MEPS Annual Methodology Report 2020

Deliverable Number: 20.102
Contract Number: HHSA-290-2016-00004I
June 15, 2021

Authors
Westat
Westat Reference Number: 2-7-634
Draft

Submitted to:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends
560 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20850

Submitted by:
Westat
An Employee-Owned Research Corporation®
1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129
(301) 251-1500


Table of Contents

Introduction
1 Sample
1.1 Sample Composition
1.2 Sample Delivery and Processing
2 Instrument and Materials Design
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Changes to CAPI Instrument for 2020
2.3 Testing of the Questionnaire and Interviewer Management System
2.4 Changes to Materials and Procedures for 2020
3 Recruiting and Training
3.1 Field Interviewer Recruiting for 2020
3.2 2020 Interviewer Training
3.2.1 Experienced Interviewer Training
3.2.2 Continuing Education for All Interviewers
4 Data Collection
4.1 Data Collection Procedures
4.2 Data Collection Results: Interviewing
4.3 Data Collection Results: Authorization Form Signing Rates
4.4 Data Collection Results: Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ), Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS), and Collection Rates
4.5 Policy Booklet Data Collection: Methods and Results
4.6 Quality Control
4.7 Security Incidents
5 Home Office Support of Field Activities
5.1 Preparation for Field Activities
5.2 Support During Data Collection
6 Data Processing and Data Delivery
6.1 Processing to Support Data Delivery
6.1.1 Schedules for Data Delivery
6.1.2 Data Quality Control System
6.1.3 Transformation
6.1.4 TeleForm/Data Editing of Scanned Forms
6.1.5 Coding
6.2 Data Delivery
6.2.1 Variable Construction
6.2.2 File Deliveries
Appendix A Comprehensive Tables – Household Survey
Table 1-1 Initial MEPS sample size (RUs) and number of NHIS PSUs, all panels
Table 1-2 Data collection periods and starting RU-level sample sizes, spring 2016 through fall 2020
Table 1-3 Percentage of NHIS households with partially completed interviews in panels 3 to 25
Table 1-4 Distribution of panel 25 sampled RUs by sample domain
Table 2-1 Supplements to the CAPI core questionnaire (including hard-copy materials) for 2020
Table 3-1 Spring attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2016-2020
Table 3-2 Fall attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2016-2020
Table 3-3 Annual attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2016-2020
Table 4-1 Authorization form missing rate for spring 2020
Table 4-1A Data collection schedule and number of weeks per round of data collection, 2020
Table 4-2 Case potential categories for classifying and prioritizing case work, spring 2020
Table 4-3 MEPS HC data collection results, panels 16 through 25
Table 4-4 Response rates by data collection year, 2010-2020
Table 4-5 Summary of MEPS Round 1 response and nonresponse, 2015-2020 panels
Table 4-6 Summary of MEPS Round 1 response, 2015-2020 panels, by NHIS completion status
Table 4-7 Summary of MEPS panel 25 Round 1 response rates, by sample domain by NHIS completion status
Table 4-8 Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for RUs who ever refused, panels 19-25
Table 4-9 Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for RUs who were ever traced, panels 19-25
Table 4-10 Interview timing comparison, panels 19 through 25 (mean minutes per interview, single-session interviews)
Table 4-11 Mean contact attempts by NHIS completion status, Round 1 of panels 23-25
Table 4-12 Signing rates for medical provider authorization forms for panels 18 through 25
Table 4-13 Signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms for panels 18 through 25
Table 4-14 Results of Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) collection for panels 19 through 25
Table 4-15 Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection for panels 18 through 24
Table 5-1 Number and percent of respondents who called the respondent information line, 2016-2020
Table 5-2 Calls to the respondent information line, 2019 and 2020
Table 6-1 2020 cases with comments or data check issues
Table 6-2 Total number of cases with comments by category
Table A-1 Data collection periods and starting RU-level sample sizes, all panels
Table A-2 MEPS household survey data collection results, all panels
Table A-3 Response rates by data collection year
Table A-4 Summary of MEPS Round 1 response and non-response
Table A-5 Summary of Round 1 response by NHIS completion status
Table A-6 Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for all RUs who ever refused
Table A-7 Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for RUs who were ever traced, panels 15-24
Table A-8 Interview timing comparison, (mean minutes per interview, single-session interviews)
Table A-9 Mean contact attempts by NHIS completion status, Round 1
Table A-10 Signing rates for medical provider authorization forms
Table A-11 Signing rates for pharmacy authorization formss
Table A-12 Results of Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) collection
Table A-13 Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection
Table A-14 Results of patient profile collection
Table A-15 Calls to respondent information line
Table A-16 Files delivered during 2020
Figure 6-1 Blaise to DEx Transformation

Introduction

The Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC, Contract 290-2016-00004I, awarded July 1, 2016, and Contract 75Q80120D00024, awarded July 13, 2020) is the central component of the long-term research effort sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to provide timely and accurate data on access to, use of, and payments for health care services by the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population. The project has been in operation since 1996, each year producing a series of annual estimates of health insurance coverage, health care utilization, and health care expenditures. This report documents the principal design, training, data collection, and data processing activities of the MEPS-HC for survey year 2020.

Data are collected for the MEPS-HC through a series of overlapping household panels. Each year a new panel is enrolled for a series of five in-person interviews conducted over a 2½-year period. Each year a panel completing its fifth interview ends its participation, with the exception this year of panel 23, as described in the section below on changes due to COVID-19. This report describes work performed for all of the panels active during calendar year 2020. Design work conducted during the year consisted of updates and testing for the instruments fielded during the fall of 2020 and spring of 2021. Data collection operations in 2020 were for Panel 23 Rounds 5 and 6, Panel 24, Rounds 3 and 4, and Panel 25, Rounds 1 and 2. Data processing activity focused on delivery of full year utilization and expenditure files for calendar year 2018.

The report touches lightly on procedures and operations that remained unchanged from prior years, focusing primarily on results of the 2020 operations and features of the project that were new, changed, or enhanced for 2020. Tables in the body of the text highlight 2020 results, with limited comparison to prior years. A set of tables showing data collection results over the history of the project is in Appendix A.

Chapter 1 of the report describes the 2020 sample and activities associated with preparing the sample for fielding. Chapters 2 through 5 discuss activities associated with the data collection for 2020: updates to the survey questionnaire and field procedures; field staff recruiting and training; data collection operations and results; and home office support of field activities. Chapter 6 describes data processing and data delivery activities.

Return To Table Of Contents

Changes Due to COVID-19

All MEPS Household Component (MEPS-HC) face-to-face interviewing ceased on March 17, 2020, due to the impact of COVID-19 on American life. Data collection switched to the telephone mode. Before the shift to telephone, the majority of spring 2020 interviews were done in-person. In fall 2020, in-person data collection resumed briefly in some areas for specific cases, but most data collection remained on the phone for the duration of the field period. In the spring, Round 1 had 48.7 percent of interviews conducted by telephone, Round 3 had 35.4 percent, and Round 5 had 27.0 percent. Almost all of the fall interviews (98.2 percent of both Round 2 and Round 4, 98.7 percent of Round 6) were done by telephone. (In a typical year, around 5-8 percent of interviews are conducted by telephone, mostly student interviews and Round 5 interviews.)

MEPS-HC made several modifications to project systems, processes, and procedures to respond to the pandemic:

Enhancing the Quality of Telephone Interviewing. A website built for collection of health plan cost-sharing documents was repurposed to include show cards and other documents that interviewers would normally present in-person on paper to respondents. Interviewers requested that respondents refer to the online show cards in answering each item or read the show cards out loud, mirroring the in-person protocol. Interviewers received headsets and telephone interviewing protocols, including data quality protocols specific to each round of data collection.

Training for Telephone Interviewing. Interviewers received remote training and continuous guidance on how to shift to telephone data collection. Additional training stressed inclusion of telehealth visits and data quality protocols newsletter items provided additional guidance on recording telehealth events, and after several weeks on the telephone, a memo provided interviewers with feedback about data quality and use of show cards.

Maximizing Response Rates. The project developed and sent COVID-specific letters and postcards tailored for each panel and round to notify households that the study was ongoing and to expect telephone outreach. The project also added efforts to increase return of hard-copy materials, particularly authorization forms (AFs), including a formal protocol for reminder calls, re-mailing unreturned AFs, and a modified in-person protocol for the retrieval of completed AFs, which considerably improved the AF collection rate.

Extension of Panels 23 and 24. Anticipating potential negative impacts of telephone interviewing on response rates and the number of households that would be included in 2020 data and beyond, a decision was quickly made to invite Panel 23 respondents to participate in a fall Round 6 interview with a reference date back to January 1, 2020, and to prepare the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) instrument and other systems to extend Panel 23 through nine rounds and Panel 24 through at least seven rounds.

Extension of Panel 25 Round 1 into Fall Data Collection. Given the uncertain duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, the fall CAPI instrument and other systems were modified to allow for extension of the spring rounds (and ability to skip the relevant fall round), with the hope that in-person data collection could resume in the fall. Panel 25 Round 1 was extended into the fall field period. CAPI system changes included ensuring collection of authorization forms (AFs) that would normally have been collected for these cases in the fall in Round 2.

Fall CAPI Instrument Changes. The project added three COVID conditions to the conditions look-up list and made minor adjustments to the text in the provider probes section to remind respondents to include telemedicine events.

Preparation for Fall In-Person Data Collection. COVID-19 in-person mitigation protocols were developed and distributed to interviewers who were authorized to conduct in-person interviewing. Interviewers received training on use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and COVID-19 mitigation. In fall 2020, in-person data collection resumed briefly in some primary sampling units (PSUs) for Rounds 1, 2 and 4 and for hard-to-reach or hearing-impaired Round 6 cases. All other data collection remained on the phone for the rest of the field period. Using Westat’s COVID Dashboard for Household Surveys, MEPS monitored conditions for safe in-person interviewing and AF collection. In-person efforts led to both in-person interviews and enhanced the ability to make telephone interview appointments.

Return To Table Of Contents

1. Sample

Each year a new, nationally representative sample for the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component (MEPS-HC) is drawn from among households responding to the previous year’s National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Up until 2020, households in a new panel participated in a series of five interviews that collect data covering two full calendar years. For each calendar year the sample respondents from two panels—one completing its first year in the study (Round 3) and one completing its second year (Round 5)—have been combined for analysis purposes, resulting in a series of annual estimation files. In 2020, with the onset of the COVID19 pandemic, there were concerns of declining response rates as well as challenges in recruiting respondents by telephone for the latest MEPS Panel, Panel 25. As a result, respondents associated with Panel 23, the MEPS Panel scheduled to retire in 2020 after five rounds of data collection, were invited to remain in the study and complete a third year of data collection.

The sample for Panel 25 was selected from among households responding to the NHIS in the preceding year where the NHIS sample was based on the NHIS sample design initially implemented in 2016 (as were Panels 22-24). Specifically, the MEPS household sample was randomly selected from among those that participated in the NHIS during the first three quarters of 2019 and who had been assigned to NHIS Panels 1 and 3, the NHIS Panels designated for MEPS.

This chapter describes the 2020 MEPS sample drawn from 2019 NHIS responding households as well as steps taken to prepare the new sample for fielding.

Return To Table Of Contents

1.1 Sample Composition

Table 1-1 shows the starting sample sizes in terms of the number of reporting units (RUs) for all MEPS Panels through Panel 25 and the number of MEPS PSUs from which each Panel was drawn. Note that the change in the number of PSUs for Panel 12 reflects the redesign of the NHIS sample implemented in 2006 (thus, affecting MEPS in 2007), following the 2000 decennial census. The number of PSUs for Panel 25 is based on the number of PSUs associated with MEPS after the 2016 NHIS sample redesign, the fourth such MEPS Panel under this design. The reductions in the number of PSUs after Panel 22 stemmed from further modifications to the NHIS design. The MEPS sample units presented are RUs, each of which represents a set of related persons living together within the same NHIS responding household selected for MEPS participation. Related members of the NHIS households sampled for MEPS and who move as a unit (as well as separate individuals) during the MEPS data collection period form new RUs for interviewing purposes. Each such new RU is followed over the course of the five MEPS data collection rounds and interviewed at their new address.

MEPS data collection is conducted in two main fielding periods each year. Typically, during the January-June period, Round 1 of the new panel and Rounds 3 and 5 of the two continuing panels are fielded, with the panel in Round 5 retiring at mid-year. Normally, during the July-December period, Round 2 of the new panel and Round 4 of the remaining continuing Panel are fielded. However, with a third Panel added for the first time in 2020, a Round 6 for Panel 23 was also fielded. Table 1-2 summarizes the combined workload for the January-June and July-December periods from spring 2016 through fall 2020.

Table 1-1. Initial MEPS sample size (RUs) and number of NHIS PSUs, all panels

Panel Initial sample size (RUs)* MEPS PSUs
1 10,799 195
2 6,461 195
3 5,410 195
4 7,103 100
5 5,533 100
6 11,026 195
7 8,339 195
8 8,706 195
9 8,939 195
10 8,748 195
11 9,654 195
12 7,467 183
13 9,939 183
14 9,899 183
15 8,968 183
16 10,417 183
17 9,931 183
18 9,950 183
19 9,970 183
20 10,854 183
21 9,851 183
22 9,835 168
23 9,960 143
24 9,976 139
25 10,008 139

* RUs: Reporting units.

