist makes arrangements to call back to
collect the data items. The data collection specialist calls back at the
appointed time and collects the detailed event-level information for each MEPS
patient who signed an authorization form for the provider.
As with hospitals, more office-based providers are
opting to mail or fax patient records rather than provide the requested
information by telephone. When billing records are received, they are reviewed
and the data elements are abstracted onto data collection forms. Questions that
arise are resolved through callbacks to the provider.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.4 Health Maintenance
Organizations
Although providers associated with health maintenance
organizations (HMOs) share many of the characteristics of office-based
physicians and clinics and, in some instances, operate their own hospitals,
their distinctive financing arrangements warrant special treatment in the MPC.
A select group of data collection specialists is
identified each year to handle contacts with HMOs. They develop familiarity with
capitation arrangements, HMO payment practices, and conventions for capturing
data on HMO practices within the basic set of MPC Event Forms. They also learn
how the records of specific HMOs are organized—when data must be obtained from
local offices or from regional or other centralized locations. Data collection
specialization also creates possibilities for continuity in contacts with an HMO
from year to year, although HMO staff turnover limits the extent to which this
can occur. When collecting data from an HMO respondent, the data collection
specialist uses either the hospital or the office-based physician form,
whichever is appropriate for the specific event being reported.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.5 Home Care Providers
In general, data collection for home care providers
follows the protocol for office-based providers. The data collection specialist
uses a home care provider Contact Guide for the initial calls and a
provider-type-specific Event Form to collect information about home care events.
The home care Event Form has been adapted to capture data that are
characteristic of home care providers.
The home care sample presents several special challenges
to the data collection effort. The identifying information provided by household
respondents is more frequently incomplete for home care providers than for other
provider types. Many respondents report their home care providers in personal
terms—using the person’s name or the kind of care the person provides—rather
than in terms of the provider’s agency or company. Identifying the appropriate
respondent for data collection—the agency or organization that maintains records
of the care—is often more difficult with home care providers than with other
provider types. Household respondents often identify intermediary or referral
agencies as the source of their home care rather than the agency itself. When
this occurs, the task of locating records for a patient may require contacts
with a series of social service providers, local agency representatives, and
corporate offices.
What constitutes home care, moreover, is less clearly
delineated than other types of health care considered eligible for the MPC.
Office-based physician care, for example, must be provided by or under the
supervision of a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy. "Home care," however,
is broadly defined for MEPS and can include a wide range of services provided in
the home, as long as they are provided because of a recipient’s health
conditions.
In recent years, the MPC has had to adjust the way it
captures payment information when providers report Medicare as a payer. Under
the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System that went into effect in
October 2000, Medicare instituted the practice of paying for approved home care
in 2-month increments. The MPC home care form is designed to collect data in
monthly increments. To handle the change in Medicare payments, project staff
routinely divide the amount reported by the provider, allocating an equal share
to each of the 2 months covered by the payment.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.6 Institutional Care
Providers
The institutional care sample of the MPC is identified
when household respondents are reported to have had an episode of care in a
long-term health care facility. As with other types of providers, the initial
contact with the institutional sample is by telephone. In the initial telephone
screening, a data collection specialist verifies whether the place is in fact a
long-term care facility. Copies of the survey materials and authorization forms
are faxed or mailed to the places verified as long-term care providers. This is
followed by contacts for the main data collection.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.7 Pharmacy Providers
During the first year of the MPC, the collection of
prescription medicine information from pharmacies was carried out as a mail
survey, in an operation separate from the main MPC effort. Problems encountered
during this first year led to a modification of the data collection approach,
shifting to a mixed mode (telephone and mail) in the second year and, in the
third and subsequent years, to telephone-based data collection conducted as a
subcomponent of the MPC. Since the third year, the pharmacy data collection has
followed a protocol similar to that for office-based providers: initial contact
by telephone, faxing of introductory materials and authorization forms, and
return (by fax or mail) of record-based responses from pharmacies.
A unique feature of the pharmacy data collection is its
focus on a request for a "patient profile" (a computer-generated listing of the
prescriptions dispensed to a given customer). Most pharmacies routinely make
such profiles available to customers on request, and the profiles contain many
of the data items most critical to MEPS: name and National Drug Code (NDC) for
each medicine, dosage and units, date dispensed, quantity, the customer’s
out-of-pocket payment, and third-party payments. The request to pharmacies
focuses on obtaining these patient profiles. Because many of the profiles are
missing critical items (such as third-party payers) or contain idiosyncratic
codes whose meaning is not apparent, at least one callback is necessary to
clarify or obtain information.
Sampled pharmacies are divided into two major groups for
handling: individual retail pharmacies and pharmacies associated with chains.
The approach for individual retail pharmacies is essentially the same as that
for office-based providers. A data collection specialist contacts the pharmacy
by telephone to identify an appropriate respondent and explain the study. During
this call, the data collection specialist explains the nature of the data
request, asks about the availability of patient profiles, and discusses the data
items available on the profiles. This discussion is intended to limit the need
for callbacks to obtain additional explanation after the profiles have been
received. Finally, the data collection specialist arranges to mail or fax the
authorization forms and other survey documents to the pharmacy. Pharmacies are
asked to respond by mailing or faxing the profiles for the designated patients.
Pharmacies associated with chains are approached in one
of two ways, with the approach determined by the project’s interactions with the
chain in prior years. Some chains prefer that the project contact its individual
stores to collect the data; in these cases, the data collection progresses the
same as with the individual retail stores. Other chains prefer to handle the
data request through a regional or central contact. For these chains, the
initial contact is by telephone with the corporate or regional office. The
project establishes a corporate contact and negotiates cooperation and an
arrangement for obtaining the data. In general, the project does whatever is
necessary to facilitate the chain’s compliance including providing customized
hard-copy listings or electronic files identifying the customers who have
provided authorization forms. Different chains have chosen to participate in
different ways. Some simply suggest that the project directly contact their
individual retail outlets, sometimes supplementing that request with an
authorizing communication to the outlets. Some chains compile the information
from central or regional offices, providing printed patient profiles for all of
their reported patients. Other chains request a diskette identifying the
patients of interest and the store locations. The diskette and the authorization
forms are sent to the corporate office. Some corporate offices return an
electronic file of the profile data, while others provide hard-copy documents
even though the initial request was by diskette. For 2008 data collection, the
MPC worked in collaboration with the MEPS household interviewers to obtain
patient profiles directly from the household respondents if the household
respondents filled at least one prescription from selected corporate chains.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.1.8 Veterans Affairs
Facilities and Military and Indian Health Service Hospitals
Over time, the project has developed procedures for
handling contacts with selected types of providers whose organization or
characteristic data require special attention. Although the standard Event Forms
are used to collect data from these providers, what these providers can report
often deviates from the most common patterns. Small groups of data collection
specialists are trained to handle these cases, which involve providers
associated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the U.S. military,
and the Indian Health Service. Some cases are initially selected for handling by
these specialized data collection specialists on the basis of provider names;
other cases receive special handling after an initial call identifies them as
belonging to one of the relevant groups.
These cases commonly present special problems, examples
of which are described below.
- Problems of Patient Identification. Most VA and military
facilities use the prime beneficiary’s Social Security Number (SSN) for
medical record and patient account identification. The absence of an SSN
from the authorization form causes problems in obtaining the cooperation of
facilities that have to rely on another method for identifying the desired
records. Facilities whose recordkeeping is based on the SSN of the service
member or eligible veteran have more difficulty when the MEPS patient is a
dependent, especially a dependent with a different name.
- Mobility of Medical Records. When military personnel move,
retire, or separate from service, they take their medical records with them.
They also remove their records when going to outside providers and sometimes
fail to return them to the medical records section. As a result, some MPC
cases cannot be successfully completed because the records are not
available.
- Charges and Payments. There is considerable variation in what
these facilities can report as the full established charges for their
services. Payment patterns also vary: while there may be no event-specific
payments for some eligible patients, for other patients there may be
copayments and/or charges to third parties.
For 2007 data collection and again in 2008, AHRQ
approved a modification to the way in which VA charge data were collected. For
the VA cases where Westat was unable to collect charge equivalents from the
provider, Westat coded the services and procedures found in the medical record
and used a VA sponsored website to obtain the billing rates established by the
VA Chief Business Office.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.2 Data Abstraction
As explained in Section 3.1.1, the first step in the
data collection protocol for hospital providers is to contact the medical
records department of the hospital to establish the date(s) of service, the
place of service (inpatient, outpatient, emergency, or other), the diagnosis for
each date of service, and the names of the SBDs associated with each date of
service. Although the original methodology for hospital data collection used
telephone contact for collecting these data items, most providers prefer to send
copies of patient records by fax or by mail. Patient accounts departments, like
the medical record departments, particularly those in large hospitals, also
prefer to send copies of billing records, rather than take the time to report
information by telephone. Many nonhospital providers, such as physicians and
pharmacists, also often choose to mail/fax records rather than report by
telephone. When medical and patient account records are received, the records
are sent to the Abstraction Unit where the relevant data items are abstracted
from the records and recorded in the appropriate Event Form by skilled
abstractors.
Table 3-1 shows the level of the abstraction effort for
2006, 2007, and 2008. The table shows the number of cases ("provider-waves")
completed and the number and percentage of these for which records were
abstracted for two stages of hospital respondents, for office-based providers,
and for SBDs. The percentage of abstraction for medical records within hospitals
decreased slightly in 2008 to 87 percent compared to 93.4 percent in 2007 and
91.3 percent in 2006. Abstraction for other provider types increased slightly
over the past 3 years with the largest increase occurring with office based
doctors with 54.2 percent being abstracted in 2006 and 76.1 percent in 2008.
Table 3-1. Abstraction workload for
hospital and office-based providers, 2006, 2007 and 2008*
2006 Respondent type |
2006
Completes |
2006
Providers
sending records
Number |
2006
Providers
sending records
Percent |
Hospital—medical records |
6,863 |
6,269 |
91.3 |
Hospital—patient accounts |
6,863 |
5,752 |
83.8 |
Office-based providers** |
10,574 |
5,735 |
54.2 |
SBDs |
11,563 |
5,666 |
49.0 |
2007 Respondent type |
2007
Completes |
2007
Providers
sending records
Number |
2007
Providers
sending records
Percent |
Hospital—medical records |
6,565 |
6,135 |
93.4 |
Hospital—patient accounts |
6,565 |
5,890 |
89.7 |
Office-based providers** |
12,279 |
8,887 |
72.3 |
SBDs |
11,542 |
5,613 |
48.6 |
2008 Respondent type |
2008
Completes |
2008
Providers
sending records
Number |
2008
Providers
sending records
Percent |
Hospital—medical records |
5,949 |
5,175 |
87.0 |
Hospital—patient accounts |
5,949 |
5,324 |
89.5 |
Office-based providers** |
8,857 |
6,724 |
76.1 |
SBDs |
10,413 |
5,438 |
52.2 |
* Units in the table are "provider-waves," the units
used to track cases for data collection. A provider is counted once for each
wave of the sample in which it is represented.
