2014
DOI: 10.1186/2047-2501-2-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(27 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Seventh, the use of 1-year interval for age groups may not be optimal and should be reviewed. Although our previous research on the use of 2-year intervals did not find clinically significant effects on data analysis based on the use of 2-year intervals ( 46 ), we think the effect of 2-year intervals may need to be examined in life stage research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Seventh, the use of 1-year interval for age groups may not be optimal and should be reviewed. Although our previous research on the use of 2-year intervals did not find clinically significant effects on data analysis based on the use of 2-year intervals ( 46 ), we think the effect of 2-year intervals may need to be examined in life stage research.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…This research framework can be extended to other major surveys with similar data structure, variable naming systems, missing value identification strategies and sampling frames, especially the Canadian Community Health Survey[ 48 , 56 ]. For other major surveys that provide cleaned data[ 61 ] or do not use bootstrap weights[ 35 ], it requires minimal revision to replicate this research framework to conduct trend analysis for all variables. The automated process for visualization of trend analysis is suggested for researchers to look for neglected trends and for survey administrators to search and correct data errors that can be demonstrated with trends of extreme rates of change across cycles or time points.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The values ending in 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 might represent “values higher than limits of detection”, “values less than limits of detection”, “not applicable”, “don’t know”, “refusal” and “not stated”[ 30 , 31 , 33 ]. For other surveys, missing values might be represented with certain values[ 34 ] or be coded with reserve values, such as -1 to -3[ 35 ]. To prevent computer memory from being exhausted, the data sets were always removed from the memory if unused.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[16] The degrees of freedom were specified as required. [16, 18, 20, 2428] Data processing and statistical analysis were conducted with R (v3.20)[29] and RStudio (v0.98.113). [30]…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%