Return To Table Of Contents

Over the years shown in Table 1-2, the combined spring and fall workload has ranged from a low of 34,126 in 2019 to a high of 40,432 in 2015. Typically, the interviewing workload during the spring field period, when 3 Panels are active, is substantially larger than during the fall but in 2020, the fall field period also had 3 active Panels, although only 15,633 cases were fielded. In 2020, the spring workload of 19,213 RUs was the lowest of the 5 years shown.

Each new MEPS Panel includes some oversampling of population groups of particular analytic interest. Since 2010 (Panel 15), the set of sample domains has included oversamples of Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics. All households set aside in the NHIS for MEPS that have at least one household member in any of these three categories (Asian, Black, or Hispanic) are included in the MEPS sample with certainty. “White and other race” households have been partitioned into two sample domains and subsampled at varying rates across the years. These domains reflect whether an NHIS responding household characterized as “White or other race” provided “complete” information at the household level for the NHIS or if only “partially complete” information was provided.

Table 1-2. Data collection periods and starting RU-level sample sizes, spring 2016 through fall 2020

Data collection period RU-level sample size
January-June 2016 24,694
Panel 19 Round 5 6,856
Panel 20 Round 3 7,987
Panel 21 Round 1 9,851
July-December 2016 15,390
Panel 20 Round 4 7,729
Panel 21 Round 2 7,661
January – June 2017 24,773
Panel 20 Round 5 7,611
Panel 21 Round 3 7,327
Panel 22 Round 1 9,835
July – December 2017 14,396
Panel 21 Round 4 7,025
Panel 22 Round 2 7,371
January – June 2018 23,768
Panel 21 Round 5 6,899
Panel 22 Round 3 7,023
Panel 23 Round 1 9,846
July – December 2018 14,123
Panel 22 Round 4 6,789
Panel 23 Round 2 7,334
January – June 2019 20,723
Panel 22 Round 5 6,624
Panel 23 Round 3 6,773
Panel 24 Round 1 7,326
July – December 2019 13,403
Panel 23 Round 4 6,569
Panel 24 Round 2 6,834
January – June 2020 19,213
Panel 23 Round 5 6,413
Panel 24 Round 3 6,382
Panel 25 Round 1 6,418
July – December 2020 15,633
Panel 23 Round 6 5,264
Panel 24 Round 4 5,574
Panel 25 Round 2 4,795

Return To Table Of Contents

As background, the partitioning of the “White, Other” domain into these two domains began in 2011 (Panel 16). The partial completes were sampled at a lower rate than the full completes in order to lessen the impact on the field effort resulting from the difficulty of gaining the cooperation of these households. The last two columns in Table 1-3 show the subsampling rates for the two groups since Panel 16. The partial completes in the “White, Other” domain have been subsampled at rates ranging from a low of 40 percent (Panel 17) to a high of 53 percent (Panel 20).

Table 1-3. Percentage of NHIS households with partially completed interviews in panels 3 to 25

Panel Percentage with partially completed interviews Subsampling rate for NHIS completes in “White, other” domain Subsampling rate for partial completes in “White, other” domain
3 10
4 21
5 24
6 22
7 17
8 20
9 19
10 16
11 23
12 19
13 25
14 26
15 21
16 25 79 46
17 19 51 40
18 22 63 43
19 18 66 42
20 19 84 53
21 22 81 49
22 15 77 49
23 12 79 49
24 12 79 50
25 11 77 50

*The figures in the second column of the table are the proportion of partial completes in the total delivered sample, after subsampling. The figures in the third and fourth columns are subsampling rates applied to the two White/Other subdomains in Panels 16 through 25.

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 1-4. Distribution of panel 25 sample by sample domain

Sample domain Number Percent
Asian 720 7.19
Black 1,840 18.39
Hispanic 1,400 13.99
White, other 6,048 60.43
NHIS complete 5,594 55.90
NHIS partial complete 454 4.54
Total 10,008

Return To Table Of Contents

1.2 Sample Delivery and Processing

The 2020 MEPS sample was received from AHRQ and NCHS in two deliveries. The first delivery, containing households sampled from the first two quarters of the 2016 NHIS, was received on October 4, 2017. Households selected from the third quarter of the NHIS were delivered on December 11, 2018.

The September delivery of the first two-thirds of the new sample is instrumental to the project’s schedule for launching interviewing each year in early January. The partial file gives insight into the demographic and geographic distribution of the households in the new Panel. This information, when combined with information on older Panels continuing in the new year, guides project decisions on the number and location of new interviewers to recruit.

Upon receipt of the first portion of the 2020 sample, project staff also reviewed the NHIS sample file formats to identify any new variables or values and to make any necessary changes to the project programs that use the sample file information. Following this initial review, staff proceeded with the standard processing through which the NHIS households are reconfigured to conform to MEPS reporting unit definitions and prepared the files needed for advance mailouts and interviewer assignments. The early sample delivery also allows time for checking and updating NHIS addresses to improve the quality of the initial mailouts and to identify households that have moved since the NHIS interview.

Return To Table Of Contents

2. Instrument and Materials Design

2.1 Introduction

Each year, the project makes a number of changes to the CAPI instrument used to collect MEPS data as well as to the field procedures followed by the interviewers who collect the data. MEPS implemented CAPI modernization as part of the technology upgrade launched in spring 2018. For 2020, there were a few significant revisions to the instrument in addition to minor ones, as detailed below.

Return To Table Of Contents

2.2 Changes to the CAPI Instrument for 2020

Each data collection cycle, AHRQ works with Westat to define a set of modifications to the MEPS-HC instrument. Some modifications are new items or new sections, whereas other are updates or fixes to existing items.

One change was made to the NHIS questionnaire in 2019, which consisted of no longer collecting information that MEPS previously used to preload into the re-enumeration section of the MEPS questionnaire for Round 1 cases as well as the face sheet. NHIS continues to enumerate everyone who is a part of the family and selects one sampled adult and one sampled child. However, the NHIS is no longer collecting full demographic information for all household members. Most of the demographic information for the sampled adult and sampled child is available but missing for the other DU members. Information missing from CAPI includes date of birth, marital status, and potentially last name. This impacted the interview process for interviewers as there is less information available to verify and more to collect. Additionally, interviewers have less context when approaching the household.

The changes for the 2020 data collection period, both spring and fall, are summarized by section below:

Start/Restart (ST). For Round 1 cases where the RU members had a refused or don’t know value for the name during the NHIS, an algorithm was created that incorporated the person’s age and sex if known. Instead of seeing empty entries in the name field for these Round 1 cases, interviewers now see something like “24 year old female refused.”

Priority Condition Enumeration (PE). In an effort to reduce the number of other (specify) responses at PE90, which asks the respondent to specify the kind of heart condition, heart disease or other kind of coronary heart disease, angina or heart attack, a show card was added to this question.

Conditions Look-up. In spring 2020, a conditions look-up feature was added to CAPI in order to increase data quality for conditions as well as reduce burden for interviewers and respondents. Interviewers can now search a list of approximately 980 predetermined condition names. There is an option to select a condition name from the look-up or add one manually. The new condition look-up functions similarly to the provider search look-up in that it uses a trigram search method. This look-up also formalized the probing requirements for conditions. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in fall 2020, three new conditions were added to the condition look-up.

Provider Probes (PP). Due to the pandemic, there was a global shift to the provision of health care to telemedicine. Telemedicine is a rapidly growing part of our nation’s health care services that medical providers have had to implement in their practices in order to accommodate the required distance the pandemic has imposed on everyday life. Health professionals use “information and communication technologies (such as computers, the Internet, and cell phones) for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries”1 (World Health Organization). In order to capture this type of care, MEPS added language to questions PP40 and PP200 in the Provider Probes (PP) section to include care received by telemedicine.

Date Picker. A fill was added for Round 5 hospital and institutional (HS/IC) stays in the date picker interviewer instructions for discharge date. It now informs the interviewer to consider a person to still be in the hospital if they were still there on December 31 rather than “today” (the interview date). This change will help prevent interviewer confusion in round 5 when respondents report a HS/IC event on the end date of the reference period (12/31) and a discharge date past the end of the reference period.

Event Roster (EV). When following-up on linked HS, ER, and IC events, the roster that displays eligible events to be linked was previously displaying events with a delete flag. The MEPS-HC CAPI instrument was updated to remove those deleted events from display.

Prescribed Medicine (PM). During analysis, AHRQ identified that field interviewers occasionally entered two or more drugs as one entry. While uncommon, these errors caused significant issues during delivery and for analysis. In Fall, an edit check was implemented for medicines added to the roster. This edit checked looked at each medicine entered to determine if it contained two or more strings of strength or form indicators (e.g., two instances of the phrase “MG”, “ML”, “CAP” or “TAB”. Entries that did contain two or more of these strings were flagged to the interviewer as potential error for review and correction,

Food Security (FS). The addition of the Food Security (FS) section in the fall of 2020 consisted of a set of 11 questions on food security, which were similar to the ones administered in the NHIS. This section was first asked in fall 2016 and reinstated for fall 2020.

Health Insurance (HX) and Related Sections. In spring 2020, CAPI was updated to exclude private health insurance with only non-comprehensive types for high deductible and HSA items in HX and OE (Old Employment section) and include private insurance with coverage that had been coded as “Don’t Know” (DK) or “Refused” (RF). Additionally, all Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) items were removed from the HX section.

Policy Booklet (PB). In spring 2020, a new section was added to request households submit documents that provide detailed information about cost-sharing between individuals and insurance companies.

Supplements to the CAPI Instrument

Table 2-1 shows the supplements in the CAPI instrument for the rounds administered in calendar year 2020.

Table 2-1. Supplements to the CAPI core questionnaire (including hard-copy materials) for 2020

Supplement Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6
Child Health X X
Quality Supplement X X X X X X
Access to Care X X X
Income X X
Assets X
Medical Provider Authorization Forms for HS, OP, and ER Events X X X X X X
Medical Provider Authorization Forms for MV, TH, HH, and IC Events X X X X X
Pharmacy Authorization Forms X X X X X
Your Health and Health Opinions (SAQ/PSAQ) X Round 2 follow-up X Round 4 follow-up X
Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) X X
Policy Booklet (PB) X X

Changes to supplemental items included:

1World Health Organization. (2010). Telemedicine: Opportunities and developments in Member States: report on the second global survey on eHealth 2009. Available at goe_telemedicine_2010.pdf (who.int).

Return To Table Of Contents

2.3 Testing of the Questionnaire and Interviewer Management System

Testing for the spring 2020 (Rounds 1/3/5) application was completed in November 2019. Testing of the fall 2020 (Rounds 2/4/6) instrument was completed in June 2020, taking an additional month and two additional builds to fully test all of the changes due to COVID-19. Spring 2020 (Rounds 1/3/5) was the third year of fielding the MEPS Technical Upgrade (Tech Up) CAPI instrument. Many of the new testing approaches developed during 2018 for pre-launch testing of the Tech Upgrade CAPI instrument have been adapted and continued to maintain a comprehensive testing plan that supported the ongoing instrument development schedule.

CAPI instrument development and testing included multiple programming/testing iterations that each lasted several weeks. As the specifications and programming progressed, a full suite of test scripts was updated. Defined by the design staff and analytic leads at Westat, the regression testing suite of scripted test cases targeted the unique characteristics of approximately 80 percent of the cases fielded. These testing scripts represented common paths through the instrument and covered all rounds of the CAPI instrument.

The testing ensured that CAPI followed the design as intended and assessed whether the layout of the overall screen for a given question, and across questions, consistently met the requirements designed to minimize measurement error. Feature testing thoroughly tested all new features against specifications, including wording, text fills, legal and illegal responses, boundary conditions, and skip patterns. Testers validated every possible variation allowed by the specifications.

Primarily conducted by corporate testers and MEPS project staff, free-form testing focused on design changes in the current instrument build and ensured that any reported instrument bugs had been fixed. Free-form testing was also utilized by trained programming staff to ensure the stability of the CAPI data model and to evaluate the stored data in new or unusual situations to see how well the CAPI application tracked and maintained the associated data changes. Testers routinely pushed array limits, used back-up, changed answers, and used break-off and restart cases to challenge performance boundaries.

Project and systems staff performed all testing in closely coordination with the design team. For each of the spring and fall instruments, AHRQ received an alpha delivery and conducted its own testing. The following month, AHRQ received a beta delivery and conducted additional testing.

The test script suite continued to be executed through alpha and beta for the spring and fall testing cycles. Additional testing components, including enhanced integration testing and ad hoc/free-form testing, were conducted. The enhanced integration testing allowed project staff to check electronic Face Sheet information, test the Interviewer Assignment Sheet, and make entries into the electronic record of calls and refusal evaluation form. The ad hoc testing component used information derived from actual cases to verify that all management information on the laptop is being brought forward correctly from previous rounds. Using actual case data also allowed staff to check uncommon paths through the MEPS instrument so that specific changes to the questionnaire could be thoroughly tested.