**Excludes OBDs worked as hospital cases
Return To Table Of Contents
3.3 Quality Control
Quality control checks are in place at each step of the
MPC data collection.
Ten percent of the work of each telephone data
collection specialist is silently monitored. Monitors "listen" to telephone
contacts to ensure that the Contact Guide and the Event Form questions are being
administered and that answers are recorded according to the protocol. Monitoring
staff complete an evaluation form during each monitoring session and, following
the session, discuss the data collection specialist’s performance, providing
both positive and negative feedback as needed.
The abstractors’ work is verified by re–abstraction. One
hundred percent of all new abstractor work is verified during their first two
weeks, then, if their work is acceptable, the verification rate is reduced to 10
percent. An evaluation form is completed to note the quality of the work and to
identify any items needing clarification. The form is reviewed with the
abstractor.
All finalized cases, whether or not they include
completed Event Forms, are reviewed by editors. The editors assess the case
documents for clarity and legibility of responses and for adherence to the
specifications for each question. Editors prepare a Problem Resolution Sheet to
inform the data collection specialist (or abstractor) of items that need
resolution or data retrieval. Five critical items, if blank or containing
invalid responses, trigger preparation of a Problem Resolution Sheet: date of
service, diagnosis (ICD-9 code), procedure (CPT-4 code), reimbursement type, and
total payment by source. Other unusual situations, such as linked events or
overpayments, trigger managerial review. Cases for which a Problem Resolution
Sheet is prepared are returned to the appropriate data collection specialist (or
abstractor) for clarification and, when necessary, for a callback to the
provider to retrieve missing or incomplete items. When the cases are returned to
the editors after data retrieval, they are reviewed again to make sure that all
items on the Problem Resolution Sheet have been resolved. When editing on the
case is complete, the Event Forms are sent for data entry. If the data entry
process identifies a problem, the case is returned to the editing department for
resolution and, if necessary, to the data collection specialist (or abstractor)
for further clarification.
The work of the editors is also verified. All work by
newly trained editors is verified 100 percent with the rate being reduced as the
editor achieves a greater and greater level of proficiency, with the minimum
level being 10 percent.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.4 Data Collection Schedule
The annual expenditure estimates generated from MEPS are
derived from a union of the data collected from household and medical provider
respondents. The data in a given year’s estimates relate to the year in which
the data were collected from household respondents. Because the MPC sample is
identified during household data collection, medical provider data collection
necessarily follows household data collection, and the MPC sample cannot be
fully identified until all household interviewing for the target calendar year
is complete (the June following the end of the target year).
A major goal of the survey is to make the MEPS data
available to users on as timely a basis as possible. By design, the MPC trails
household interviewing. It provides the last elements of data content for the
annual estimates, and the major processes required to prepare the annual
estimates cannot begin until the MPC data collection is complete. Achieving the
data delivery goal thus requires that the MPC data collection be started and
completed as quickly as possible following household interviewing.
The schedule for fielding the MPC sample is shaped by
the data delivery goal in several ways. The MPC sample for a given year is
fielded in two or more waves, with the first wave beginning while household
interviewing for the data year is still in progress. A first wave of the MPC
sample is drawn from the first two rounds of household data collection for the
calendar year—from Rounds 1 and 2 of the panel completing its first year and
from Rounds 3 and 4 of the panel in its second year. These rounds end by
mid-December. The final wave of the MPC sample can be fielded only after the
household rounds that close out the calendar year data collection—Round 3 of the
panel in its first year and Round 5 of the panel completing its second year—have
been completed, which occurs in June. Readying these last elements of the year’s
MPC sample for data collection is critical to the overall MPC data collection
schedule. A minimum of 12 to 14 weeks is needed to build an acceptable response
rate for this final part of the sample. The availability of this sample thus
sets a minimum bound on how quickly the MPC data collection can end and the MPC
data can be made available for processing. In recent years, the project has made
steady incremental progress in reducing the processing time required to field
each wave of the sample at the start of data collection operations and in making
the MPC data available for processing at the end of data collection.
Table 3-2 summarizes the schedule for MPC data
collection for calendar years 2006 through 2008. As reflected in the table, the
sample is fielded in three groups with hospitals, office-based physicians, and
home care, institutional, and HMO providers fielded as one group and SBD and
pharmacy providers fielded as separate groups. For each of the main elements of
the data collection, the table shows the start of the first wave of MPC data
collection, the end of the final round of household data collection that
generated the sample for the year’s MPC, the start of the last wave of MPC data
collection, the end of the MPC data collection, and the number of waves in which
the year’s MPC sample was fielded.
Table 3-2. Schedule for MPC data
collection, 2006-2008
Year |
Provider
group |
Start of first
MPC wave |
End of
household
data collection |
Start of last
MPC wave |
End of
MPC
data collection |
Number
of waves |
2006 |
Hospital, etc.* |
02/28/07 |
6/15/07 |
08/29/07 |
12/27/07 |
3 |
2006 |
SBD |
11/19/07 |
6/15/07 |
03/05/08 |
04/25/08 |
5 |
2006
|
Pharmacy |
05/08/07 |
6/15/07 |
08/06/07 |
01/08/08 |
3 |
2007 |
Hospital, etc.* |
2/28/08 |
6/15/08 |
8/18/08 |
12/15/08 |
3 |
2007 |
SBD |
10/6/08 |
6/15/08 |
2/26/09 |
4/15/09 |
6 |
2007
|
Pharmacy |
6/2/08 |
6/15/08 |
8/7/08 |
12/15/08 |
2 |
2008 |
Hospital, etc.* |
3/3/09 |
6/15/09 |
7/31/09 |
12/18/09 |
3 |
2008 |
SBD |
10/16/09 |
6/15/09 |
2/2/10 |
4/15/10 |
5 |
2008 |
Pharmacy |
5/19/09 |
6/15/09 |
7/24/09 |
12/31/09 |
2 |
* Includes hospitals, office-based physicians, and home
care, institutional, and HMO providers.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.5 Data Collection Results
3.5.1 Response Rates
Table 3-3 summarizes the provider-level results of the
MPC data collection for data years 2006 to 2008. The response rate for the
providers in the hospital component increased slightly from 2007 (94.4%) to 2008
(94.6%), HMOs increased from 92.3 to 97.0 percent, homecare providers increased
from 88.3 to 90.2 percent, and institutions increased from 93.0 to 93.3 percent.
The 2008 response rate for OBDs was also higher than in any previous data
collection year increasing to 89.1 percent from 87.5 percent in 2007. The
response rate for SBDs was lower than in 2008 than in 2007, 86.0 percent vs.
87.4. The lower rate is a result of a shorter data collection period due to
severe weather. The overall pharmacy rate is also lower in 2008 as a result of
the continued refusal of a large provider.
Table 3-3. Provider-level response
rates, for events in calendar years 2006-2008
Provider |
Initial
sample |
Initial
sample after
subsampling |
Final
eligible
sample |
Response
rate |
Refusal
rate |
Other
nonresponse
rate |
2006 Providers, Hospitals |
7,447 |
5,884 |
5,484 |
0.941 |
0.022 |
0.037 |
2006 Providers, Office-based
providers |
27,620 |
13,473 |
12,062 |
0.869 |
0.074 |
0.057 |
2006 Providers, HMOs |
333 |
284 |
238 |
0.920 |
0.042 |
0.038 |
2006 Providers, Home care
providers |
655 |
648 |
602 |
0.856 |
0.080 |
0.065 |
2006 Providers, Institutions |
80 |
80 |
78 |
0.808 |
0.115 |
0.077 |
2006 Providers, SBDs |
21,126 |
21,126 |
13,013 |
0.823 |
0.111 |
0.066 |
2006 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,471 |
8,471 |
7,489 |
0.799 |
0.149 |
0.052 |
2006 Providers, Total
|
65,731 |
49,966 |
38,966 |
|
|
|
2007 Providers, Hospitals |
7,110 |
5,708 |
5,328 |
0.944 |
0.023 |
0.033 |
2007 Providers, Office-based
providers |
25,052 |
15,273 |
13,492 |
0.875 |
0.077 |
0.048 |
2007 Providers, HMOs |
501 |
316 |
247 |
0.923 |
0.036 |
0.041 |
2007 Providers, Home care
providers |
534 |
516 |
464 |
0.883 |
0.060 |
0.057 |
2007 Providers, Institutions |
76 |
75 |
72 |
0.930 |
0.042 |
0.028 |
2007 Providers, SBDs |
19,435 |
19,435 |
12,410 |
0.874 |
0.072 |
0.054 |
2007 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,619 |
8,619 |
7,760 |
0.797 |
0.165 |
0.038 |
2007 Providers, Total
|
61,327 |
49,942 |
39,773 |
|
|
|
2008 Providers, Hospitals |
6,470 |
5,126 |
4,776 |
0.946 |
0.022 |
0.035 |
2008 Providers, Office-based
providers |
25,537 |
10,762 |
9,533 |
0.891 |
0.067 |
0.054 |
2008 Providers, HMOs |
517 |
243 |
198 |
0.970 |
0.000 |
0.031 |
2008 Providers, Home care
providers |
505 |
498 |
446 |
0.901 |
0.077 |
0.032 |
2008 Providers, Institutions |
81 |
77 |
72 |
0.944 |
0.044 |
0.015 |
2008 Providers, SBDs |
19,262 |
19,262 |
11,364 |
0.860 |
0.097 |
0.066 |
2008 Providers, Pharmacies |
7,799 |
7,799 |
7,026 |
0.756 |
0.271 |
0.050 |
2008 Providers, Total |
60,171 |
43,767 |
33,415 |
|
|
|
Table 3-4 below summarizes the results at the
patient-provider pair level. For each event type, the tables show sample size
and rates for response, refusals, and other nonresponse.
