Does Moving the Condition Questions to the Beginning of Round 1 in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Produce Different Condition Estimates?

• Activity Number: 521
• Type: Contributed
• Date/Time: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 : 10:30 AM to 12:20 PM
• Sponsor: Section on Survey Research Methods
• Author(s): Frances M. Chevarley*+
• Companies: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
• Keywords: MEPS ; CAPI ; sample design ; conditions ; treated prevalence

Abstract

This paper analyzes condition estimates from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative survey studying health care use, access, expenditures, source of payment, insurance coverage, and quality of care. Each year a new panel begins and each panel has 5 rounds of data collection over 2½ years that covers a two-year period. Alternative condition estimates based on MEPS data exist including responses to a set of priority condition-specific questions in the household CAPI instrument; and conditions associated with health events such as doctor visits (treated prevalence). This paper focuses on whether changes to the placement and streamlining the priority condition-specific questions of the MEPS CAPI instrument produce different condition estimates. Starting with Panel 12 (2007 Panel) in an attempt to improve the reporting of conditions associated with events, the priority condition-specific questions were moved to the first round of data collection and earlier in the CAPI instrument. In an attempt to reduce respondent burden these questions are streamlined in rounds 3 and 5: only asked of those who have not reported the condition previously.