Return To Table Of Contents

2.4 Changes to Materials and Procedures for 2020

The manuals and the materials for the 2020 field effort were updated as needed to reflect changes to the questionnaire and management systems. Below is a description of the key changes to the materials and procedures.

Instructional Manuals

The field interviewer manual was updated to address changes in field procedures and updates to the Interviewer Management System (IMS).

Electronic Materials

The electronic face sheet in the IMS provides interviewers with information needed to contact their assigned households and familiarize themselves with the composition of the household and relevant details about their prior history with the survey in preparation for coming interviews. The IMS also contains an RU Information module for documenting operational information to help the next round’s interviewer effectively work each case, an RU Contact module for reporting address and telephone number changes identified prior to the CAPI interview, and the Interviewer Assignment Sheet, which supports follow-up for AFs and SAQs not completed at the time of the interview.

There were no changes to the face sheet for the spring 2020 data collection period. Due to the extension of Panel 23, the fall 2020 face sheet was updated to display information from Round 5 for Panel 23 Round 6 cases. The fall 2020 face sheet also included a section for policy booklet follow-up. If there was an outstanding policy booklet request from the previous round, the details of the policy were displayed for the interviewer to discuss with the respondent.

A section was added to the spring 2020 Interviewer Assignment Sheet (IAS) to display policy booklet requests from CAPI. The information in this section was used by the field interviewer to perform the policy booklet data collection tasks described in Section 4.5. The Ship to Receipt Module in the online Basic Field Operations System (BFOS) was also updated to show pending policy booklet requests.

Advance Contact and Other Case Materials

All respondent letters, monthly planners, and self-administered questionnaires were updated with the appropriate year references, and the Income Job Aid was updated with 2017 data. The MEPS logo was added to respondent cooperation materials that didn’t previously display the logo. Respondent letters, the community authorization letter, and the authorization form booklet were updated with the signature of the new acting director for NCHS.

To facilitate the phone interviewing that became necessary due to COVID-19, the MEPSDOC website built for cost-sharing document collection was modified to provide access to online show cards and other documents that interviewers would normally present to respondents in-person.

Further updates were made to the advance letters for fall 2020 data collection to address the impact of COVID-19 and possible telephone interviewing. Signatures were also updated to the new director for NCHS.

Return To Table Of Contents

3. Recruiting and Training

3.1 Field Interviewer Recruiting for 2020

For spring 2020 data collection, MEPS abandoned the streamlined interviewer staffing model implemented in 2019 and reverted to the prior staffing approach that aimed to start spring data collection with approximately 400 interviewers.

Based on a projected sample size across all three Panels for spring 2020 of approximately 24,800 RUs, the estimated number of experienced MEPS interviewers likely to be available at the end of fall 2019 data collection (about 264), including a MEPS travel team of 10 to 12 members, Westat estimated needing to recruit approximately 136 new interviewers for the standard staffing model. The goal was to start data collection with approximately 400 interviewers actively working during the spring 2020 data collection period.

Recruiting of new field interviewers for 2020 began in October 2019 and continued into January 2020. For the 2020 recruiting, MEPS used the Westat web-based recruitment management system through which applicants apply online. One hundred forty-four interviewers were hired; of those hires, 23 dropped out before training and 121 attended training and completed the training program. With the addition of these new trainees, the project began 2020 data collection with a total of 390 interviewers. Of this total, 39 new interviewers and 54 experienced interviewers were lost to attrition during the spring interviewing rounds. An additional 16 new interviewers and 7 experienced interviewers were lost during the fall rounds. Total attrition for the year was 29.7 percent, the highest attrition level MEPS has experienced in the past 5 years. In looking forward to 2021, MEPS plans to recruit to expand the interviewing staff to begin data collection with at least 400 interviewers. The breakdown of interviewer attrition is shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. Table 3-1 shows the overall attrition rate during the spring data collection period from 2016 through 2020. Note that the total spring 2020 attrition rate was 23.8 percent, the highest in the past 5 years. This was driven by high attrition rate among both the 2020 new hires (32.2%) and experienced interviewers (20.1%).

Table 3-1. Spring attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2016-2020

Data collection period New interviewers lost Experienced interviewers lost Total interviewers lost
# % # % # %
Spring 2016 20 27.0% 28 7.7% 48 10.9%
Spring 2017 18 20.7% 24 6.7% 42 9.4%
Spring 2018 26 34.7% 33 9.6% 59 14.0%
Spring 2019 8 29.6% 56 17.2% 64 18.2%
Spring 2020 39 32.2% 54 20.1% 93 23.8%

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 3-2 shows the overall attrition rate during the fall data collection period from 2016 through 2020. Note that the total fall 2020 attrition rate was 8.0 percent, a rate comparable to 4 of the prior 5 years. An unusual staffing phenomenon occurred at the start of fall data collection: 23 interviewers returned from temporary inactive status. These interviewers who went on inactive status during spring data collection were counted as part of the spring attrition numbers since they were not engaged in data collection. The attrition figures for fall data collection are based on what the MEPS interviewer staffing level was at the end of spring data collection; there was no adjustment made for this increase in available staff at the start of fall data collection.

As noted previously, the higher fall attrition rate in fall 2017 resulted when MEPS lost some PSUs due to the new sampling frame.

Table 3-2. Fall attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2016-2020

Data collection period New interviewers lost Experienced interviewers lost Total interviewers lost
# % # % # %
Fall 2016 6 11.1% 24 7.1% 30 7.7%
Fall 2017 10 14.5% 44 13.1% 54 13.4%
Fall 2018 10 20.4% 16 5.1% 26 7.2%
Fall 2019 4 21.0% 20 7.4% 24 8.3%
Fall 2020 16 19.5% 8 3.7%* 24* 8.0%

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 3-3 shows the annual attrition rate across new and experienced interviewers from 2016 – 2020. The annual attrition rate for 2020 was 30 percent, the highest rate in the past 5 years. The extremely high rate of attrition among new hires can be attributed in large part to the pandemic conditions when MEPS changed from in-person interviewing to telephone interviewing. The expectation among new hires was that they would be conducting in-person interviews. In addition, many MEPS interviewers went on temporary inactive status to care for family members with COVID and to do home schooling for children.

Table 3-3. Annual attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2016-2020

Data collection period New interviewers lost Experienced interviewers lost Total interviewers lost
# % # % # %
2016 26 35.1% 52 14.2% 78 17.8%
2017 28 32.2% 68 18.9% 96 21.5%
2018 36 48.0% 49 14.2% 85 20.2%
2019 12 44.4% 76 23.4% 88 25.0%
2020 55 45.0% 62 23.0% 117 30.0%

Return To Table Of Contents

3.2 2020 Interviewer Training

The overall structure for training new interviewers in 2020 followed the pattern established in prior years. It began with home study, followed by an in-person training conducted in Birmingham, AL, in late January 2020, and ending with completion of a two-part post-classroom home study component.

Pre-Classroom Home Study. This package included a project laptop and an interactive self-paced workbook with exercises and online modules including videos and quizzes administered through Westat’s Learning Management System (LMS). The LMS generated regular reports allowing home office and field management staff to monitor the completion of each trainee’s home study. New hires received their home study package early enough to complete the package before the in-person training, but not so early that their introduction to important study concepts and project terminology would degrade before the in-person training.

In-Person Training. The in-person training closely followed the agenda implemented in spring 2019 with modifications to enhance content on health care event enumeration and event typing and to introduce cost-sharing document collection. For the 7½ days of project-specific training, each trainee was assigned to one of seven training communities staffed by a primary and support trainer and two or more classroom runners. In addition to lectures on study procedures and questionnaire content, trainees completed mock interviews and dyad role-plays using the Round 1, Round 3, and Round 5 questionnaires. Mock interviews are instructor-led, full MEPS interviews whereas “mini-mocks” focus on one or more individual sections of the interview. Dyads pair two trainees together with one trainee taking on the role of the respondent and the other trainee assuming the role of the field interviewer. The mocks and dyads included training on the use of electronic case materials and completion of the electronic Interviewer Assignment Sheet (IAS). Multiple “mini-mock” interviews—interviews with data pre-entered to allow trainees to directly access the specific section to be addressed in a given session—allowed for in-depth sessions on the more complex sections of the CAPI questionnaire such as household re-enumeration and utilization and charge payment without necessitating the completion of a full mock interview or dyad practice. Trainees received instruction and practice in use of the IMS and ways of introducing the survey and answering respondent questions.

The in-person training component maintained the emphasis on interviewer behaviors and interviewing techniques that facilitate complete and accurate reporting. Trainers were instructed to reinforce good interviewing behaviors during mock interviews. Good interviewing behaviors include reading questions verbatim, training respondents to use records to aid recall, actively engaging respondents in the use of show cards, and using active listening and probing skills. Trainers called attention to instances in which interviewers demonstrated such behaviors. To enhance trainee awareness of behaviors that affect data quality, dyad scripts included instructions to take a “time-out” at certain items in the interview to highlight relevant data quality issues.

To ensure training participants had access to additional coaching and practice, three 1-hour structured evening practice labs were scheduled in the evenings on days 2, 3, and 5 of training. Additional evening help labs were held on the first few days of training to assist trainees with accessing their electronic timesheet to allow for the real-time reporting of time and expenses that is a Westat corporate requirement. One hundred twenty-one new hires successfully completed training.

Bilingual trainees who had been certified by Westat for their proficiency in Spanish were trained alongside other new interviewers. An additional half day of bilingual training was held following the conclusion of regular project training. This session focused on procedures and techniques that are of particular importance to interviewing Spanish-speaking households, including practicing refusal aversion/conversion techniques in Spanish. Bilingual trainees were paired so that they could conduct practice interviews in Spanish. Nineteen new interviewers successfully completed 2020 bilingual training.

Post-Classroom Home Study. The post-classroom home study was administered in two parts. New interviewers left in-person training with the first component of the home study. It contained instruction and exercises on locating techniques and working with proxy respondents, an exercise on secure messaging (BSM), and tips for improving data quality from experienced interviewers. New interviewers were required to complete this training before beginning their fieldwork.

The second component of the post-classroom home study was sent to new interviewers in March. It focused on less-common interviewing situations including case management of related RU members who are identified as being institutionalized and handling NHIS students. Several interactive modules on repeat co-pays and tools and techniques applied to the data quality continuum were administered through Westat’s LMS. A quiz with immediate feedback functionality was also administered through the LMS. Interviewers were instructed to complete this second home study component by mid-March. Daily reports generated by the LMS allowed home office training staff, field managers, and field supervisors to monitor interviewer progress.

Return To Table Of Contents

3.2.1 Experienced Interviewer Training

Spring 2020 Round 1/3/5 Home Study. The Round 1/3/5 home study in January 2020 followed established formats but was expanded to accommodate cost-sharing document collection protocols. Interviewers completed a two-part home study. Part 1 of the home study focused on CAPI and IMS updates, field procedures, and the introduction of the CAPI condition look-up tool. Part 2 of the home study introduced several LMS-based video modules on the procedures associated with cost-sharing document collection. The 3.5-hour self-paced program contained an instructional memo, independent CAPI practice, e-learning modules, and a quiz.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, MEPS interviewers began to conduct interviews by telephone. Interviewers received training on the procedures associated with phone interviewing including methods for maintaining data quality. MEPS repurposed the cost-sharing document collection website with respondent materials for phone interviewing. These items included the MEPS show cards, the Records job aid, MEPS Record Keeper, and the informed consent document. Interviewers received training on the use and administration of the materials on the telephone interview website.

Westat also developed training material on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and COVID-19 procedural guidelines in anticipation of a return to in-person interviewing.

In-Person Refresher Training. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the refresher training scheduled for August 2020 was canceled.

Return To Table Of Contents

3.2.2 Continuing Education for All Interviewers

Fall 2020 Round 2/4 Home Study. The Round 2/4 home study in July 2020 followed established formats. The 2-hour self-paced program contained an instructional memo, example materials, and a quiz. Topics included the extension of the rounds in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, additional training on telephone interviewing and the use of the telephone-interviewing website for respondents, COVID mitigation protocols, and follow-up cost-sharing document collection. New interviewers hired in the spring were required to complete a mock interview with their supervisor, field manager, or designated senior interviewer before beginning the fall rounds of data collection.

Weekly Newsletter. In 2020, MEPS continued its field interviewer newsletter in a weekly format. As such, the newsletter allows for additional training opportunities in a concise format and the ability to deliver content as needed to the field. Topics include CAPI questionnaire topics, procedural content, and answers to field interviewer questions.

Return To Table Of Contents

4. Data Collection

This chapter describes the MEPS-HC data collection operations and provides selected results for the five rounds of MEPS-HC interviewing conducted in 2020. Selected comparisons to results of prior years are also presented. Tables showing results for all years of the study are provided in Appendix A.