Table 3-4. Pair-level response
rates, for events in calendar years 2006-2008
Patient-provider pair |
Initial
sample |
Initial
sample after
subsampling |
Final
eligible
sample |
Response
rate |
Refusal
rate |
Other
nonresponse
rate |
2006 Pairs, Hospitals |
13,071 |
11,911 |
10,830 |
0.934 |
0.031 |
0.035 |
2006 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
37,576 |
17,139 |
15,274 |
0.861 |
0.082 |
0.056 |
2006 Pairs, HMOs |
694 |
594 |
476 |
0.903 |
0.059 |
0.038 |
2006 Pairs, Home care
providers |
719 |
719 |
661 |
0.847 |
0.082 |
0.071 |
2006 Pairs, Institutions |
80 |
80 |
78 |
0.808 |
0.115 |
0.077 |
2006 Pairs, SBDs |
31,058 |
31,058 |
18,699 |
0.807 |
0.144 |
0.049 |
2006 Pairs, Pharmacies |
20,990 |
20,990 |
17,418 |
0.734 |
0.196 |
0.070 |
2006 Pairs, Total
|
104,288 |
81,591 |
74,227 |
|
|
|
2007 Pairs, Hospitals |
11,220 |
10,646 |
9,611 |
0.929 |
0.032 |
0.039 |
2007 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
30,812 |
19,021 |
16,713 |
0.870 |
0.083 |
0.047 |
2007 Pairs, HMOs |
852 |
621 |
459 |
0.919 |
0.046 |
0.035 |
2007 Pairs, Home care
providers |
574 |
572 |
513 |
0.887 |
0.057 |
0.056 |
2007 Pairs, Institutions |
78 |
78 |
75 |
0.933 |
0.040 |
0.027 |
2007 Pairs, SBDs |
26,407 |
26,407 |
16,660 |
0.864 |
0.046 |
0.090 |
2007 Pairs, Pharmacies |
19,052 |
19,052 |
16,313 |
0.737 |
0.217 |
0.046 |
2007 Pairs, Total
|
88,995 |
76,397 |
60,344 |
|
|
|
2008 Pairs, Hospitals |
11,374 |
10,672 |
9,600 |
0.943 |
0.026 |
0.034 |
2008 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
32,546 |
13,917 |
12,281 |
0.884 |
0.077 |
0.054 |
2008 Pairs, HMOs |
968 |
572 |
449 |
0.958 |
0.002 |
0.042 |
2008 Pairs, Home care
providers |
566 |
564 |
502 |
0.902 |
0.077 |
0.031 |
2008 Pairs, Institutions |
81 |
80 |
75 |
0.947 |
0.042 |
0.014 |
2008 Pairs, SBDs |
27,496 |
27,498 |
16,144 |
0.846 |
0.133 |
0.049 |
2008 Pairs, Pharmacies |
19,678 |
19,678 |
17,038 |
0.706 |
0.356 |
0.060 |
2008 Pairs, Total |
92,709 |
72,878 |
56,089 |
|
|
|
During the first 2 years of MPC operations, the progress
of SBD data collection was tracked at the provider and patient-provider pair
levels, the same as for other provider types. Beginning in 1998, SBDs were also
tracked at the "node" level, that is, in terms of each SBD reported for each
event identified in the hospital data collection. Table 3-5 summarizes the
node-level data collection results for 1998 to 2008. The sample losses occurring
with the SBD data collection are reflected as the "eligibility rate" in this
table.
Table 3-5. SBD node-level response,
1998-2008
|
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
Total nodes |
26,421 |
30,994 |
33,354 |
59,910 |
64,837 |
56,353 |
62,131 |
62,861 |
74,247 |
59,862 |
62,903 |
Out of scope |
10,111 |
13,811 |
16,816 |
30,121 |
30,463 |
26,107 |
30,073 |
30,181 |
38,087 |
31,209 |
34,332 |
Net eligible |
16,310 |
17,183 |
16,538 |
29,789 |
34,374 |
30,246 |
32,058 |
32,680 |
36,160 |
28,653 |
28,571 |
Complete |
12,368 |
12,571 |
12,691 |
21,204 |
23,067 |
22,274 |
24,661 |
25,020 |
26,491 |
23,088 |
22,441 |
Nonresponse |
3,942 |
4,612 |
3,847 |
8,585 |
11,307 |
7,972 |
7,397 |
7,660 |
9,669 |
5,520 |
6,130 |
Eligibility rate |
0.617 |
0.554 |
0.496 |
0.497 |
0.53 |
0.537 |
0.516 |
0.520 |
0.487 |
0.505 |
0.452 |
Completion rate |
0.758 |
0.732 |
0.767 |
0.712 |
0.671 |
0.736 |
0.769 |
0.766 |
0.733 |
0.810 |
0.785 |
Return To Table Of Contents
3.5.2 Refusal Rates
Tables 3-6 and 3-7 provide additional information on the
refusal component of nonresponse for 2006 through 2008. The units reported in
these two tables are "provider-waves," the units used to track providers in the
telephone operational management system. A provider reported by patients in both
waves of a year’s sample is represented twice in these tallies.
Table 3-6 shows the proportion of cases "ever coded a
refusal" and the final disposition of cases after conversion. The percentage of
"ever coded a refusal" cases over the 3 years represented in the table is fairly
consistent with previous years. The conversion rates (the last column in Table
3-6) shows that fully three-fourths of hospital medical records and patient
accounts cases initially coded as a refusal during 2006 and 2007 were
successfully converted, during 2008 this percentage jumped to 80 percent.
Thirty-six percent of SBD cases ever coded a refusal were successfully
converted, an increase of 2.6 percent from 2007 and almost 8 percent from 2006.
The conversion rate for OBDs is also higher than 2007 (59.8% vs. 51.9%) and the
pharmacy rate is higher than 2007 but lower than 2006, 12.3, 5.7, and 16.4
percent, respectively.
Table 3-6. Refusal conversion
outcomes: Final disposition of cases coded as refusals during MPC data
collection, 2006-2008*
|
Initial
sample
(N) |
Ever
coded
refusal
N |
Ever
coded
refusal
Percent
of initial
sample |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Out of
scope
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Out of
scope
Percent of
refusals |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Final
refusal
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Final
refusal
Percent of
refusals |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Other
nonresponse
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Other
nonresponse
Percent of
refusals |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Complete
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Complete
Percent of
refusals |
2006 Hospital--medical records |
8,041 |
944 |
11.7 |
60 |
6.4 |
209 |
22.1 |
18 |
1.9 |
657 |
69.6 |
2006 Hospital--patient
accounts |
8,041 |
1,123 |
14.0 |
47 |
4.2 |
208 |
18.5 |
15 |
1.3 |
853 |
76.0 |
2006 Hospital--admin offices |
8,041 |
266 |
3.3 |
32 |
12.0 |
199 |
74.8 |
2 |
0.8 |
33 |
12.4 |
2006 Office-based providers |
14,058 |
2,565 |
18.2 |
148 |
5.8 |
948 |
37.0 |
57 |
2.2 |
1,412 |
55.0 |
2006 Pharmacies |
10,917 |
1,929 |
17.7 |
73 |
3.8 |
1,509 |
78.2 |
31 |
1.6 |
316 |
16.4 |
2006 SBDs
|
23,399 |
3,602 |
15.4 |
771 |
21.4 |
1,785 |
49.6 |
9 |
0.2 |
1,037 |
28.8 |
2007 Hospital--medical records |
7,738 |
1,008 |
13.0 |
59 |
5.8 |
178 |
17.6 |
27 |
2.7 |
744 |
73.8 |
2007 Hospital--patient
accounts |
7,738 |
1,223 |
15.8 |
79 |
6.5 |
179 |
14.6 |
21 |
1.7 |
944 |
77.2 |
2007 Hospital--admin offices |
7,738 |
204 |
2.6 |
15 |
7.3 |
176 |
86.3 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
6.4 |
2007 Office-based providers |
15,943 |
2,743 |
17.2 |
161 |
5.9 |
1095 |
39.9 |
63 |
2.3 |
1424 |
51.9 |
2007 Pharmacies |
9,767 |
1,442 |
14.8 |
20 |
1.4 |
1337 |
92.7 |
3 |
0.0 |
82 |
5.7 |
2007 SBDs
|
21,172 |
2,607 |
12.3 |
551 |
21.1 |
1,167 |
44.8 |
17 |
0.7 |
872 |
33.4 |
2008 Hospital--medical records |
6,932 |
1,139 |
16.4 |
58 |
5.1 |
148 |
13.0 |
17 |
1.5 |
916 |
80.4 |
2008 Hospital--patient
accounts |
6,932 |
1,277 |
18.4 |
60 |
4.7 |
148 |
11.6 |
39 |
3.1 |
1030 |
80.7 |
2008 Hospital--admin offices |
6,932 |
180 |
2.6 |
14 |
7.8 |
140 |
77.8 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
14.4 |
2008 Office-based providers |
11,277 |
1,945 |
17.2 |
104 |
5.3 |
615 |
31.6 |
67 |
3.4 |
1159 |
59.8 |
2008 Pharmacies |
9,334 |
2,110 |
22.6 |
37 |
1.8 |
1,770 |
83.9 |
43 |
2.0 |
260 |
12.3 |
2008 SBDs |
21,071 |
2,858 |
13.6 |
558 |
19.5 |
1,253 |
43.8 |
19 |
0.7 |
1028 |
36.0 |
*Cell entries represent "provider-waves," the units used
to monitor telephone data collection operations. A provider is counted in each
wave of fielded cases in which it appears.
**The denominator for "ever coded a refusal" includes provider wave cases ever
coded an interim refusal (2* or 3*) or a final refusal (H* or R*) without being
coded an interim refusal.
***Less than 1 percent.
As illustrated in Table 3-7, overall, the reasons for
final refusals during 2008 data collection are very similar to those cited
during 2006 and 2007 data collection.
Table 3-7. Reasons for final
refusal, 2006, 2007, and 2008*
|
2006
Hospitals |
2006
OBDs |
2006
Pharmacies |
2006
SBDs |
2006
Total |
2007
Hospitals |
2007
OBDs |
2007
Pharmacies |
2007
SBDs |
2007
Total |
2008
Hospitals |
2008
OBDs |
2008
Pharmacies |
2008
SBDs |
2008
Total |
Final refusal |
209 |
948 |
1509 |
1785 |
4451 |
178 |
1095 |
1337 |
1167 |
3777 |
148 |
615 |
1770 |
1253 |
3786 |
Refusal N |
122 |
704 |
1341 |
1296 |
3463 |
113 |
815 |
1299 |
855 |
3082 |
91 |
419 |
1697 |
852 |
3059 |
Refusal % |
58.4 |
74.3 |
88.9 |
72.6 |
77.8 |
63.5 |
74.4 |
97.2 |
73.3 |
81.6 |
61.5 |
68.1 |
95.9 |
68.0 |
80.8 |
HIPAA refusal N |
2 |
4 |
21 |
5 |
32 |
1 |
3 |
15 |
14 |
33 |
0 |
5 |
13 |
22 |
40 |
HIPAA refusal % |
1.0 |
*** |
1.4 |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
1.1 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
*** |
*** |
*** |
1.8 |
1.1 |
Provider will
not accept
authorization N |
44 |
86 |
110 |
281 |
521 |
38 |
137 |
20 |
119 |
314 |
40 |
97 |
35 |
169 |
341 |
Provider will
not accept
authorization % |
21.1 |
9.1 |
7.3 |
15.7 |
11.7 |
21.3 |
12.5 |
1.5 |
10.2 |
8.3 |
27.0 |
15.8 |
2.0 |
13.5 |
9.0 |
Respondent revoked
authorization N |
24 |
81 |
25 |
23 |
153 |
10 |
74 |
0 |
14 |
98 |
7 |
66 |
19 |
19 |
111 |
Respondent revoked
authorization % |
11.5 |
8.5 |
1.7 |
1.3 |
3.4 |
5.6 |
6.8 |
0 |
1.2 |
2.6 |
4.7 |
10.7 |
1.1 |
1.5 |
2.9 |
Records archived
and resp refuses to
retrieve N |
1 |
21 |
7 |
19 |
48 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
Records archived
and resp refuses to
retrieve % |
*** |
2.2 |
*** |
1.1 |
1.1 |
2.2 |
*** |
0 |
*** |
0.2 |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
Records purged from
system N |
13 |
47 |
3 |
124 |
187 |
9 |
52 |
1 |
126 |
188 |
4 |
18 |
5 |
158 |
185 |
Records purged from
system % |
6.2 |
5.0 |
0.2 |
6.9 |
4.2 |
5.1 |
4.7 |
*** |
10.8 |
4.9 |
2.7 |
2.9 |
*** |
12.6 |
4.9 |
System conversion N |
3 |
5 |
2 |
37 |
47 |
3 |
12 |
2 |
36 |
53 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
31 |
38 |
System conversion % |
1.4 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
2.1 |
1.1 |
1.7 |
1.1 |
*** |
3.1 |
1.4 |
*** |
*** |
*** |
2.5 |
1.0 |
Other refusal N |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
Other refusal % |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3.4 |
*** |
*** |
0 |
*** |
* Cell entries represent "provider-waves," the units
used to monitor telephone data collection operations. A provider is counted in
each wave of fielded cases in which it appears.
***Less than 1 percent
Figures 3-1 through 3-4 provide a graphic summary of
major components of the MEPS MPC data collection over the survey’s history. Data
elements highlighted in the graphs are at the provider level. The figures show
response over time for hospitals (Figure 3-1), office-based providers (Figure
3-2), SBDs (Figure 3-3), and pharmacies (Figure 3-4). The lines on each figure
indicate the
- Sample size, as a proportion of the sample fielded in 2002,
- Sample eligibility rate,
- Final completion rate, and
- Final refusal rate.
Figure 3-1. Hospital providers:
Response factors over time
Figure 3-2. Office-based
providers: Response factors over time
Figure 3-3. SBDs: Response factors
over time
Figure 3-4. Pharmacy providers:
Response factors over time
In general, the figures show relatively little
fluctuation from year to year in eligibility rates, final completion rates, and
final refusal rates despite some very noticeable changes in sample size.
The hospital sample essentially doubled from the
1998-2000 level to a peak in 2002, then dropped in 2003 and has declined
slightly each year since. The sample loss rate has been consistent over the
years while the completion rate continues to increase moderately each year.
Though there is more fluctuation in the OBD sample than
other components as a result of subsampling, there is consistency across the
years in the rates of sample loss, completion and refusals.
Return To Table Of Contents
3.5.3 Timing
The hours per completed MPC provider-pair shown in Table
3-8 include both interviewing and abstracting hours.
Table 3-8. Hours per completed MPC
patient-provider pair, 2006-2008
Year |
Provider type
Hospital |
Provider type
Office-based |
Provider type
Home care |
Provider type
Pharmacy |
Provider type
SBD |
2006 |
8.41 |
3.33 |
6.53 |
0.56 |
3.56 |
2007 |
8.01 |
3.08 |
6.80 |
0.51 |
3.33 |
2008 |
8.84 |
3.77 |
6.84 |
0.49 |
3.24 |
Return To Table Of Contents
Appendix A
MPC Data Collection
Summary Tables 1996-2008
Table A-1. MPC sample sizes,
provider level, 1996-2008
|
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
Hospital, Initial sample |
3,301 |
6,045 |
4,844 |
3,520 |
3,760 |
6,801 |
8,811 |
7,806 |
7,567 |
7,461 |
7,447 |
7,110 |
6,470 |
Hospital, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
4,065 |
3,468 |
n/a |
3,760 |
5,616 |
6,780 |
6,023 |
6,094 |
6,059 |
5,884 |
5,708 |
5,126 |
Hospital, Final in-scope
sample |
3,330 |
4,163 |
3,247 |
3,284 |
3,467 |
5,201 |
6,325 |
5,580 |
5,671 |
5,600 |
5,484 |
5,328 |
4,776 |
HMO, Initial sample |
296 |
396 |
228 |
247 |
118 |
476 |
559 |
607 |
420 |
422 |
333 |
501 |
517 |
HMO, Sample after subsampling |
n/a |
350 |
171 |
n/a |
118 |
334 |
290 |
280 |
300 |
301 |
284 |
316 |
243 |
HMO, Final in-scope sample |
628 |
467 |
155 |
225 |
113 |
287 |
256 |
218 |
250 |
241 |
238 |
247 |
198 |
Institution, Initial sample |
59 |
81 |
63 |
52 |
63 |
83 |
114 |
81 |
92 |
121 |
80 |
76 |
81 |
Institution, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
80 |
69 |
n/a |
63 |
82 |
110 |
81 |
92 |
116 |
80 |
75 |
77 |
Institution, Final in-scope
sample |
50 |
75 |
65 |
45 |
60 |
76 |
103 |
73 |
89 |
108 |
78 |
72 |
72 |
Home care, Initial sample |
415 |
674 |
456 |
393 |
319 |
520 |
631 |
588 |
568 |
606 |
655 |
534 |
505 |
Home care, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
653 |
420 |
n/a |
319 |
509 |
611 |
586 |
556 |
593 |
648 |
516 |
498 |
Home care, Final in-scope
sample |
375 |
579 |
384 |
293 |
281 |
436 |
537 |
527 |
509 |
539 |
602 |
464 |
446 |
Office-based physician,
Initial sample |
10,118 |
14,646 |
10,483 |
9,202 |
12,962 |
26,344 |
32,889 |
28,946 |
27,617 |
26,972 |
27,620 |
25,052 |
25,537 |
Office-based physician, Sample
after subsampling |
n/a |
9,663 |
8,403 |
n/a |
12,962 |
20,651 |
15,222 |
15,361 |
20,212 |
18,933 |
13,473 |
15,273 |
10,762 |
Office-based physician, Final
in-scope sample |
7,758 |
7,047 |
7,356 |
8,076 |
11,167 |
18,078 |
13,652 |
13,808 |
18,069 |
16,898 |
12,062 |
13,492 |
9,533 |
SBD, Initial sample |
10,323 |
14,730 |
10,711 |
10,680 |
11,144 |
20,644 |
21,385 |
18,613 |
20,094 |
19,810 |
21,126 |
19,435 |
19,262 |
SBD, Sample after subsampling |
n/a |
7,365 |
10,711 |
n/a |
11,144 |
20,644 |
21,385 |
18,613 |
20,094 |
19,810 |
21,126 |
19,435 |
19,262 |
SBD, Final in-scope sample |
8,705 |
5,297 |
7,704 |
7,288 |
7,026 |
12,891 |
13,976 |
12,154 |
13,225 |
12,971 |
13,013 |
12,410 |
11,364 |
Pharmacy, Initial sample |
6,109 |
8,547 |
5,734 |
5,703 |
5,762 |
9,118 |
10,200 |
8,882 |
8,608 |
8,404 |
8,471 |
8,619 |
7,799 |
Pharmacy, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
8,547 |
5,734 |
n/a |
5,762 |
9,118 |
10,200 |
8,882 |
8,608 |
8,404 |
8,471 |
8,619 |