Return To Table Of Contents

4.1 Data Collection Procedures

MEPS data collection management relies on a set of interrelated systems and procedures designed to accomplish three goals: efficiency, data quality, and cost containment. The systems include the Basic Field Operating System (BFOS), which facilitates case management through case assignment, case status and hours reporting, data quality reporting, and interviewer efficiency. Related systems include the computer-assisted recorded interview (CARI) system and the MEPS supervisor dashboard, which was placed into production in 2018. The CARI system’s CARI code allows for review of recordings for selected interview items to assist in the assessment of interviewer performance and question assessment. The MEPS supervisor dashboard provides views into daily and weekly management tasks related to the tracking of hours per complete, key alerts from casework in the field, the management of weekly production goals, and a number of metrics designed to facilitate weekly field calls with interviewers regarding hours worked, production, and interview quality. These tools, along with the implementation of models designed to identify cases with a higher propensity for completion, as well as on-hold procedures designed to prevent the overwork of cases in the field, form a comprehensive framework for the management of MEPS data collection.

Due to the COVID pandemic, the procedures followed in the 2020 data collection differed greatly than those of prior years.

As in prior years, respondent contact materials provided respondents with the link to the MEPS website (www.meps.ahrq.gov), a toll-free number to Alex Scott, a study representative at Westat, and the link to the Westat website (www.westat.com). Calls received from the Alex Scott line were logged into the call-tracking system and the appropriate supervisor notified so that he/she could take the proper course of action.

The advance contact calls to Panel 25 Round 1 households were made by a subset of the experienced MEPS interviewers.

Typically, for Round 1 households, interviewers are instructed, with few exceptions, to make initial contact with the household in-person. For later rounds, interviewers are allowed to make initial contacts to set appointments by telephone, so long as the household had been cooperative in prior rounds. In response to COVID-19, all in-person interviewing ceased on March 17, 2020, and all contacts and interviews were conducted over the telephone. Prior to 2020, interviews conducted on the telephone represented only 8 percent of interviews. Guidelines and procedures for changing the mode of data collection from in-person to telephone were developed and distributed on a flow basis between March 17 and April 7, 2020, by Panel/round and within panel/round by household size. Interviewers started telephone interviewing with Round 5 cases, since those households were most familiar with MEPS and the interview requirements. Interviewers began Round 5 telephone interviewing with small households. Cases continued to be released in priority order, reserving the Round 1 telephone interviewing as the last cases to be released for telephone interviewing.

Procedures for collecting the medical and pharmacy authorization forms for the Medical Provider Component (MPC) and self-administered questionnaires underwent significant changes due to the pandemic. Since a large portion of interviews were conducted on the telephone after March 17, the MEPS home office developed procedures for interviewers to mail authorization forms to respondents and have them return it to the home office via business reply envelope (BRE). After the in-person interview, the forms were generated and mailed by the interviewer from home shortly after the interview was completed, along with a BRE and the incentive check. The interviewer made a phone call to follow up within several days. The change in procedure had an impact on the number of missing authorization forms collected in the spring, as Table 4-1 shows.

Table 4-1. Authorization form missing rate for spring 2020

Round RUs missing all AFs before 3/15/20 RUs missing all AFs after 3/15/20
1 34% 64%
3 19% 58%
5 16% 45%

As noted in the table, there was a 30 percentage point increase in RUs with missing AFs after March 15. In fall 2020, additional protocols were implemented to address the steep decline in returned signed authorization forms, including instituting a procedure for interviewers to place up to three reminder calls to ensure AFs complete and returned or ready for pick up.

When conditions were deemed safe, contactless AF pickup was instituted in the fall field period. Additionally, a re-mail effort in late fall 2020 was introduced to mail new sets of AFs to RUs where AFs were expected but not received. This was paired with the reminder calls for RUs with larger number of AFs or hospital visits.

MEPS field managers, field directors, and the task leader for field operations continued to manage the field data collection in collaboration with the field supervisors, reinforcing the importance of balancing data quality with production and cost goals across regions. Field staff refer to this collaborative effort as the “No Region Left Behind” approach.

Throughout the year Westat continued to review data for all respondents reported to have been institutionalized in order to identify any individuals who might have been inappropriately classified and, as a result, treated as out of scope for MEPS data collection.

Data Collection Schedule. The sequence for beginning the spring rounds of data collection, most recently adjusted in 2014, was maintained for the spring round of 2020. Data collection began with Round 5, followed by Round 3, and then Round 1. For the Round 1 respondents, the later starting date allowed several additional weeks of elapsed time in which respondents could experience health care events to report in their Round 1 interview, with these additional events giving them a more realistic understanding of what to expect in the subsequent rounds of the study. In order to maintain the highest levels of quality of MEPS data, a decision was made to extend Panels 23 and 24 to nine rounds; therefore there was no exit round in 2020. Additionally, Round 1 was extended into the fall in order to secure cooperation from as many households as possible. For those RUs (n=117) that completed the Round 1 interview in the fall, they did not have a Round 2 interview at all and continued with the Round 3 interview in spring 2021.

The field period dates for the 6 rounds and the extended round 1 data collection conducted in 2020 are shown in Table 4-1A.

Table 4-1A. Data collection schedule and number of weeks per round of data collection, 2020

Round Dates No. of weeks in round
1 January 24 – July 14 24
2 July 28 – December 7 19
3 January 17 – June 15 21
4 July 5 – December 7 19
5 January 10 – May 15 18
6 August 4 – November 30 18
Extended Round 1 August 18 December 7 15

Data Quality (DQ) Monitoring. The MEPS DQ field monitoring system and procedures allowed supervisors and field managers to identify interviewers whose work deviated from quality standards and who might need additional coaching on methods for getting respondents to more completely report their health care events. CARI review was further integrated into weekly monitoring activities with supervisors listening to portions of roughly 1,000 interviews per field period. These reviews were used to reinforce positive interviewing behaviors and techniques, and listening to CARI has given field supervisors direct exposure to interviewing behaviors that need to be addressed. In some cases, CARI recording results were such that interviewers were instructed to stop working until they could receive some re-training, including administering a practice interview to their field supervisor. This effort was supported by DQ alerts built into the supervisor dashboard to identify possible DQ issues related to record use and event entry. Supervisors investigated these issues and retrained when necessary.

Case On-hold for Work Plan Procedures. The project implemented a model designed to detect cases at risk for overwork or in need of review to determine the viability of a case compared to other pending cases. At-risk cases are automatically placed in an on-hold status for supervisor and field manager review. Only cases with a supervisor drafted and field manager approved work plan tailored to achieve a successful interview are removed from the on-hold status and assigned back to an interviewer for additional targeted completion attempts. At various points in the round, cases with an on-hold status are reassessed in the context of remaining pending cases to determine if any should be released to the field for further work. This practice is designed to produce completes with fewer attempts and more efficient use of resources for refusal conversion and locating activities. Poor quality attempts are avoided and field effort is reduced. The reintroduction of cases with a proper work plan is designed to allow for a high rate of response by tailoring work for cases before they are overworked or removed from the field as non-viable. This practice was suspended on March 15, 2020, and throughout the remainder of the year in lieu of electronic record of call (EROC) monitoring more suited to telephone interviews. The low effort of telephone attempts allowed for additional attempts at maintained or reduced effort.

Case Potential Listing. The project continued the use of a model predicting a completed interview from a given case (“propensity to complete”) relative to other pending cases in a region. The model is designed to identify cases with a high likelihood of completion at that point in the field period relative to other pending cases. The model is dynamic and is updated weekly based on the specific conditions for pending cases at that time. The model was tested in 2019 to determine if updates were necessary to better fit the data; however, the existing model remains well-suited to current interview conditions and remains in effect even for telephone interviews.

Information from this model is integrated into BFOS (the system used for case management), providing propensity to complete as part of a comprehensive view of a case for a given week. Supervisors were to instruct interviewers—in the absence of other field information that would dictate otherwise—to attempt these cases during the next production week. Table 4-2 illustrates the potential categories used to classify cases on a weekly basis to promote field efficiency.

Table 4-2. Case potential categories for classifying and prioritizing case work, spring 2020

Potential categories for pending MEPS cases
High potential (unworked)
High potential (worked)
Appointment
Low potential
Low potential refusal
Remainder
Locating

Return To Table Of Contents

4.2 Data Collection Results: Interviewing

Table 4-3 provides an overview of the data collection results for Panels 16 through 25, showing sample sizes, average interviewer hours per completed interview, and response rates. Table 4-4 shows the final response rates a second time, reformatted to facilitate by-round comparisons across Panels and years. Both tables display the additional Round 6 data new for 2020.

Table 4-3. MEPS HC data collection results, panels 16 through 25

Panel/round Original sample Split cases (movers) Student cases Out-of-scope cases Net sample Completes Average interviewer hours/complete Response rate (%) Response rate goal
Panel 16* Round 1 10,417 504 98 555 10,940 8,553 11.4 78.2 80.0
Round 2 8,561 252 42 34 8,821 8,351 7.6 94.7 95.0
Round 3 8,351 232 19 28 8,574 8,256 6.4 96.1 96.0
Round 4 8,232 155 16 13 8,390 8,162 6.6 97.3 97.0
Round 5 8,143 67 13 25 8,198 7,998 5.5 97.6 98.0
Panel 17 Round 1 9,931 490 92 127 10,386 8,121 11.7 78.2 80.0
Round 2 8,113 230 35 19 8,359 7,874 7.9 94.2 95.0
Round 3 7,869 180 15 15 8,049 7,663 6.3 95.2 96.0
Round 4 7,656 199 19 30 7,844 7,494 7.4 95.5 97.0
Round 5 7,485 87 10 23 7,559 7,445 6.1 98.5 98.0
Panel 18 Round 1 9,950 435 83 111 10,357 7,683 12.3 74.2 80.0
Round 2 7,691 264 32 16 7,971 7,402 9.2 92.9 95.0
Round 3 7,402 235 21 22 7,635 7,213 7.6 94.5 96.0
Round 4 7,203 189 14 22 7,384 7,172 7.5 97.1 97.0
Round 5 7,163 94 12 15 7,254 7,138 6.2 98.4 98.0
Panel 19 Round 1 9,970 492 70 115 10,417 7,475 13.5 71.8 80.0
Round 2 7,460 222 23 24 7,681 7,188 8.4 93.6 95.0
Round 3 7,168 187 12 17 7,350 6,962 7.0 94.7 96.0
Round 4 6,946 146 20 23 7,089 6,858 7.4 96.7 97.0
Round 5 6,856 75 7 24 6,914 6,794 5.9 98.3 98.0
Panel 20 Round 1 10,854 496 85 117 11,318 8,318 12.5 73.5 80.0
Round 2 8,301 243 39 22 8,561 7,998 8.3 93.4 95.0
Round 3 7,987 173 17 26 8,151 7,753 6.8 95.1 96.0
Round 4 7,729 161 19 31 7,878 7,622 7.2 96.8 97.0
Round 5 7,611 99 13 23 7,700 7,421 6.0 96.4 98.0
Panel 21 Round 1 9,851 462 92 89 10,316 7,674 12.6 74.4 80.0
Round 2 7,661 207 32 17 7,883 7,327 8.5 93.0 95.0
Round 3 7,327 166 14 19 7,488 7,043 7.2 94.1 96.0
Round 4 7,025 119 14 20 7,138 6,907 7.0 96.8 97.0
Round 5 6,914 42 8 34 6,930 6,778 5.9 97.8 98.0
Panel 22 Round 1 9,835 352 68 86 10,169 7,381 12.8 72.6 80.0
Round 2 7,371 166 19 11 7,545 7,039 8.5 93.3 95.0
Round 3 7,071 100 12 19 7,164 6,808 6.7 95.0 96.0
Round 4 6,815 91 13 18 6,901 6,672 6.8 96.7 97.0
Round 5 6,670 35 7 12 6,700 6,584 5.3 98.3 98.0
Panel 23 Round 1 9,960 1,931 46 110 10,089 7,351 12.5 72.9 80.0
Round 2 7,387 106 14 15 7,492 6,960 8.2 92.9 95.0
Round 3 6,987 102 11 18 7,082 6,703 6.1 94.6 96.0
Round 4 6,704 74 10 12 6,776 6,522 6.6 96.2 97.0
Round 5 6,503 34 4 5 6,536 6,383 5.3 97.7 98.0
Round 6 6,398 19 10 18 6,480 5,120 4.8 79.0 96.0
Panel 24 Round 1 9,976 153 43 82 10,090 7,186 11.8 71.2 80.0
Round 2 7,211 98 19 5 7,323 6,777 7.9 92.5 95.0
Round 3 6,812 76 9 7 6,890 6,289 6.0 91.3 96.0
Round 4 6,335 44 4 13 6,370 5,446 5.1 85.5 97.0
Round 5                  
Round 6                  
Panel 25 Round 1 10,008 184 38 78 10,152 6,265 10.8 61.7 80.0
Round 2 5,907 49 14 12 5,958 4,677 5.5 78.5 95.0
Round 3                  
Round 4                  
Round 5                  

* Figures in the table are weighted to reflect results of the interim nonresponse subsampling procedure implemented in the first round of Panel 16.

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 4-4. Response rates by data collection year, 2010-2020

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6
2010
Panel 15 73.5 92.2
Panel 14 94.9 96.8
Panel 13 97.9
2011
Panel 16 78.2 94.8
Panel 15 95.4 97.0
Panel 14 98.3
2012
Panel 17 78.2 94.2
Panel 16 96.1 97.3
Panel 15 98.2
2013
Panel 18 74.2 92.9
Panel 17 95.2 95.5
Panel 16 97.6
2014
Panel 19 71.8 93.6
Panel 18 94.5 97.1
Panel 17 98.5
2015
Panel 20 73.5 93.4
Panel 19 94.7 96.7
Panel 18 98.4
2016
Panel 21 74.4 93.0
Panel 20 95.1 96.8
Panel 19 98.3
2017
Panel 22 72.6 93.3
Panel 21 94.1 96.8
Panel 20 96.4
2018
Panel 23 72.9 92.9
Panel 22   95.0 96.7
Panel 21   97.8
2019
Panel 24 71.2 92.5
Panel 23   94.6 96.2
Panel 22   98.3
2020
Panel 25 61.7 78.5
Panel 24   91.3 85.5
Panel 23   97.7 79.0

Return To Table Of Contents

Of the data collection rounds conducted in 2020, the response rates for most rounds showed a decline when compared to the rates from 2018 and 2019. With the shift to telephone data collection in March due to the pandemic, the Round 1 response rate was seriously impacted. As a result, Round 1 interviewing continued into the fall data collection period in an effort to raise the response rate. Even with that extension, the Round 1 response rate reached only 61.7 percent (a reduction of 9.5% from the prior year). Note that the households that completed Round 1 interviews in the fall did not complete a Round 2 interview. Other rounds were differentially affected. Rounds 3 and 5 were affected less than Rounds 2 and 4 in the fall as most of the completions took place prior to the switch to telephone. However, all rounds experienced some decline. Because of this decline in response, a decision was made to extend Panels 23 and 24 to nine rounds to maintain the sample.

As would be expected when the mode of data collection for 2020 changed (except for the two and a half months prior to the pandemic), the average hours per complete across each Panel/round were lower. The biggest impact was seen in Round 1, where the average was 10.8 hours/complete compared with 12.4 hours (over the prior 4 years). A similar difference was seen in Round 2, where the average was 5.5 hours compared to 8.3 hours (over the prior 4 years).

Components of Response and Nonresponse

Table 4-5 summarizes components of nonresponse associated with the Round 1 households by Panel beginning in 2015. As the table shows, prior to 2020 the components of nonresponse other than refusals—the “not located” and “other” categories— remained relatively stable; however, in 2020, the “other” category increased 4.6 percent. The larger year-to-year changes are reflected in the percentage of refusals, whereby increases and decreases in the percentage of refusals align closely with corresponding decreases and increases in the completion rate.

Table 4-5. Summary of MEPS Round 1 response and nonresponse, 2015-2020 panels

2015
P20R1
2016
P21R1
2017
P22R1
2018
P23R1
2019
P24R1
2020
P25R1
Total sample
11,435 10,405 10,255 10,199 10,172 10,230
Out of scope (%) 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.8
Complete (%) 73.5 74.4 72.6 72.9 70.6 61.2
Nonresponse (%) 26.5 25.6 27.4 27.1 28.6 38.0
Refusal (%) 21.0 20.2 21.8 22.4 24.0 28.7
Not located (%) 4.3 3.7 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.2
Other nonresponse (%) 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 6.1

Return To Table Of Contents

Tables 4-6 through 4-13 summarize results for additional aspects of the 2020 data collection. Because Round 1 is the most difficult of all the rounds, the presentation focuses primarily on Panel 25, Round 1.

Table 4-6. Summary of MEPS Round 1 response, 2015-2020 panels, by NHIS completion status

2015
P20R1
2016
P21R1
2017
P22R1
2018
P23R1
2019
P24R1
2020
P25R1
Original NHIS sample (N) 10,854 9,851 9,835 9,839 9,864 9,866
Percent complete in NHIS 80.6 77.6 81.0 80.4 84.2 89.3
Percent partial complete in NHIS 19.4 22.4 19.0 19.6 15.8 10.7
Percent complete for NHIS completes 75.9 77.3 75.4 75.4 73.5 63.5
Percent complete for NHIS partial completes 63.1 64.8 62.0 63.6 60.3 46.8

Note: Figures shown are based on original NHIS sample and exclude reporting units added to the sample as “splits” and “students.”

Return To Table Of Contents

NHIS Completion Status

Each year the MEPS sample includes a number of households classified in the NHIS as “partial completes,” in which the interviewer was able to complete part, but not all, of the full NHIS interview. Given the NHIS redesign implemented in 2018, the partial completes included in the 20 MEPS sample included some cases that completed only the roster module of the NHIS. The MEPS experience has been that for many of these NHIS cases, the difficulty experienced by the NHIS interviewer carries over to the MEPS interview: the MEPS response rate for the NHIS partial completes is substantially lower than for the NHIS completes. As noted in Chapter 1, for the 2020 sample, AHRQ repeated the step taken since 2012 of sampling the NHIS partial completes in the “White/other” category at a lower rate than the NHIS completes.

The upper portion of Table 4-6 shows the proportion of partial completes in the sample over recent years. Across all domains, the proportion of the 2020 sample classified as partial complete was significantly lower than all the previous years shown on the table. The lower portion of the table shows the persistent and substantial difference in response rate between these two components of the sample. Among the cases originally delivered from the NHIS (that is, with new reporting units discovered during the MEPS interviewing excluded from the counts), the response rate for the NHIS partial completes has been around 12 percentage points fewer or less than that for the NHIS completes. In 2020, that difference jumped up to 16.7 percentage points. In 2020, the proportions of partial completes is significantly smaller than in the previous 2 years.

Sample Domain

Table 4-7 breaks out response information for the NHIS completes and partial completes by sample domain categories, including the veterans domain introduced in Panel 24. Table 4-7, unlike Table 4-6, does include reporting units added to the sample during Round 1 data collection; it shows the differential in response rates between the NHIS partial completes and full completes persisting across all of the domains. The difference across the full 2020 sample was 15.8 percentage points, with NHIS partial completes responding at a lower rate in all domains. Within the individual domains the difference between the response rate for the NHIS completes and the NHIS partials was greatest for the White/other domain –22.4 percentage points.

Table 4-7. Summary of MEPS panel 25 round 1 response rates, by sample domain by NHIS completion status

Domain/NHIS Status Net sample (N) Complete (%) Refusal (%) Not located (%) Other nonresponse (%)
Asian 742 59.0 29.5 5.0 6.5
NHIS complete 618 60.7 28.3 4.7 6.3
NHIS partial complete 124 50.8 35.5 6.5 7.3
Black 1,426 64.4 24.2 4.6 6.8
NHIS complete 1,207 66.6 23.0 4.1 6.4
NHIS partial complete 219 52.1 31.1 7.8 9.1
Hispanic 1,878 64.8 25.5 4.3 5.4
NHIS complete 1,578 66.6 23.9 4.0 5.5
NHIS partial complete 300 55.0 34.0 6.0 5.0
White/other 6,106 60.5 31.0 2.4 6.2
NHIS complete 5,644 62.2 29.6 2.3 6.0
NHIS partial complete 462 39.8 47.8 3.5 8.9
All groups 10,152 61.7 28.9 3.2 6.2
NHIS complete 9,047 63.4 27.6 3.0 6.0
NHIS partial complete 1,105 47.6 39.4 5.3 7.7

Note: Includes reporting units added to sample as “splits” and “students” from original NHIS households, which were given the same “complete” or “partial complete” designation as the original household.

Return To Table Of Contents

Refusals and Refusal Conversion

Table 4-8 summarizes the results of refusal conversion efforts by Panel. The rate of “ever refused” for RUs in Panel 25 increased to its highest level for 2020 by 2.2 percent. The percentage of converted RUs for Round 1 was also the lowest it’s been with only 12.3 percent of cases converted.

Table 4-8. Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for RUs who ever refused, panels 19-25

Panel Net sample (N) Ever refused (%) Converted (%) Final refusal rate (%) Final response rate (%)
Panel 19 10,418 30.1 23.3 22.4 71.8
Panel 20 11,318 30.1 29.2 21.0 73.5
Panel 21 10,316 29.1 29.0 20.2 74.4
Panel 22 10,169 30.1 27.6 21.8 72.6
Panel 23 10,089 31.3 25.6 22.4 72.9
Panel 24 10,090 32.6 23.4 24.2 71.2
Panel 25 10,152 34.8 12.3 28.9 61.7

Return To Table Of Contents

Tracing and Locating

Table 4-9 shows results of locating efforts for households that required tracking during the Round 1 field period by Panel. The percent of households that required some tracing in 2020 (11.7%) dropped 0.9 percent from 2019; the final rate of households that were not located after tracing efforts was slightly higher than 2018 and 2019. The 2020 “not located” rate was within the range of 3.0-4.3 percent for the 8-year period shown in the table.

Table 4-9. Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for RUs who were ever traced, panels 19-25

Panel Total sample (N) Ever traced (%) Not located (%)
Panel 19 10,532 19.5 4.1
Panel 20 11,435 14.0 4.3
Panel 21 10,405 12.8 3.7
Panel 22 10,228 13.0 3.9
Panel 23 10,199 12.7 3.0
Panel 24 10,172 12.6 3.0
Panel 25 10,230 11.7 3.2

Return To Table Of Contents

Interview Length

Table 4-10 shows the mean length (in minutes) for interviews conducted without interruption in a single session in Panels 19-25. Timings for all of the rounds of data collection conducted in 2020 show comparable timing to the prior year, with the Round 1 having the highest time (89.0) seen across all the Panels displayed on the table.

Table 4-10. Interview timing comparison, panels 19 through 25 (mean minutes per interview, single-session interviews)

Round Panel 19 Panel 20 Panel 21 Panel 22 Panel 23 Panel 24 Panel 25
Round 1 85.5 76.4 75.5 79.9 78.1 79.5 89.0
Round 2 92.3 86.3 85.3 88.8 88.2 87.0 89.7
Round 3 94.5 89.7 93.4 93.0 92.6 98.5
Round 4 84.6 80.5 82.7 84.3 86.8 86.2
Round 5 84.1 85.3 76.0 78.8 78.7
Round 6 88.4

Return To Table Of Contents

Mean Contact Attempts Per Case

Table 4-11 shows mean contact attempts, by mode and NHIS completion status, for all cases in Round 1 of Panels 23-25. Overall, the number of contacts required per case in Panel 25 increased significantly from 2019, an overall increase of 7.1 attempts per complete that is reflected for both in-person contacts and among both the NHIS completes and partial completes. This increase is chiefly attributed to the challenges incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to telephone interviewing. As in prior years, in Panel 25 the NHIS partial complete cases required substantially greater effort than the NHIS completes, roughly 2.9 additional in-person contacts per household.

Table 4-11. Mean contact attempts by NHIS completion status, round 1 of panels 23-25

Contact type Panel 23, Round 1 Panel 24, Round 1 Panel 25, Round 1
All RUs Complete Partial All RUs Complete Partial All RUs Complete Partial
N 9,839 7,913 1,926 9,864 8,306 1,558 9,866 8,814 1,052
% of all RUs 100 80.4 19.6 100 84.2 15.8 100 89.3 10.7
In-person 6.2 6.0 7.2 5.5 5.4 6.3 2.6 2.5 2.6
Telephone 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.6 9.7 9.5 11.6
Total 8.2 7.9 9.5 7.3 7.1 8.5 14.4 14.1 17.0

Return To Table Of Contents

4.3 Data Collection Results: Authorization Form Signing Rates

During the Respondent Forms section of the MEPS CAPI interview, interviewers are prompted to ask respondents to sign the authorization forms (AFs) needed to conduct the Medical Provider Component of MEPS. Authorization forms are requested for each unique person-provider pairing identified during the interviews as a source of care to a key member of the household. Medical provider AFs are requested for physicians seen in an office-based setting; for inpatient, outpatient, or emergency room care received in a hospital; for care received from a home health agency; and for certain stays in long-term care institutions. Pharmacy AFs are requested for each pharmacy from which a household member obtained prescription medicines.