7,799 |
Pharmacy, Final in-scope
sample |
5,321 |
7,335 |
5,168 |
5,058 |
5,152 |
8,141 |
9,268 |
8,101 |
7,663 |
7,568 |
7,489 |
7,760 |
7,026 |
Return To Table Of Contents
Table A-2. MPC sample sizes, pair
level, 1996-2008
|
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
Hospital, Initial sample |
6,729 |
11,694 |
7,922 |
6,712 |
7,849 |
11,798 |
16,481 |
13,876 |
13,175 |
12,933 |
13,071 |
11,220 |
11,374 |
Hospital, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
8,192 |
6,434 |
n/a |
7,849 |
11,377 |
14,477 |
13,094 |
12,772 |
12,601 |
11,911 |
10,646 |
10,672 |
Hospital, Final in-scope
sample |
6,570 |
7,938 |
5,825 |
6,163 |
7,016 |
10,155 |
12,805 |
11,532 |
11,589 |
11,279 |
10,830 |
9,611 |
9,600 |
HMO, Initial sample |
534 |
809 |
436 |
555 |
382 |
965 |
1,134 |
939 |
791 |
804 |
694 |
852 |
968 |
HMO, Sample after subsampling |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
382 |
791 |
567 |
625 |
665 |
685 |
594 |
621 |
572 |
HMO, Final in-scope sample |
924 |
911 |
346 |
472 |
324 |
637 |
477 |
466 |
514 |
514 |
476 |
459 |
449 |
Institution, Initial sample |
63 |
85 |
64 |
53 |
66 |
86 |
116 |
86 |
94 |
123 |
80 |
78 |
81 |
Institution, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
85 |
70 |
n/a |
66 |
86 |
115 |
85 |
94 |
123 |
80 |
78 |
80 |
Institution, Final in-scope
sample |
53 |
80 |
65 |
45 |
63 |
79 |
107 |
77 |
90 |
113 |
78 |
75 |
75 |
Home care, Initial sample |
461 |
750 |
520 |
394 |
367 |
607 |
713 |
652 |
610 |
689 |
719 |
574 |
566 |
Home care, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
750 |
491 |
n/a |
367 |
601 |
682 |
641 |
610 |
689 |
719 |
572 |
564 |
Home care, Final in-scope
sample |
385 |
662 |
445 |
340 |
317 |
471 |
606 |
579 |
555 |
619 |
661 |
513 |
502 |
Office-based physician,
Initial sample |
13,681 |
19,157 |
12,641 |
11,974 |
17,407 |
33,518 |
42,327 |
36,804 |
34,611 |
33,854 |
37,576 |
30,812 |
32,546 |
Office-based physician, Sample
after subsampling |
n/a |
12,635 |
10,747 |
n/a |
17,407 |
26,886 |
19,309 |
19,731 |
26,392 |
24,517 |
17,139 |
19,021 |
13,917 |
Office-based physician, Final
in-scope sample |
10,251 |
9,632 |
9,334 |
10,409 |
14,935 |
23,376 |
17,198 |
17,692 |
23,446 |
21,821 |
15,274 |
16,713 |
12,281 |
SBD, Initial sample |
12,488 |
17,394 |
13,658 |
14,906 |
15,955 |
28,905 |
30,780 |
26,965 |
29,271 |
28,930 |
31,058 |
26,407 |
27,496 |
SBD, Sample after subsampling |
n/a |
8,697 |
13,658 |
n/a |
15,955 |
28,905 |
30,780 |
26,965 |
29,271 |
28,930 |
31,058 |
26,407 |
27,496 |
SBD, Final in-scope sample |
9,187 |
6,301 |
9,691 |
10,100 |
9,893 |
17,529 |
19,977 |
17,566 |
18,694 |
18,720 |
18,699 |
16,660 |
16,144 |
Pharmacy, Initial sample |
14,531 |
20,248 |
12,321 |
13,183 |
14,847 |
22,165 |
26,046 |
22,438 |
21,720 |
21,077 |
20,990 |
19,052 |
19,678 |
Pharmacy, Sample after
subsampling |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
14,847 |
22,165 |
26,046 |
22,438 |
21,720 |
21,077 |
20,990 |
19,052 |
19,678 |
Pharmacy, Final in-scope
sample |
12,146 |
16,241 |
10,386 |
11,317 |
12,728 |
19,256 |
23,057 |
19,649 |
18,571 |
18,159 |
17,418 |
16,313 |
17,038 |
Return To Table Of Contents
Table A-3. MPC schedule milestones,
1996-2008
Target year |
Provider type |
Begin MPC
first wave |
End household
data collection,
Round 3/5 |
Begin MPC
last wave |
End MPC |
Number of
waves fielded |
1996 |
Hospital, etc.* |
Jan-97 |
Jul-97 |
Oct-97 |
Jan-98 |
22 |
1996 |
SBD |
May-97 |
Jul-97 |
Apr-98 |
Jun-98 |
6 |
1996 |
Pharmacy |
Aug-97 |
Jul-97 |
Nov-97 |
Jun-98 |
10 |
1997 |
Hospital, etc.* |
Jun-98 |
Jul-98 |
Oct-98 |
Feb-99 |
4 |
1997 |
SBD |
Feb-99 |
Jul-98 |
Apr-99 |
Jul-99 |
4 |
1997 |
Pharmacy |
Sep-98 |
Jul-98 |
Dec-98 |
Jul-99 |
3 |
1998 |
Hospital, etc.* |
Jun-99 |
Aug-99 |
Oct-99 |
Jan-00 |
3 |
1998 |
SBD |
Jan-00 |
Aug-99 |
Apr-00 |
Jul-00 |
3 |
1998 |
Pharmacy |
Oct-99 |
Aug-99 |
n/a |
Apr-00 |
1 |
1999 |
Hospital, etc.* |
May-00 |
Aug-00 |
Oct-00 |
1-Jan |
2 |
1999 |
SBD |
1-Jan |
Aug-00 |
1-May |
1-Jun |
3 |
1999 |
Pharmacy |
Nov-00 |
Aug-00 |
n/a |
1-Jun |
1 |
2000 |
Hospital, etc.* |
1-May |
1-Jun |
1-Sep |
1-Dec |
2 |
2000 |
SBD |
2-Jan |
1-Jun |
2-Mar |
2-Apr |
3 |
2000 |
Pharmacy |
1-Sep |
1-Jun |
n/a |
2-Jan |
1 |
2001 |
Hospital, etc.* |
2-Apr |
2-Jun |
2-Aug |
2-Dec |
2 |
2001 |
SBD |
3-Jan |
2-Jun |
3-Mar |
3-May |
3 |
2001 |
Pharmacy |
2-Aug |
2-Jun |
n/a |
2-Dec |
1 |
2002 |
Hospital, etc.* |
3-Mar |
3-Jun |
3-Aug |
3-Dec |
2 |
2002 |
SBD |
4-Jan |
3-Jun |
4-Mar |
4-Apr |
|
2002 |
Pharmacy |
3-Jun |
3-Jun |
3-Aug |
4-Jan |
2 |
2003 |
Hospital, etc.* |
4-Mar |
4-Jun |
4-Aug |
4-Dec |
2 |
2003 |
SBD |
4-Nov |
5-Jun |
5-Feb |
5-Apr |
3 |
2003 |
Pharmacy |
4-Jun |
4-Jun |
4-Aug |
5-Jan |
2 |
2004 |
Hospital, etc.* |
5-Feb |
5-Jun |
5-Aug |
5-Dec |
2 |
2004 |
SBD |
5-Nov |
5-Jun |
6-Feb |
6-Apr |
3 |
2004 |
Pharmacy |
5-May |
5-Jun |
5-Aug |
6-Jan |
2 |
2005 |
Hospital, etc.* |
6-Feb |
15-Jun |
6-Jul |
6-Dec |
2 |
2005 |
SBD |
6-Nov |
15-Jun |
7-Feb |
7-Apr |
3 |
2005 |
Pharmacy |
6-May |
15-Jun |
6-Aug |
7-Jan |
3 |
2006 |
Hospital, etc.* |
7-Feb |
15-Jun |
7-Aug |
7-Dec |
3 |
2006 |
SBD |
7-Nov |
15-Jun |
8-Mar |
8-Apr |
5 |
2006 |
Pharmacy |
7-May |
15-Jun |
7-Aug |
8-Jan |
3 |
2007 |
Hospital, etc.* |
8-Feb |
15-Jun |
8-Aug |
8-Dec |
3 |
2007 |
SBD |
8-Oct |
15-Jun |
9-Feb |
9-Apr |
6 |
2007 |
Pharmacy |
8-Jun |
15-Jun |
8-Aug |
8-Dec |
2 |
2008 |
Hospital, etc.* |
3-Mar |
15-Jun |
31-Jul |
18-Dec |
3 |
2008 |
SBD |
16-Oct |
15-Jun |
2-Feb |
16-Apr |
5 |
2008 |
Pharmacy |
19-May |
15-Jun |
24-Jul |
31-Dec |
2 |
* Includes office-based, home care, and institutional
providers and health maintenance organizations.
Return To Table Of Contents
Table A-4. MPC data collection
results, provider level, 1996-2008
|
Initial
sample |
Initial
sample after
subsampling |
Final
eligible
sample |
Response
rate |
Refusal
rate |
Other
nonresponse
rate |
1996 Providers, Hospitals |
3,301 |
3,301 |
3,224 |
0.951 |
0.021 |
0.028 |
1996 Providers, Office-based
providers |
10,118 |
10,118 |
7,530 |
0.881 |
0.069 |
0.051 |
1996 Providers, HMOs |
296 |
296 |
601 |
0.805 |
0.085 |
0.110 |
1996 Providers, Home care
providers |
415 |
415 |
353 |
0.875 |
0.062 |
0.062 |
1996 Providers, Institutions |
59 |
59 |
50 |
0.960 |
0.040 |
0.000 |
1996 Providers, SBDs |
10,323 |
10,323 |
7,223 |
0.949 |
0.042 |
0.009 |
1996 Providers, Pharmacies |
6,109 |
6,109 |
5,321 |
0.722 |
0.061 |
0.217 |
1996 Providers, Total |
30,621 |
30,621 |
24,302 |
|
|
|
1997 Providers, Hospitals |
4,768 |
4,065 |
4,163 |
0.894 |
0.058 |
0.048 |
1997 Providers, Office-based
providers |
10,095 |
9,666 |
7,047 |
0.871 |
0.053 |
0.069 |
1997 Providers, HMOs |
350 |
350 |
467 |
0.717 |
0.090 |
0.193 |
1997 Providers, Home care
providers |
653 |
653 |
579 |
0.834 |
0.090 |
0.076 |
1997 Providers, Institutions |
80 |
80 |
75 |
0.827 |
0.107 |
0.067 |
1997 Providers, SBDs |
14,730 |
14,730 |
5,026 |
0.885 |
0.104 |
0.012 |
1997 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,574 |
8,574 |
7,335 |
0.700 |
0.068 |
0.232 |
1997 Providers, Total |
39,250 |
38,115 |
24,692 |
|
|
|
1998 Providers, Hospitals |
3,468 |
3,468 |
3,247 |
0.939 |
0.025 |
0.037 |
1998 Providers, Office-based
providers |
10,483 |
8,403 |
7,356 |
0.861 |
0.043 |
0.096 |
1998 Providers, HMOs |
228 |
171 |
155 |
0.871 |
0.103 |
0.026 |
1998 Providers, Home care
providers |
456 |
420 |
384 |
0.820 |
0.089 |
0.091 |
1998 Providers, Institutions |
63 |
69 |
65 |
0.754 |
0.169 |
0.077 |
1998 Providers, SBDs |
10,711 |
10,711 |
7,707 |
0.862 |
0.063 |
0.075 |
1998 Providers, Pharmacies |
5,734 |
5,734 |
5,167 |
0.838 |
0.084 |
0.079 |
1998 Providers, Total |
31,143 |
28,976 |
24,081 |
|
|
|
1999 Providers, Hospitals |
3,520 |
3,520 |
3,282 |
0.926 |
0.036 |
0.037 |
1999 Providers, Office-based
providers |
9,202 |
9,202 |
8,075 |
0.888 |
0.053 |
0.058 |
1999 Providers, HMOs |
247 |
247 |
225 |
0.876 |
0.080 |
0.044 |
1999 Providers, Home care
providers |
338 |
338 |
293 |
0.840 |
0.082 |
0.078 |
1999 Providers, Institutions |
52 |
52 |
44 |
0.773 |
0.182 |
0.045 |
1999 Providers, SBDs |
10,680 |
10,680 |
7,289 |
0.842 |
0.061 |
0.097 |
1999 Providers, Pharmacies |
5,703 |
5,703 |
5,058 |
0.822 |
0.079 |
0.099 |
1999 Providers, Total |
29,742 |
29,742 |
24,266 |
|
|
|
2000 Providers, Hospitals |
3,760 |
3,760 |
3,467 |
0.910 |
0.037 |
0.054 |
2000 Providers, Office-based
providers |
12,962 |
12,962 |
11,167 |
0.864 |
0.071 |
0.065 |
2000 Providers, HMOs |
118 |
118 |
113 |
0.929 |
0.035 |
0.035 |
2000 Providers, Home care
providers |
319 |
319 |
281 |
0.858 |
0.068 |
0.075 |
2000 Providers, Institutions |
63 |
63 |
60 |
0.850 |
0.067 |
0.083 |
2000 Providers, SBDs |
11,144 |
11,144 |
7,026 |
0.840 |
0.065 |
0.094 |
2000 Providers, Pharmacies |
5,762 |
5,762 |
5,152 |
0.820 |
0.078 |
0.102 |
2000 Providers, Total |
34,128 |
34,128 |
27,266 |
|
|
|
2001 Providers, Hospitals |
6,801 |
5,616 |
5,201 |
0.912 |
0.038 |
0.050 |
2001 Providers, Office-based
providers |
26,344 |
20,651 |
18,078 |
0.850 |
0.069 |
0.081 |
2001 Providers, HMOs |
476 |
334 |
287 |
0.899 |
0.021 |
0.066 |
2001 Providers, Home care
providers |
520 |
509 |
436 |
0.851 |
0.060 |
0.046 |
2001 Providers, Institutions |
83 |
82 |
76 |
0.934 |
0.079 |
0.000 |
2001 Providers, SBDs |
20,644 |
20,644 |
12,891 |
0.795 |
0.094 |
0.111 |
2001 Providers, Pharmacies |
9,118 |
9,118 |
8,141 |
0.761 |
0.113 |
0.126 |
2001 Providers, Total |
63,986 |
59,197 |
45,163 |
|
|
|
2002 Providers, Hospitals |
8,811 |
6,780 |
6,325 |
0.900 |
0.048 |
0.045 |
2002 Providers, Office-based
providers |
32,889 |
15,222 |
13,652 |
0.837 |
0.097 |
0.066 |
2002 Providers, HMOs |
559 |
290 |
256 |
0.899 |
0.055 |
0.047 |
2002 Providers, Home care
providers |
631 |
611 |
537 |
0.823 |
0.093 |
0.084 |
2002 Providers, Institutions |
114 |
110 |
103 |
0.913 |
0.058 |
0.029 |
2002 Providers, SBDs |
21,385 |
21,385 |
13,976 |
0.773 |
0.121 |
0.106 |
2002 Providers, Pharmacies |
10,200 |
10,200 |
9,268 |
0.790 |
0.122 |
0.088 |
2002 Providers, Total |
74,589 |
54,588 |
44,117 |
|
|
|
2003 Providers, Hospitals |
7,806 |
6,023 |
5,580 |
0.898 |
0.047 |
0.055 |
2003 Providers, Office-based
providers |
28,946 |
15,361 |
13,808 |
0.835 |
0.095 |
0.070 |
2003 Providers, HMOs |
506 |
280 |
218 |
0.876 |
0.032 |
0.092 |
2003 Providers, Home care
providers |
607 |
586 |
527 |
0.850 |
0.068 |
0.082 |
2003 Providers, Institutions |
83 |
81 |
73 |
0.945 |
0.027 |
0.027 |
2003 Providers, SBDs |
18,613 |
18,613 |
12,154 |
0.828 |
0.104 |
0.068 |
2003 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,882 |
8,882 |
8,101 |
0.729 |
0.200 |
0.106 |
2003 Providers, Total |
65,443 |
49826 |
40,461 |
|
|
|
2004 Providers, Hospitals |
7,567 |
6,094 |
5,671 |
0.92 |
0.027 |
0.053 |
2004 Providers, Office-based
providers |
27,617 |
20,202 |
18,069 |
0.864 |
0.076 |
0.060 |
2004 Providers, HMOs |
420 |
300 |
250 |
0.892 |
0.056 |
0.052 |
2004 Providers, Home care
providers |
568 |
556 |
509 |
0.809 |
0.108 |
0.083 |
2004 Providers, Institutions |
93 |
92 |
89 |
0.91 |
0.056 |
0.034 |
2004 Providers, SBDs |
20,094 |
20,094 |
13,225 |
0.84 |
0.076 |
0.084 |
2004 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,608 |
8,608 |
7,663 |
0.794 |
0.159 |
0.047 |
2004 Providers, Total |
64,967 |
55,596 |
45,476 |
|
|
|
2005 Providers, Hospitals |
7,461 |
6,059 |
5,600 |
0.931 |
0.026 |
0.043 |
2005 Providers, Office-based
providers |
26,972 |
18,933 |
16,898 |
0.859 |
0.086 |
0.055 |
2005 Providers, HMOs |
422 |
301 |
241 |
0.963 |
0.012 |
0.025 |
2005 Providers, Home care
providers |
606 |
593 |
539 |
0.81 |
0.111 |
0.080 |
2005 Providers, Institutions |
121 |
116 |
108 |
0.963 |
0.009 |
0.028 |
2005 Providers, SBDs |
19,810 |
19,810 |
12,971 |
0.846 |
0.075 |
0.077 |
2005 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,404 |
8,404 |
7,568 |
0.787 |
0.167 |
0.046 |
2005 Providers, Total |
63,796 |
54,216 |
43,925 |
|
|
|
2006 Providers, Hospitals |
7,447 |
5,884 |
5,484 |
0.941 |
0.022 |
0.037 |
2006 Providers, Office-based
providers |
27,620 |
13,473 |
12,062 |
0.869 |
0.074 |
0.057 |
2006 Providers, HMOs |
333 |
284 |
238 |
0.92 |
0.042 |
0.038 |
2006 Providers, Home care
providers |
655 |
648 |
602 |
0.856 |
0.08 |
0.065 |
2006 Providers, Institutions |
80 |
80 |
78 |
0.808 |
0.115 |
0.077 |
2006 Providers, SBDs |
21,126 |
21,126 |
13,013 |
0.823 |
0.111 |
0.066 |
2006 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,471 |
8,471 |
7,489 |
0.799 |
0.149 |
0.052 |
2006 Providers, Total |
65,732 |
49,966 |
38,966 |
|
|
|
2007 Providers, Hospitals |
7,110 |
5,708 |
5,328 |
0.944 |
0.023 |
0.033 |
2007 Providers, Office-based
providers |
25,052 |
15,273 |
13,492 |
0.875 |
0.077 |
0.048 |
2007 Providers, HMOs |
501 |
316 |
247 |
0.923 |
0.036 |
0.041 |
2007 Providers, Home care
providers |
534 |
516 |
464 |
0.883 |
0.060 |
0.057 |
2007 Providers, Institutions |
76 |
76 |
72 |
0.930 |
0.042 |
0.028 |
2007 Providers, SBDs |
19,435 |
19,435 |
12,410 |
0.874 |
0.072 |
0.054 |
2007 Providers, Pharmacies |
8,619 |
8,619 |
7,760 |
0.797 |
0.165 |
0.038 |
2007 Providers, Total |
61,327 |
49,943 |
39,773 |
|
|
|
2008 Providers, Hospitals |
6,470 |
5,126 |
4,776 |
0.946 |
0.022 |
0.035 |
2008 Providers, Office-based
providers |
25,537 |
10,762 |
9,533 |
0.891 |
0.067 |
0.054 |
2008 Providers, HMOs |
517 |
243 |
198 |
0.970 |
0.000 |
0.031 |
2008 Providers, Home care
providers |
505 |
498 |
446 |
0.901 |
0.077 |
0.032 |
2008 Providers, Institutions |
81 |
77 |
72 |
0.944 |
0.044 |
0.015 |
2008 Providers, SBDs |
19,262 |
19,262 |
11,364 |
0.860 |
0.097 |
0.066 |
2008 Providers, Pharmacies |
7,799 |
7,799 |
7,026 |
0.756 |
0.271 |
0.050 |
2008 Providers, Total |
60,171 |
43,767 |
33,415 |
|
|
|
Return To Table Of Contents
Table A-5. MPC data collection
results, patient-provider pair level, 1996-2008
|
Initial
sample |
Initial
sample after
subsampling |
Final
eligible
sample |
Response
rate |
Refusal
rate |
Other
nonresponse
rate |
1996 Pairs, Hospitals |
6,729 |
6,729 |
6,570 |
0.932 |
0.038 |
0.030 |
1996 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
13,681 |
13,681 |
10,251 |
0.865 |
0.079 |
0.056 |
1996 Pairs, HMOs |
534 |
534 |
924 |
0.803 |
0.105 |
0.092 |
1996 Pairs, Home care
providers |
461 |
461 |
385 |
0.875 |
0.057 |
0.068 |
1996 Pairs, Institutions |
63 |
63 |
53 |
0.943 |
0.057 |
0.000 |
1996 Pairs, SBDs |
12,488 |
12,488 |
8,689 |
0.937 |
0.056 |
0.007 |
1996 Pairs, Pharmacies |
14,531 |
14,531 |
12,146 |
0.671 |
|
|
1996 Pairs, Total |
48,487 |
48,487 |
39,018 |
|
|
|