Table 4-12 shows round-by-round signing rates for the medical provider AFs for Panels 18 through 25. Signing rates dropped in 2020 as a result of the move to telephone interviewing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 4-12. Signing rates for medical provider authorization forms for panels 18 through 25

Panel/round Authorization forms requested Authorization forms signed Signing rate (%)
Panel 18 Round 1 1,677 1,266 75.5
Round 2 22,714 18,043 79.4
Round 3 20,728 15,827 76.4
Round 4 17,092 13,704 80.2
Round 5 15,448 11,796 76.4
Panel 19 Round 1 2,189 1,480 67.6
Round 2 22,671 17,190 75.8
Round 3 20,582 14,534 70.6
Round 4 17,102 13,254 77.5
Round 5 15,330 11,425 74.5
Panel 20 Round 1 2,354 1,603 68.1
Round 2 25,334 18,479 72.9
Round 3 22,851 15,862 69.4
Round 4 18,234 14,026 76.9
Round 5 16,274 12,100 74.4
Panel 21 Round 1 2,037 1,396 68.5
Round 2 22,984 17,295 75.2
Round 3 20,802 14,898 71.6
Round 4 16,487 13,110 79.5
Round 5 20,443 16,247 79.5
Panel 22 Round 1 2,274 1,573 69.2
Round 2 22,913 17,530 76.5
Round 3 26,436 19,496 73.7
Round 4 23,249 18,097 77.8
Round 5 17,171 12,168 70.9
Panel 23 Round 1 1,982 1,533 77.3
Round 2 29,576 21,850 73.9
Round 3 23,365 14,575 62.4
Round 4 19,220 13,483 70.2
Round 5 17,569 10,903 62.1
Round 6 12,701 8,002 63.0
Panel 24 Round 1 2,285 1,306 57.2
Round 2 24,755 15,865 64.1
Round 3 22,657 11,522 50.9
Round 4 14,612 7,716 52.8
Panel 25 Round 1 3,110 1,242 39.9
Round 2 15,259 7,292 47.8

Return To Table Of Contents

Calculation of the round-by-round collection rate for the medical provider authorization forms is based on all forms requested during a round. The rates calculated for Rounds 2-5 include forms fielded but not signed in an earlier round (nonresponse) as well as forms that were fielded in an earlier round and signed, but rendered obsolete because the person had another health event with the provider after the date on which the original form was signed.

Table 4-13 shows signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms for Panels 18 through 25. Pharmacy authorization forms are requested in Rounds 2 through 5, with follow-up for nonresponse in subsequent rounds similar to that for medical provider authorization forms. The signing rates for the pharmacy authorization forms have generally shown a pattern of decline since Panel 18; however, there are minor fluctuations by Panel. The drop in signing rates for 2020 can be attributed to the move to telephone interviewing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authorization form (AF) signing rates dropped when MEPS had to move to telephone interviewing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not being able to review the AFs with the respondents in-person and obtain signatures at that time, and relying on respondents to mail their signed forms to MEPS itself, had a negative impact on the return rate for authorization forms. To address this shortfall during the fall 2020 data collection period, interviewers made up to three follow-up calls to work with the household to sign the AFs and schedule a contactless in-person retrieval.

Additionally, MEPS decided to generate a new set of AFs if the requested AFs had not been received and processed within 21 or more days from the interview completion date. These forms were printed each week and mailed from the home office to respondents. A cover letter explained the need for signed AFs and provided instructions for signing them. Respondents could return the forms in a BRE that was included in the mailing or arrange for contactless pick-up by an interviewer.

Table 4-13. Signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms for panels 18 through 25

Panel/round Authorization forms requested Authorization forms signed Signing rate (%)
Panel 18 Round 2 10,977 8,755 79.8
Round 3 9,757 7,573 77.6
Round 4 8,526 6,858 80.4
Round 5 7,918 6,173 78.0
Panel 19 Round 2 10,749 8,261 76.9
Round 3 9,618 6,902 71.8
Round 4 8,557 6,579 76.9
Round 5 7,767 5,905 76.0
Panel 20 Round 2 12,074 8,796 72.9
Round 3 10,577 7,432 70.3
Round 4 9,099 6,945 76.3
Round 5 8,312 6,339 76.3
Panel 21 Round 2 10,783 7,985 74.1
Round 3 9,540 6,847 71.8
Round 4 8,172 6,387 78.2
Round 5 6,684 5,336 79.8
Panel 22 Round 2 10,510 7,919 75.4
Round 3 8,053 5,953 73.9
Round 4 7,284 5,670 77.8
Round 5 8,048 5,726 71.1
Panel 23 Round 2 8,834 6,514 73.8
Round 3 9,614 6,205 64.5
Round 4 8,486 5,900 69.5
Round 5 8,067 5,101 63.2
Round 6 5,668 3,418 60.3
Panel 24 Round 2 10,265 6,676 65.0
Round 3 9,096 4,831 53.1
Round 4 7,100 3,636 51.2
Panel 25 Round 2 6,783 3,180 46.9

Return To Table Of Contents

4.4 Data Collection Results: Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ), Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS), and Collection Rates

Self-administered questionnaires (SAQs) are requested from key adult household members in Rounds 2 and 4. Forms that are not collected in Rounds 2 and 4 are requested again in Rounds 3 and 5. In fall 2020, SAQs were requested from Panel 23 Round 6 respondents as well. Table 4-14 shows both the round-specific response rates and the combined rates after the follow-up round is completed. The response rate after follow-up remained in the mid-80 percent range until 2018 when it dropped to the mid-70 percent range. Overall procedures for the distribution and collection of hard-copy materials have not changed with the exception of additional concentrated follow-up. Additional evaluation is underway to understand and attempt to improve the hard-copy rates. Follow-up for the 2019 data year occurred in the first half of 2020, which was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and move to telephone interviewing. However, the combined rates for 2019 remained in line with those of previous years. The response rates for the initial SAQ requests in Panel 23 Round 6, Panel 24 Round 4, and Panel 25 Round 2 were significantly lower than the rate for the initial request in prior years as a result of telephone interviewing due to COVID-19.

Table 4-14. Results of Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) collection for panels 19 through 25

Panel/round SAQs requested SAQs completed SAQs refused Other nonresponse Response rate (%)
Panel 19 Round 2 12,664 10,047 1,014 1,603 79.3
Round 3 2,306 1,050 694 615 44.5
Combined, 2014 12,664 11,097 1,708 2,218 87.6
Round 4 11,782 9,542 1,047 1,175 81.0
Round 5 2,131 894 822 414 42.0
Combined, 2015 11,782 10,436 1,869 1,589 88.6
Panel 20 Round 2 14,077 10,885 1,223 1,966 77.3
Round 3 2,899 1,329 921 649 45.8
Combined, 2015 14,077 12,214 2,144 2,615 86.8
Round 4 13,068 10,572 1,127 1,371 80.9
Round 5 2,262 1,001 891 370 44.3
Combined, 2016 13,068 11,573 2,018 1,741 88.6
Panel 21 Round 2 13,143 10,212 1,170 1,761 77.7
Round 3 2,585 1,123 893 569 43.4
Combined, 2016 13,143 11,335 2,063 2,330 86.2
Round 4 12,021 9,966 1,149 906 82.9
Round 5 2,078 834 884 360 40.1
Combined, 2017 12,021 10,800 2,033 1,266 89.8
Panel 22 Round 2 12,304 9,929 1,086 1,289 80.7
Round 3 2,287 840 749 698 36.7
Combined, 2017 12,304 10,769 1,835 1,987 87.5
Round 4 11,333 8,341 1,159 1,833 73.6
Round 5 2,090 811 896 383 38.8
Combined, 2018 11,333 9,152 2,055 2,216 80.8
Panel 23 Round 2 12,349 8,711 1,364 1,289 70.5
Round 3 2,364 819 907 638 34.6
Combined, 2018 12,349 9,530 2,271 1,927 77.2
Round 4 11,290 8,554 1,515 1,221 75.8
Round 5 2,711 983 923 805 36.3
Combined, 2019 11,290 9,537 2,438 2,026 84.5
Round 6 8,537 4,732 682 3,123 55.4
Panel 24 Round 2 12,027 8,726 1,641 1,660 72.6
Round 3 2,810 860 832 1,118 30.6
Combined, 2019 12,027 9,586 2,473 2,778 79.7
Round 4 9,257 4,247 786 4,224 45.9
Panel 25 Round 2 8,109 3,555 529 4,025 43.8

Return To Table Of Contents

In Rounds 3 and 5, key adult household members who are reported as having been diagnosed with diabetes are asked to complete a short self-administered questionnaire, the Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS). Forms not completed for pickup at the time of the interviewer’s visit are followed up by telephone in the latter stages of Rounds 3 and 5, but unlike the SAQ, there is no follow-up in the subsequent round for forms not collected in the round when first requested. Response rates for the DCS for Panels 18 through 24 are shown in Table 4-15. Completion rates for the DCS have a modest but relatively steady decline over time; however, the DCS rate dropped significantly in 2018. A further drop was seen in 2020 that can be attributed to impeded follow-up efforts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and move to telephone interviewing.

Table 4-15. Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection for panels 18 through 24

Panel/round DCSs requested DCSs completed Response rate (%)
Panel 18 Round 3 1,362 1,182 86.8
Round 5 1,342 1,187 88.5
Panel 19 Round 3 1,272 1,124 88.4
Round 5 1,316 1,144 87.2
Panel 20 Round 3 1,412 1,190 84.5
Round 5 1,3862 1,174 84.9
Panel 21 Round 3 1,422 1,170 82.5
Round 5 1,481 1,123 75.8
Panel 22 Round 3 1,453 1,074 73.9
Round 5 1,348 1,018 75.5
Panel 23 Round 3 1,464 1,101 75.2
Round 5 1,350 933 69.1
Panel 24 Round 3 1,350 843 62.4

Return To Table Of Contents

4.5 Policy Booklet Data Collection: Methods and Results

During the spring 2020 field collection period, MEPS requested households to submit documents that provide detailed information about cost-sharing between individuals and insurance companies. The policy information being requested gives additional insight into details about the health insurance plan, including the plan’s deductibles, maximum out-of-pocket limits, costs for different services such as primary care visits versus visits to specialists or visits for diagnostic tests, and the cost difference between generic and brand drugs. Depending on the type of insurance reported, there were two main documents of interest: An Evidence of Coverage (EOC), or Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC). Cost-sharing documents were requested from Panel 25 Round 1 and Panel 24 Round 3 households that reported private insurance, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare Part D Prescription Drug plans during the MEPS interview. For each plan where cost-sharing documents were requested and received at the home office, the respondent received $30. This payment was sent directly to the respondent from the home office.

The CAPI instrument displayed the eligible plans for document collection. Westat developed four unique hard-copy guides, which we refer to as “protocol folders.” Each type of protocol folder provided information and instructions on how to obtain cost-sharing documents specifically geared toward the type of eligible health insurance coverage reported during the interview. Having four protocol versions targeted to different insurance types made it easier for MEPS households to get the correct cost-sharing document for their insurance plan. For each eligible plan, CAPI identified the protocol folder to be provided and field interviewers were required to review the protocol folder with the respondent.

Although field interviewers were not expected to collect the cost-sharing documents at the end of each interview, they were trained to emphasize to the respondent or policyholder that the requested documentation related to their plan should have a coverage period that included the current interview date.

MEPS households were offered three options for submitting cost-sharing documents: (1) returning them to the MEPS interviewer, (2) uploading an electronic version to a specified website (www.MEPSDOCS.org), or (3) sending them by mail.

Interviewers were asked to make up to three follow-up calls to respondents to check on their progress obtaining insurance documents and address any questions they may have. A follow-up call script was provided for these calls and the outcome of each call was recorded in an EROC.

All cost-sharing documents received by MEPS were receipted in the MEPS Receipt Control system. Electronic documents uploaded by the respondent were stored on a server at Westat, and hard-copy documents received by MEPS were scanned by MEPS Receipt Control staff and then uploaded to the same server. This enabled the receipt system to access all of the documents the same way. The $30 payment was sent to the respondent after a document was uploaded either by the respondent or by MEPS Receipt Control staff for scanned hard-copy documents.

During fall 2020 data collection, a reminder letter was sent to respondents with an outstanding policy request from the spring rounds. A copy of the reminder letter for each outstanding policy was included in the RU folder and each outstanding policy was listed on the face sheet. CAPI did not prompt for the outstanding documents; rather, interviewers were asked to refer to the reminder letter and face sheet to review the request with their respondents and encourage them to send the documents to MEPS.

Return To Table Of Contents

4.6 Quality Control

Interviewer performance was monitored through validation case review using GPS, CARI, and telephone interviews. The purpose of validation is to verify that the correct individual was contacted for the interview and that the interview was conducted according to MEPS-approved procedures.

Generally, all completed cases are validated by first examining the GPS data stored and encrypted on the laptop. Then, if the case could not be properly validated due to missing data or the GPS information could not be verified to show the interviewer at the respondent address or another documented location at the time of the interview, the case was then reviewed in the CARI system. However, beginning in mid-March of 2020, the majority of cases were completed by telephone due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore GPS data could not be relied on for validation and CARI review was the main mode of validation in 2020. If a case could not be validated in CARI due to poor quality or missing CARI data, the case was referred for telephone validation. All interviews completed in less than 30 minutes were referred for telephone validation.

In the spring 2020 rounds, 17,947 (97% of completed cases) were validated. A minimum of 41 percent of an interviewer’s completes were validated, with an average of 95 percent of each interviewer’s completes validated. In the fall 2020 rounds, CARI and telephone validation was performed due to over 98 percent of the cases being completed by telephone. This resulted in fewer cases being validated in the fall. Nonetheless, 10,590 completed cases, or 67.6 percent of completed cases, were validated and at least 15 percent of completes were validated for each interviewer.

In addition to validating cases, MEPS field supervisors and managers conduct observations as part of a comprehensive mentoring process. Generally, MEPS uses technical solutions in place of in-person observations; however, there are specific needs met by specialized observation. As much as possible, observations are conducted in the early weeks of data collection so that problems can be detected and corrected as quickly as possible and interviewers given feedback on ways to improve specific interviewing skills. While CARI offers a high-quality portal for evaluating interviewers on question administration, observations, particularly of newly hired staff, allow for assessment of the full range of interviewer skills including respondent contact, trip planning, gaining cooperation, and interviewer-respondent interactions that cannot be captured through CARI and other report mechanisms. In addition, the observer serves as an on-site resource in situations where remedial training is necessary. Observation forms are processed and reviewed at the home office to determine the need for individual and field-wide follow-up on specific skills. In 2020, 20 observations were conducted prior to March 13, at which time observations could no longer be done due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Return To Table Of Contents

4.7 Security Incidents

To comply with the requirement of reporting incidents involving loss or theft of hard-copy materials with respondent personally identifiable information (PII) or laptops, field staff continued to use an automated loss reporting system to report incidents. As before, reported incidents were subsequently tracked through the use of a documentation log that was provided to AHRQ annually. A security incident report was also filed for each confirmed incident with the Westat IRB.

A total of 26 incidents of lost or stolen laptops or hard-copy PII were reported in 2020. Of those reported incidents, five involved MEPS laptops that were reported stolen or lost. All but one laptop was recovered. The password-protected laptops were shut down at the time of the loss. Since MEPS laptops are full disc encrypted, respondent identity was not at risk.

A total of twenty-six incidents reported suspected or confirmed loss of hard-copy materials with respondent PII loss or breach of confidentiality. Eight of the twenty-six reported hard-copy losses were located intact and uncompromised. Following extensive searches, no documents were recovered in the other eighteen reported losses. Included among the PII hard-copy losses were authorization forms, Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQs), Preventive Care Self-Administered Questionnaires (PSAQs) Diabetes Care Surveys, and Policy Booklets. All households with PII loss were notified. The AHRQ Information Security Manager alerts the HHS Privacy Incident Response Team (PIRT) of all MEPS-reported PII incidents.

Return To Table Of Contents

5. Home Office Support of Field Activities

The home office supports the data collection effort in several important ways. One phase of activity supports the launch of each new round of data collection; another phase supports the field operation while data collection is in progress. These two phases of activity are described in this chapter.

Return To Table Of Contents

5.1 Preparation for Field Activities

Hard-copy materials were assembled prior to data collection for cases being fielded in Rounds 2 through 6. Clerical staff created an RU folder for each case being fielded and inserted any authorization forms and SAQs that were printed for the case. There are no hard-copy case materials generated for Round 1 cases so RU folders were not created prior to data collection for Round 1 cases.

Supervisors received a Supervisor Assignment Log listing all of the cases to be released in their region for each wave of cases. For the first wave of each round, supervisors used this log to assign cases to their interviewers. They entered the ID of the interviewer to be assigned each case and sent the log back to the home office. Home office staff then shipped the RU folders directly to the interviewers. A file with the assignments was also sent to programming staff to make the electronic assignments in the BFOS field management system.

For later waves, the prepared RU folders were sent to the field supervisors, who made the electronic assignments in their Supervisor Management System (SMS) and shipped the hard-copy materials to their interviewers.

Prior to the start of data collection for each period, interviewers connected remotely to the home office to download the CAPI software update for the upcoming rounds and received a home study training package to prepare them for interviewing. Field interviewers also received a replenishment of supplies at the start of the rounds.

Advance mailings to all respondent households were prepared and mailed by the home office staff. Addresses were first standardized and sent through the National Change of Address (NCOA) database to obtain the most current addresses for mailing. Any mail returned as undeliverable was recorded and the appropriate supervisor was notified. Requests to re-mail the Round 1 advance package to households who reported not receiving it were prepared and mailed by home office staff.

Return To Table Of Contents

5.2 Support During Data Collection

Respondent Contacts. Respondent contacts are an important component of home office support for the MEPS data collection effort. Printed materials mailed to respondents contain an email address and toll-free telephone number that respondents can use to contact the project with questions, with requests to make or to cancel interview appointments, or to decline participation in the study. Home office staff received and initiated the response to all respondent contacts. They forward information received from respondent calls to the field supervisors, who initiate the appropriate follow-up and inform the home office of the results of their follow-up within 24 hours of notification. Table 5-1 shows the number and percent of RUs who made calls to the respondent hotline in the spring and fall rounds of 20162020. There was a significantly higher percentage of calls to the hotline in 2020.

Table 5-1. Number and percent of respondents who called the respondent information line, 2016-2020

Original sample size Number of calls Calls as a percent of sample size
Round 1
2016 – Panel 21 Round 1 9,851 301 3.1%
2017 – Panel 22 Round 1 9,835 346 3.5%
2018 – Panel 23 Round 1 9,846 383 3.9%
2019 – Panel 24 Round 1 9,864 343 3.5%
2020 – Panel 25 Round 1 9,880 586 5.9%
Rounds 3/5
2016 – Panel 19 Round 5/Panel 20 Round 3 14,844 547 3.7%
2017 – Panel 20 Round 5/Panel 21 Round 3 14,939 533 3.6%
2018 – Panel 21 Round 5/Panel 22 Round 3 13,922 467 3.4%
2019 – Panel 22 Round 5/Panel 23 Round 3 13,594 486 3.6%
2020 – Panel 23 Round 5/Panel 24 Round 3 13,241 592 4.5%
Rounds 2/4
2016 – Panel 20 Round 4/Panel 21 Round 2 15,392 605 3.9%
2017 – Panel 21 Round 4/Panel 22 Round 2 14,395 518 3.6%
2018 – Panel 22 Round 4/Panel 23 Round 2 14,123 524 3.7%
2019 – Panel 23 Round 4/Panel 24 Round 2 13,844 531 3.8%
2020 – Panel 23 Round 6/Panel 24 Round 4/Panel 25 Round 2 18,480 1,163 6.3%

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 5-2 shows the number and types of calls received on the respondent hotline during 2019 and 2020. As in prior years, a substantial portion of the Round 1 calls were from refusals, with a much smaller proportion of refusals and a higher proportion of appointment requests in the later rounds.

Table 5-2. Calls to the respondent information line, 2019 and 2020

Reason for call Spring 2019(Panel 24 Round 1, Panel 23 Round 3, Panel 22 Round 5) Fall 2019(Panel 24 Round 2, Panel 23 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 5 1.5 36 7.4 30 5.6
Appointment 59 17.2 328 67.5 344 64.8
Request callback 39 11.4 56 11.5 56 10.5
No message 2 0.6 4 0.8 7 1.3
Other 2 0.6 4 0.8 0 0.0
Proxy needed 2 0.6 6 1.2 11 2.1
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 2 0.4 5 0.9
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 48 9.9 0 0.0
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 185 53.9 0 0.0 78 14.7
Willing to participate 49 14.3 2 0.4 0 0.0
Total 353 486 531


Reason for call Spring 2020(Panel 25 Round 1, Panel 24 Round 3, Panel 23 Round 5) Fall 2020 (Panel 25 Round 2, Panel 24 Round 4, Panel 23, Round 6)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2, 4, and 6
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 5 0.9 37 6.3 28 2.4
Appointment 142 24.2 332 56.1 278 23.9
Request callback 102 17.4 121 20.4 276 23.7
No message 22 3.8 18 3.0 60 5.2
Other 2 0.3 5 0.8 5 0.4
Proxy needed 6 1.0 3 0.5 10 0.9
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 1 0.2 35 3.0
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Refusal 209 35.7 62 10.5 203 17.5
Willing to participate 98 16.7 13 2.2 266 22.9
Total 586 592 1,163

Return To Table Of Contents

Monitoring Production. Home office staff monitored production, cost, and DQ, and they provided reports and feedback to field managers and supervisors for review and follow-up. Each week they generated and distributed reports to AHRQ showing weekly and cumulative figures on field production, response rate, and costs.

Home Office Support. Refusal letters were generated and mailed by home office staff as requested by the field. Home office staff also responded to supply requests from the field, replenishing interviewer and supervisor stocks of materials as needed.

Receipt Control. As interviewers completed cases, they transmitted the data electronically and shipped the case folders containing any hard-copy documents to the home office receipt operation. Interviewers shipped all material containing PII via Federal Express, which facilitates tracking of late or lost shipments. When preparing a shipment to the home office receipt department, interviewers used the Ship to Receipt module to indicate exactly what materials were included in the package and recorded the FedEx tracking number. This information was sent directly to the receipt control system so it was known what materials were expected. For interviews completed by phone due to the COVID-19 pandemic and for which contactless pick-up of hard-copy documents could not be arranged, interviewers provided a BRE for the respondent to send their documents directly to the home office. Contents of the cases received at the home office were reviewed and recorded in the receipt system. Authorization forms were edited for completeness and scanned into an image database. When a problem was found in an authorization form, the problem was documented and feedback was sent to the field supervisor to review with the interviewer. All self-administered questionnaires, including SAQs/PSAQs, and DCSs, were receipted and sent out for TeleForm scanning.

Helpdesk Support. The MEPS CAPI Helpdesk again provided technical support for field interviewing activities during 2020. Helpdesk staff were available 7 days a week to help field staff resolve CAPI, Field Management System, transmission, and laptop problems. Incoming calls were documented for follow-up as needed to resolve individual issues and to identify issues reported by multiple interviewers. The CAPI Helpdesk serves as the coordinating point for tracking and shipping all field laptops, monitoring field laptop assignment, and coordinating laptop repair.

Return To Table Of Contents

6. Data Processing and Data Delivery

This chapter briefly describes the activities that supported Westat’s data delivery work during the year and identifies the principal files related to data year 2018 delivered in 2020.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.1 Processing to Support Data Delivery

6.1.1 Schedules for Data Delivery

Adhering to the schedule for delivery of the key MEPS public use files is of paramount importance to the project. Throughout 2020, data processing activities to support the major file deliveries for the year proceeded simultaneously along several different delivery paths, with activity focused separately on each of the Panels for the annual Full Year Files. As in past years, the project used a set of comprehensive data delivery schedules to guide management of the effort. The schedules integrate key dates for the data collection, data capture, coding, editing and imputation, weights construction, and documentation production tasks. These schedules provide a framework for assessing the potential impact of proposed changes at the start of each processing cycle and for coordinating the succession of processes that comprise the delivery effort.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.1.2 Data Quality Control System

The data quality control (DQC) system consists of both a consolidated database that preserves data as returned from the field, and a DQC-specific database that shows the current values of data following any required updates. DQC technicians access the data through a secure portal. Technicians review and edit the data using the Blaise database model that is used in the field for data collection. All DQC work occurs at a “case” level. The DQC system automatically creates a unique “issue” for each instance of text entered as a comment and includes the comment category selected by the field interviewer associated with the text entry. As cases are loaded into DQC, each comment and category are checked by a Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm that identifies the most likely category. During processing, data technicians have the opportunity to accept or update this category. Technicians then follow standardized procedures for data review and editing based on the comment category.

The DQC system also runs a series of programmatic checks and assigns a new “issue” for each instance that triggers a consistency or edit check. These checks are designed to ensure that data changed during editing conform fully to the rules of the CAPI instrument before the data are released. During spring 2020, 12.3 percent of cases received from the field included a comment (Table 6-1). Cases with any issue, a field comment or consistency check, totaled 28 percent. For fall 2020, 13.3?percent of cases received from the field included a comment while cases with any issue totaled just 13 percent.

Table 6-1. 2020 cases with comments or data check issues

Field period Cases processed Cases with at least 1 comment % cases with comments Cases with at least 1 issue % cases with issues Not actionable (comments) % NA comments
Spring 2020 18,531 2,280 12.3 5,191 28.0 1,663 52.7
Fall 2020 15,688 2,081 13.3 2,057 13.1 1,772 53.4

Return To Table Of Contents

Field interviewers must select one of 10 categories for each comment text string; after selecting a category, CAPI provides category-specific guidance on information to include in the comment (e.g., RU member name, event date, etc.). They receive training to help identify the most meaningful category and avoid over-use of the category “Other.” Table 6-2 shows the number of comments made in each category as assigned by the NLP algorithm and confirmed by the data technicians.

Table 6-2. Total number of comments by category

Total number of comments by category # %
1. RU/RU Member 334 5.1
2. RU Member Refusal 106 1.6
3. Condition 113 2.0
4. Health Care Events 3,405 52.1
5. Glasses/Contact Lenses 43 0.7
6. Other Medical Expenses 88 1.3
7. Prescribed Medicines 806 12.3
8. Employment 448 6.9
9. Health Insurance 675 10.3
10. Other 496 7.6
Total 6,534

Return To Table Of Contents

6.1.3 Transformation

Transformation is the process of extracting data from the Blaise data models optimized for data collection, and writing them to the data exchange format (DEx) required by the data delivery teams. The transformation has two logical activities: First is transforming the structure of the data from data collection to DEx and then transforming the format of the data from Blaise to Oracle. The resulting data, now stored in Oracle using the DEx structure, serves as input to the analytic editing, variable construction, public use files (PUFs), and other file deliveries. The goal is to dislocate the delivery activities as little as possible in order to provide data of the highest quality as efficiently as possible.