1997 Pairs, Hospitals |
11,694 |
8,192 |
7,938 |
0.874 |
0.070 |
0.056 |
1997 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
19,157 |
12,635 |
10,062 |
0.862 |
0.062 |
0.076 |
1997 Pairs, HMOs |
809 |
809 |
911 |
0.626 |
0.156 |
0.218 |
1997 Pairs, Home care
providers |
750 |
750 |
662 |
0.823 |
0.095 |
0.082 |
1997 Pairs, Institutions |
85 |
85 |
80 |
0.825 |
0.113 |
0.063 |
1997 Pairs, SBDs |
17,397 |
8,697 |
5,964 |
0.865 |
0.123 |
0.013 |
1997 Pairs, Pharmacies |
20,248 |
20,248 |
16,241 |
0.672 |
0.075 |
0.253 |
1997 Pairs, Total |
70,140 |
51,416 |
41,858 |
|
|
|
1998 Pairs, Hospitals |
7,922 |
6,434 |
5,824 |
0.925 |
0.031 |
0.044 |
1998 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
12,641 |
10,747 |
9,334 |
0.852 |
0.050 |
0.098 |
1998 Pairs, HMOs |
436 |
436 |
346 |
0.832 |
0.133 |
0.035 |
1998 Pairs, Home care
providers |
520 |
491 |
445 |
0.825 |
0.085 |
0.090 |
1998 Pairs, Institutions |
64 |
70 |
65 |
0.754 |
0.169 |
0.077 |
1998 Pairs, SBDs |
13,658 |
13,658 |
9,687 |
0.836 |
0.084 |
0.080 |
1998 Pairs, Pharmacies |
12,321 |
12,321 |
10,388 |
0.793 |
0.116 |
0.091 |
1998 Pairs, Total |
47,562 |
44,157 |
36,089 |
|
|
|
1999 Pairs, Hospitals |
6,712 |
6,712 |
6,160 |
0.909 |
0.053 |
0.039 |
1999 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
11,974 |
11,974 |
10,409 |
0.879 |
0.061 |
0.060 |
1999 Pairs, HMOs |
555 |
555 |
472 |
0.886 |
0.068 |
0.047 |
1999 Pairs, Home care
providers |
394 |
394 |
340 |
0.818 |
0.088 |
0.094 |
1999 Pairs, Institutions |
53 |
53 |
45 |
0.756 |
0.200 |
0.044 |
1999 Pairs, SBDs |
14,907 |
14,907 |
10,101 |
0.808 |
0.091 |
0.100 |
1999 Pairs, Pharmacies |
13,183 |
13,183 |
11,317 |
0.788 |
0.099 |
0.113 |
1999 Pairs, Total |
47,778 |
47,778 |
38,844 |
|
|
|
2000 Pairs, Hospitals |
7,849 |
7,849 |
7,016 |
0.891 |
0.056 |
0.053 |
2000 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
17,407 |
17,407 |
14,935 |
0.854 |
0.079 |
0.067 |
2000 Pairs, HMOs |
382 |
382 |
324 |
0.873 |
0.059 |
0.068 |
2000 Pairs, Home care
providers |
367 |
367 |
317 |
0.864 |
0.063 |
0.073 |
2000 Pairs, Institutions |
66 |
66 |
63 |
0.825 |
0.095 |
0.079 |
2000 Pairs, SBDs |
15,955 |
15,955 |
9,893 |
0.823 |
0.094 |
0.084 |
2000 Pairs, Pharmacies |
14,847 |
14,847 |
12,728 |
0.768 |
0.105 |
0.127 |
2000 Pairs, Total |
56,873 |
56,873 |
45,276 |
|
|
|
2001 Pairs, Hospitals |
11,798 |
11,377 |
10,155 |
0.899 |
0.023 |
0.051 |
2001 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
33,518 |
26,886 |
23,376 |
0.843 |
0.077 |
0.081 |
2001 Pairs, HMOs |
965 |
791 |
637 |
0.878 |
0.028 |
0.094 |
2001 Pairs, Home care
providers |
607 |
601 |
471 |
0.847 |
0.064 |
0.089 |
2001 Pairs, Institutions |
86 |
86 |
79 |
0.937 |
0.051 |
0.013 |
2001 Pairs, SBDs |
28,905 |
28,905 |
17,529 |
0.778 |
0.127 |
0.095 |
2001 Pairs, Pharmacies |
22,165 |
22,165 |
19,256 |
0.703 |
0.144 |
0.153 |
2001 Pairs, Total |
98,044 |
90,811 |
71,503 |
|
|
|
2002 Pairs, Hospitals |
16,481 |
14,477 |
12,805 |
0.895 |
0.061 |
0.045 |
2002 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
42,327 |
19,309 |
17,198 |
0.832 |
0.104 |
0.065 |
2002 Pairs, HMOs |
1,134 |
567 |
477 |
0.870 |
0.052 |
0.078 |
2002 Pairs, Home care
providers |
713 |
682 |
606 |
0.820 |
0.100 |
0.081 |
2002 Pairs, Institutions |
116 |
115 |
107 |
0.907 |
0.056 |
0.037 |
2002 Pairs, SBDs |
30,780 |
30,780 |
19,977 |
0.745 |
0.160 |
0.095 |
2002 Pairs, Pharmacies |
26,046 |
26,046 |
23,057 |
0.734 |
0.156 |
0.110 |
2002 Pairs, Total |
117,597 |
91,976 |
|
|
|
|
2003 Pairs, Hospitals |
13,876 |
13,094 |
11,532 |
0.895 |
0.052 |
0.054 |
2003 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
36,804 |
19,731 |
17,692 |
0.828 |
0.103 |
0.070 |
2003 Pairs, HMOs |
939 |
625 |
466 |
0.852 |
0.054 |
0.094 |
2003 Pairs, Home care
providers |
652 |
641 |
579 |
0.853 |
0.067 |
0.079 |
2003 Pairs, Institutions |
86 |
85 |
77 |
0.948 |
0.026 |
0.026 |
2003 Pairs, SBDs |
26,965 |
26,965 |
17,566 |
0.804 |
0.152 |
0.045 |
2003 Pairs, Pharmacies |
22,438 |
22,438 |
19,649 |
0.671 |
0.251 |
0.078 |
2003 Pairs, Total |
101,760 |
83,579 |
67,561 |
|
|
|
2004 Pairs, Hospitals |
13,175 |
12,772 |
11,589 |
0.922 |
0.028 |
0.05 |
2004 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
34,611 |
26,392 |
23,446 |
0.858 |
0.084 |
0.058 |
2004 Pairs, HMOs |
791 |
665 |
514 |
0.813 |
0.088 |
0.099 |
2004 Pairs, Home care
providers |
610 |
610 |
555 |
0.805 |
0.115 |
0.080 |
2004 Pairs, Institutions |
94 |
94 |
90 |
0.911 |
0.056 |
0.033 |
2004 Pairs, SBDs |
29,271 |
29,271 |
18,694 |
0.827 |
0.103 |
0.07 |
2004 Pairs, Pharmacies |
21,720 |
21,720 |
18,571 |
0.715 |
0.214 |
0.071 |
2004 Pairs, Total |
100,272 |
91,524 |
73,549 |
|
|
|
2005 Pairs, Hospitals |
12,933 |
12,601 |
11,279 |
0.923 |
0.036 |
0.041 |
2005 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
33,854 |
24,517 |
21,821 |
0.852 |
0.094 |
0.054 |
2005 Pairs, HMOs |
804 |
685 |
514 |
0.955 |
0.014 |
0.031 |
2005 Pairs, Home care
providers |
689 |
689 |
619 |
0.816 |
0.113 |
0.071 |
2005 Pairs, Institutions |
123 |
123 |
113 |
0.965 |
0.009 |
0.027 |
2005 Pairs, SBDs |
28,930 |
28,930 |
18,720 |
0.824 |
0.114 |
0.063 |
2005 Pairs, Pharmacies |
21,077 |
21,077 |
18,159 |
0.711 |
0.214 |
0.075 |
2005 Pairs, Total |
98,410 |
91,976 |
74,227 |
|
|
|
2006 Pairs, Hospitals |
13,071 |
11,911 |
10,830 |
0.934 |
0.031 |
0.035 |
2006 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
37,576 |
17,139 |
15,274 |
0.861 |
0.082 |
0.056 |
2006 Pairs, HMOs |
694 |
594 |
476 |
0.903 |
0.059 |
0.038 |
2006 Pairs, Home care
providers |
719 |
719 |
661 |
0.847 |
0.082 |
0.071 |
2006 Pairs, Institutions |
80 |
80 |
78 |
0.808 |
0.115 |
0.077 |
2006 Pairs, SBDs |
31,058 |
31,058 |
18,699 |
0.807 |
0.144 |
0.049 |
2006 Pairs, Pharmacies |
20,990 |
20,990 |
17,418 |
0.734 |
0.196 |
0.07 |
2006 Pairs, Total |
52,048 |
91,976 |
74,227 |
|
|
|
2007 Pairs, Hospitals |
11,220 |
10,646 |
9,611 |
0.929 |
0.032 |
0.039 |
2007 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
30,812 |
19,021 |
16,713 |
0.870 |
0.083 |
0.047 |
2007 Pairs, HMOs |
852 |
621 |
459 |
0.919 |
0.046 |
0.035 |
2007 Pairs, Home care
providers |
574 |
572 |
513 |
0.887 |
0.057 |
0.056 |
2007 Pairs, Institutions |
78 |
78 |
75 |
0.933 |
0.040 |
0.027 |
2007 Pairs, SBDs |
26,407 |
26,407 |
16,660 |
0.864 |
0.046 |
0.090 |
2007 Pairs, Pharmacies |
19,052 |
19,052 |
16,313 |
0.737 |
0.217 |
0.046 |
2007 Pairs, Total |
88,995 |
76,397 |
60,344 |
|
|
|
2008 Pairs, Hospitals |
11,374 |
10,672 |
9,600 |
0.943 |
0.026 |
0.034 |
2008 Pairs, Office-based
providers |
32,546 |
13,917 |
12,281 |
0.884 |
0.077 |
0.054 |
2008 Pairs, HMOs |
968 |
572 |
449 |
0.958 |
0.002 |
0.042 |
2008 Pairs, Home care
providers |
566 |
564 |
502 |
0.902 |
0.077 |
0.031 |
2008 Pairs, Institutions |
81 |
80 |
75 |
0.947 |
0.042 |
0.014 |
2008 Pairs, SBDs |
27,496 |
27,496 |
16,144 |
0.846 |
0.133 |
0.049 |
2008 Pairs, Pharmacies |
19,678 |
19,678 |
17,038 |
0.706 |
0.356 |
0.060 |
2008 Pairs, Total |
92,709 |
72,979 |
56,089 |
|
|
|
Return To Table Of Contents
Table A-6. Refusal conversion
outcomes, 1998-2008*
|
Initial
sample
(N) |
Ever
coded
refusal
N |
Ever
coded
refusal
Percent
of initial
sample |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Out of
scope
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Out of
scope
Percent of
refusals |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Final
refusal
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Final
refusal
Percent of
refusals |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Other
nonresponse
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Other
nonresponse
Percent of
refusals |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Complete
N |
Final
disposition
of refusals
Complete
Percent of
refusals |
1998 Hospitals—medical records |
4,723 |
466 |
9.9 |
30 |
6.4 |
99 |
21.2 |
7 |
1.5 |
330 |
70.8 |
1998 Hospitals—patient accounts |
4,723 |
142 |
3.0 |
2 |
1.4 |
11 |
7.7 |
1 |
0.7 |
128 |
90.1 |
1998 Hospitals—admin offices |
4,723 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
1998 Office-based providers |
8,701 |
775 |
8.9 |
54 |
7.0 |
245 |
31.6 |
44 |
5.7 |
432 |
55.7 |
1998 Pharmacies |
6,450 |
97 |
1.5 |
2 |
2.1 |
46 |
47.4 |
2 |
2.1 |
47 |
48.5 |
1998 SBDs |
11,394 |
1,477 |
13.0 |
203 |
13.7 |
585 |
39.6 |
63 |
4.3 |
626 |
42.4 |
1999 Hospitals—medical records |
4,794 |
468 |
9.8 |
34 |
7.3 |
68 |
14.5 |
10 |
2.1 |
356 |
76.1 |
1999 Hospitals—patient accounts |
4,794 |
146 |
3.0 |
2 |
1.4 |
16 |
11.0 |
1 |
0.7 |
127 |
87.0 |
1999 Hospitals—admin offices |
4,794 |
19 |
0.4 |
0 |
- |
3 |
15.8 |
0 |
0.0 |
16 |
84.2 |
1999 Office-based providers |
9,586 |
1,041 |
10.9 |
41 |
3.9 |
356 |
34.2 |
41 |
3.9 |
603 |
57.9 |
1999 Pharmacies |
5,703 |
239 |
4.2 |
10 |
4.2 |
144 |
60.3 |
13 |
5.4 |
72 |
30.1 |
1999 SBDs |
11,555 |
641 |
5.5 |
102 |
15.9 |
259 |
40.4 |
27 |
4.2 |
253 |
39.5 |
2000 Hospitals—medical records |
5,078 |
481 |
9.5 |
31 |
6.4 |
84 |
17.5 |
21 |
4.4 |
345 |
71.7 |
2000 Hospitals—patient accounts |
5,078 |
203 |
4.0 |
13 |
6.4 |
17 |
8.4 |
9 |
4.4 |
164 |
80.8 |
2000 Hospitals—admin offices |
5,078 |
72 |
1.4 |
10 |
13.9 |
15 |
20.8 |
2 |
2.8 |
45 |
62.5 |
2000 Office-based providers |
13,723 |
1,300 |
9.5 |
78 |
6.0 |
544 |
41.8 |
58 |
4.5 |
620 |
47.7 |
2000 Pharmacies |
5,762 |
523 |
9.1 |
18 |
3.4 |
306 |
58.5 |
21 |
4.0 |
178 |
34.0 |
2000 SBDs |
11,889 |
1,074 |
9.0 |
177 |
16.5 |
454 |
42.3 |
92 |
8.6 |
351 |
32.7 |
2001 Hospitals—medical records |
8,023 |
883 |
11.0 |
57 |
6.5 |
150 |
17.0 |
22 |
2.5 |
654 |
74.1 |
2001 Hospitals—patient accounts |
8,023 |
272 |
3.4 |
8 |
2.9 |
22 |
8.1 |
8 |
2.9 |
234 |
86.0 |
2001 Hospitals—admin offices |
8,023 |
45 |
0.6 |
1 |
2.2 |
8 |
17.8 |
2 |
4.4 |
34 |
75.6 |
2001 Office-based providers |
21,438 |
2,708 |
12.6 |
177 |
6.5 |
980 |
36.2 |
125 |
4.6 |
1,426 |
52.7 |
2001 Pharmacies |
9,118 |
762 |
8.4 |
26 |
3.4 |
529 |
69.4 |
19 |
2.5 |
188 |
24.7 |
2001 SBDs |
22,234 |
2,299 |
10.3 |
335 |
14.5 |
1,188 |
51.7 |
101 |
4.4 |
675 |
29.4 |
2002 Hospitals—medical records |
9,257 |
1,922 |
20.8 |
95 |
5.0 |
385 |
20.0 |
58 |
3.0 |
1,384 |
72.0 |
2002 Hospitals—patient accounts |
9,257 |
946 |
10.2 |
31 |
3.3 |
204 |
21.5 |
16 |
1.7 |
695 |
73.5 |
2002 Hospitals—admin offices |
9,257 |
216 |
2.3 |
18 |
8.3 |
122 |
56.5 |
3 |
1.4 |
73 |
33.8 |
2002 Office-based providers |
15,954 |
3,360 |
21.1 |
187 |
5.6 |
1,421 |
42.3 |
119 |
3.5 |
1,633 |
48.6 |
2002 Pharmacies |
11,689 |
1,710 |
14.6 |
78 |
4.6 |
830 |
48.5 |
101 |
5.9 |
701 |
41.0 |
2002 SBDs |
23,068 |
3,311 |
14.4 |
443 |
13.4 |
1,958 |
59.1 |
48 |
1.4 |
862 |
26.0 |
2003 Hospitals—medical records |
8,392 |
1,050 |
12.5 |
70 |
6.7 |
310 |
29.5 |
29 |
2.8 |
641 |
61.0 |
2003 Hospitals—patient accounts |
8,392 |
754 |
8.9 |
26 |
3.4 |
179 |
23.7 |
8 |
1.1 |
541 |
71.8 |
2003 Hospitals—admin offices |
8,392 |
184 |
2.2 |
7 |
3.0 |
115 |
62.5 |
1 |
0.05 |
61 |
33.2 |
2003 Office-based providers |
16,116 |
2,556 |
15.9 |
107 |
4.2 |
1,303 |
50.9 |
51 |
2.0 |
1,095 |
42.9 |
2003 Pharmacies |
10,570 |
908 |
8.6 |
45 |
4.9 |
434 |
47.8 |
19 |
2.1 |
410 |
45.1 |
2003 SBDs |
20,160 |
2,285 |
11.3 |
333 |
14.6 |
1,126 |
49.9 |
28 |
1.2 |
798 |
34.9 |
2004** Hospitals—medical records |
8,377 |
1,260 |
15.0 |
74 |
5.9 |
241 |
19.1 |
42 |
3.3 |
903 |
71.7 |
2004** Hospitals—patient accounts |
8,377 |
1,016 |
12.1 |
37 |
3.6 |
241 |
23.7 |
22 |
2.2 |
716 |
70.5 |
2004** Hospitals—admin offices |
8,377 |
345 |
4.1 |
2 |
*** |
241 |
69.9 |
12 |
3.5 |
90 |
26.1 |
2004** Office-based providers |
21,487 |
3,367 |
15.7 |
154 |
4.5 |
1,504 |
44.7 |
85 |
2.5 |
1,624 |
48.2 |
2004** Pharmacies |
10,204 |
2,081 |
20.4 |
68 |
3.3 |
1,548 |
74.4 |
22 |
1.1 |
443 |
21.3 |
2004** SBDs |
21,578 |
3,368 |
15.6 |
416 |
12.4 |
1,429 |
42.4 |
15 |
*** |
1,508 |
44.7 |
2005** Hospitals—medical records |
8,380 |
1,026 |
12.2 |
80 |
7.8 |
240 |
23.4 |
45 |
4.4 |
661 |
64.4 |
2005** Hospitals—patient accounts |
8,380 |
1,040 |
12.4 |
59 |
5.7 |
240 |
23.1 |
14 |
1.3 |
727 |
69.9 |
2005** Hospitals—admin offices |
8,380 |
365 |
4.4 |
66 |
18.1 |
240 |
65.8 |
5 |
1.4 |
54 |
14.8 |
2005** Office-based providers |
19,936 |
3,332 |
16.7 |
189 |
5.7 |
1,554 |
46.6 |
84 |
2.5 |
1,505 |
45.2 |
2005** Pharmacies |
9,983 |
2,004 |
20.1 |
54 |
2.7 |
1,602 |
79.9 |
19 |
*** |
329 |
16.4 |
2005** SBDs |
21,292 |
3,476 |
16.3 |
655 |
18.8 |
1,317 |
37.9 |
34 |
1.0 |
1,470 |
42.3 |
2006 Hospital--medical records |
8,041 |
944 |
11.7 |
60 |
6.4 |
209 |
22.1 |
18 |
1.9 |
657 |
69.6 |
2006 Hospital--patient accounts |
8,041 |
1,123 |
14.0 |
47 |
4.2 |
208 |
18.5 |
15 |
1.3 |
853 |
76.0 |
2006 Hospital--admin offices |
8,041 |
266 |
3.3 |
32 |
12.0 |
199 |
74.8 |
2 |
0.8 |
33 |
12.4 |
2006 Office-based providers |
14,058 |
2,565 |
18.2 |
148 |
5.8 |
948 |
37.0 |
57 |
2.2 |
1,412 |
55.0 |
2006 Pharmacies |
10,917 |
1,929 |
17.7 |
73 |
3.8 |
1,509 |
78.2 |
31 |
1.6 |
316 |
16.4 |
2006 SBDs |
23,399 |
3,602 |
15.4 |
771 |
21.4 |
1,785 |
49.6 |
9 |
0.2 |
1,037 |
28.8 |
2007 Hospital--medical records |
7,738 |
1,008 |
13.0 |
59 |
5.8 |
178 |
17.6 |
27 |
2.7 |
744 |
73.8 |
2007 Hospital--patient accounts |
7,738 |
1,223 |
15.8 |
79 |
6.5 |
179 |
14.6 |
21 |
1.7 |
944 |
77.2 |
2007 Hospital--admin offices |
7,738 |
204 |
2.6 |
15 |
7.3 |
176 |
86.3 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
6.4 |
2007 Office-based providers |
15,943 |
2,743 |
17.2 |
161 |
5.9 |
1,095 |
39.9 |
63 |
2.3 |
1,424 |
51.9 |
2007 Pharmacies |
9,767 |
1,442 |
14.8 |
20 |
1.4 |
1,337 |
92.7 |
3 |
0.0 |
82 |
5.7 |
2007 SBDs |
12,172 |
2,607 |
12.3 |
551 |
21.1 |
1,167 |
44.8 |
17 |
0.7 |
872 |
33.4 |
2008 Hospital--medical records |
6,932 |
1,139 |
16.4 |
58 |
5.1 |
148 |
13.0 |
17 |
1.5 |
916 |
80.4 |
2008 Hospital--patient accounts |
6,932 |
1,277 |
18.4 |
60 |
4.7 |
148 |
11.6 |
39 |
3.1 |
1,030 |
80.7 |
2008 Hospital--admin offices |
6,932 |
180 |
2.6 |
14 |
7.8 |
140 |
77.8 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
14.4 |
2008 Office-based providers |
11,277 |
1,945 |
17.2 |
104 |
5.3 |
615 |
31.6 |
67 |
3.4 |
1,159 |
59.8 |
2008 Pharmacies |
9,334 |
2,110 |
22.6 |
37 |
1.8 |
1,770 |
83.9 |
43 |
2.0 |
260 |
12.3 |
2008 SBDs |
21,071 |
2,858 |
13.6 |
558 |
19.5 |
1,253 |
43.8 |
19 |
0.7 |
1,028 |
36.0 |
**The denominator for "ever coded refusal" includes
provider-wave cases ever coded an interim refusal (2* or 3*) or a final refusal
(H* or R*) without being coded an interim refusal.
***Less than one percent.
Return To Table Of Contents
|