As shown in Figure 6-1, data transformation has four distinct layers. The metadata layer contains all the variable definitions—including names, tables, or segments or blocks—and transformation logic, sometimes known as plain-language transformation specifications. The analytic group leads at Westat are typically responsible for the metadata and the transformation logic.

Figure 6-1. Blaise to DEx transformation

Figure 6-1 shows the four components (layers) for the Blaise to DEX transformation process.

Based on the metadata, two specifications are developed. The first describes the DEx structure using a formal schema, which is expressed as a set of SQL statements to create the empty Oracle DEx database. The second specification is the detailed transformation specification. Each variable is assigned to a set of similar variables called a transformation class. A unique transformation class is defined by the information needed to specify the transformation. For instance, some variables simply need to be copied to an appropriate location in the DEx. These are known as passthrough variables and belong to the Passthrough class. Code All That Apply variables are transformed based on the value selected by the interviewer, so the specification requires an additional DEx variable for each possible value. Code All That Apply is another transformation class. All of the classes are developed through discussions with AHRQ and are sent to AHRQ for approval.

The third layer is the transformation (or programming) layer. Using the specifications just described, the data are read from the Blaise database in the data collection structure, the transformation logic is applied, and a data file for each DEx table is written. The DEx tables are generally identical to the legacy Cheshire segments, such as BASE, HOME, or PERS. This set of intermediate data files is known as pre-DEx and has the same structure as the DEx database, but all files are in the Blaise format. Next, the format is transformed from the Blaise format to Oracle, writing to the Single-Round Database (SRD). The single-round structure is necessary because the data collection instrument does not contain all data for all rounds for a given case; rather, only the data required to field the case in that specific round are included. The SRD data are then merged into the existing data, yielding a cumulative Multi-Round Database (MRD).

The final layer relates the different databases to selected key deliverables. This layer is intentionally general. For example, while the MRD is the source for the PUF deliveries, there are many additional steps to edit the data, construct variables, and deliver a data file and codebook.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.1.4 TeleForm/Data Editing of Scanned Forms

TeleForm, a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software system for intelligent data capture and image processing, was used in 2020 to capture data collected in the DCS, and the SAQ. TeleForm software reads the form image files and extracts data according to the project specifications. Supporting software checks the data for conformity with project specifications and flags data values that violate the validation rules for review and resolution.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.1.5 Coding

Coding refers to the process of converting data items collected in text format to pre-specified numeric codes. The plan for the 2020 coding effort (for items collected during the calendar years 2018 and early 2019) was described in Deliverables 20.506, .507, and .508. For the MEPS-HC, five types of information require coding:

Condition and Prescribed Medicine Coding

In 2020, coding was performed on the conditions and prescribed medicine text strings reported by household respondents for calendar year 2019. An automated system enabled coders to easily search for and assign the appropriate ICD-10-CM code (for conditions) or Generic Product Identifier (GPI) code (for medicines). The system supports the verifier’s review of all codes and, as needed, correction of the coder’s initial decision. For the prescribed medicine coding, a pharmacist provided a further review of text strings questioned by the verifier, uncodable text strings, foreign medicines, and compound drugs. All coding actions are tracked in the system and error rates calculated weekly. Both the condition and prescribed medicine coding efforts were staffed by three coders.

During the 2020 coding cycle, coding managers continued to refine a number of new and revised procedures and processes implemented for the coding of 2018 data in 2019. These revisions were a result of many months of collaboration between AHRQ and Westat in evaluating all aspects of the coding processes for household reported conditions, prescribed medicines, and sources of payment, including updating and maintaining the authority tables and the development of tools and resource documents to facilitate the execution of these tasks. Additionally, Westat deployed a new web-based coding system for condition and prescribed medicine coding to replace the Access Database previously used. The new system better supports downstream processing activities and aligns with other web-based systems used across other components of MEPS. All aspects of coding work is supported by a number of scheduled quality control checks before, during, and after each coding cycle.

In 2020, medical conditions were coded to include the greatest specificity indicated by the text string. The fully specified ICD-10 code is needed to accurately match to the CCS. A total of 10,112 unique strings were manually coded and a 3-year authority was constructed with AHRQ-approved code assignments. The overall error rate for coders was 1 percent. The contractual error rate goal is 2 percent.

Prescription medicine text strings for data year 2019 were coded to the set of GPI codes, associated with the Master Drug Data Base (MDDB) maintained by Medi-Span, a part of Wolters Kluwer. The codes characterize medicines by therapeutic class, form, and dosage. To augment the assignment of codes to less specified and ambiguous text strings, AHRQ developed procedures for assigning partial GPI codes and higher level drug categories that were implemented in 2017 and continued through the 2019 coding cycle. AHRQ also developed a set of exact and inexact matching programs to reduce the number of prescribed medicine strings sent for manual coding. Westat’s implementation of these matching programs reduces the number of prescribed medicine text strings sent for manual coding by approximately 40 percent each year. The matching programs are reviewed and approved each year. A total of 9,016 strings were manually coded from 2019 data. In a process similar to condition text strings, the prescription medicine text strings undergo two rounds of unduplication to identify the unique strings to be coded. AHRQ’s exact and inexact matching programs are then run to further reduce the number of strings to be coded. The overall coding error rate (across all coders) was 1 percent, 1 percent lower than the contractual goal of 2 percent. As with conditions, all prescription text strings/codes were reviewed by a verifier, with additional review of selected strings provided by a pharmacist.

Source of Payment Coding

Source of payment information (SOP) is collected in both the household and the medical provider components. In the HC charge payment section of the CAPI instrument, the names of the sources of payment are collected in three places: when the bill was paid by a source identified in response to a direct question about payment (REIMNAM); when the bill was sent to a source other than the respondent and the respondent names that source (WHOBILL#); and in response to a question about a direct payment source for prescription medicines (SRCNAME). The responses are coded to one of the source of payment options in which health care expenditures are reported in the MEPS public use files. These payment sources include:

The SOP Coding Guidelines is a manual updated each year before the start of the annual coding cycle, submitted for AHRQ approval, and distributed to the coders. Health insurance showcards and data from the health insurance planfill file for CAPI is available to coders as resource materials. Since the Medical Provider Component (MPC) of MEPS uses the same set of source of payment codes as the Household Component, coding rules and decisions are coordinated with the MPC contractor to ensure consistency in the coding. Before the start of the coding cycle, Westat compares RTI’s authority tables with Westat’s to identify any inconsistencies. AHRQ adjudicates these to ensure the authority tables from each contractor are aligned.

Each year, the source of payment text strings extracted from the reference year data is matched to a historical file of previously coded SOP text strings to create a file of matched strings with suggested or “matched” codes. These match-coded strings are reviewed by coders and verified or modified as needed. This review is required because insurance companies change their product lines and coverage offerings very frequently, and as a result, the source of payment code for a given text string (e.g., the name of an insurance company or plan) can change from year to year. For example, from one year to the next an insurer or insurance product may participate in or drop out of state exchanges; may offer Part D or dental or vision insurance or may drop it; may add Medicare Advantage plans in addition to Medicaid HMOs; or may gain or lose state contracts as Medicaid service providers. As a result of these changes, the appropriate code for a company or specific plan may also change from year to year. Strings that do not match to a string in the history table are researched and have an appropriate SOP code assigned by coding staff.

SOP coding during 2020 was for the payment sources reported for 2019 events. For cases when the bill was paid by a source identified in response to a direct question about payment (REIMNAM), a total of 2,663 previously coded source of payment text strings were reviewed and updated as needed. After un-duplication of the strings reported for 2019, coders reviewed and coded 1,242 strings. If the bill was sent to a source other than the respondent and the respondent names that source (WHOBILL#), coders reviewed and coded 2,852 strings. For text strings reported as direct payers for prescription medicine (SRCNAME), 609 new text strings were reviewed and coded by coders.

Industry and Occupation Coding

Industry and Occupation coding is performed for MEPS by the Census Bureau using the Census Bureau’s Demographic Surveys Division’s (DSD’s) computer-assisted industry and occupation (I&O) codes, which can be cross-walked to the 2007 North American Industrial Classification (NAIC) coding system, and the 2010 Standard Occupational Classifications (SOC). The codes characterize the jobs reported by household respondents and are released annually on the FY JOBS file. During 2020, 13,102 jobs were coded for the 2019 JOBS file.

During the 2020 coding cycle, AHRQ expanded the scope of work to include coding data year 2019 text strings to multiple versions of the NAICS and SOCS; specifically, the new data runs included 2007 NAICS and 2000 SOCS, 2012 NAICS and 2010 SOCS, and 2017 NAICS and 2018 SOCS. This was a one-time request.

GEO Coding

The Westat Geographic Information Systems (GIS) division GEO-codes household addresses, assigning the latitude and longitude coordinates, as well as other variables such as county and state Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status, Designated Market Area, Census Place, and county. RU-level data are expanded to the person level and delivered to AHRQ as part of the set of “Master Files” sent yearly. These data are not included in a PUF, but some variables are used for the FY weights processing.

During the calendar year 2020 coding cycle, 16,824 unique address records for full year reporting units were processed.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.2 Data Delivery

The primary objective of MEPS is to produce a series of data files for public release each calendar year. The inter-round processing, editing, and variable construction tasks all serve to prepare these public use files. Each file addresses one or more aspects of the U.S. civilian non-institutional population’s access to, use of, and payments for health care.

The Oracle system has a separate database for each Panel/year combination. For a Panel’s “second year” database, the static and data delivery tables are also brought forward from the “first year” database for referencing to assure longitudinal continuity in the PUFs.

Due to the pandemic, Panel 23 is being extended through Round 9. To accommodate this, there is a “third year” database for Panel 23. Thus, three databases were created in fall of 2020 to represent the 2020 data collected to date. The remainder of this section focuses on the 2019 databases.

After the data are in the Oracle delivery database, each analytical team performs basic edit checks on the data to begin the process. These edits ensure the data conform to the CAPI instrument’s flow as well as to AHRQ’s analytical needs. These edits can be run in SAS, using SAS data sets extracted from the delivery database, or in SQL directly on the delivery database. Problems identified through the basic edits process may require updates to the data. If updating is required, these updates may be accomplished in one of two ways:

  1. Programmatic updates can correct problems affecting a large volume of cases that fail a basic edit.

  2. Manual updates with audit trails maintained to correct data anomalies.

Once all the edits have been completed for an analytical team, and QC frequencies and univariates have been approved, notification is sent to all other analytical teams so that work can be coordinated in those areas.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.2.1 Variable Construction

Analytical groups at AHRQ work with Westat analysts to define the variables of interest for inclusion on the PUF and other key data deliveries. Variables are named according to standard naming conventions, and once the list is approved, descriptive specifications are written to define each variable and to provide detailed information for programming.

Specifications are written at two levels. The high-level specification is a descriptive specification intended to document the concept of the variable and provide high-level information regarding the variable construction requirements. The detailed-level specifications contain the details required to develop programming code for building the variables. Specifications are written and sent to AHRQ for approval. Once approval is received for the specification, program development can proceed for that variable.

Specifications guide programming development, and once programs have been written, code reviews compare newly developed code against specifications to identify problems in either code or specifications. This program development process includes a number of steps and checkpoints to ensure that all new programs meet all specification requirements:

  1. Review approved high and detailed-level specifications.

  2. Write programs for each specification using SAS or SQL.

  3. Test all programmed code for accuracy.

  4. Conduct detailed code reviews to review specifications and code.

  5. Test code on SAS production files or Oracle database without committing.

  6. Construct variables either in SAS (and either load variables to Oracle or continue development in SAS, depending on the file) or directly in the Oracle production database.

  7. Review frequencies and cross-tabulations for accuracy.

This model is followed for the development of all new programs required for data delivery. For mature programs that are re-used in subsequent deliveries with only minor modifications, the process is appropriately streamlined to ensure both accuracy and efficiency on all programs.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.2.2 File Deliveries

Public Use File Deliveries

The principal files delivered during calendar year 2020 are listed below.

Ancillary File Deliveries

In addition to the principal data files delivered for public release each year, the project also produces a number of ancillary files for delivery to AHRQ. These include an extensive series of person and family-level weights, “raw” data files reflecting MEPS data at intermediate stages of capture and editing, and files generated at the end of each round or as needed to support analysis of both substantive and methodological topics. A comprehensive list of the files delivered during 2020 appears in Appendix A.

Medical Provider Component (MPC) Files

During each year’s processing cycle, Westat also creates files for the MPC contractor and, in turn, receives data files back from the MPC. As in prior years, Westat provided sample files for the MPC in three waves, with the first two waves delivered while HC data collection was still in progress. In preparing the sample files to be delivered in 2021 for MPC collection of data about 2020 health events, Westat again applied the program developed in 2014 for de-duplicating the sample of providers. This process, developed in consultation with AHRQ, was designed to reduce the number of duplicate providers reported from the household data collection.

Early in 2020, following completion of MPC data collection and processing for 2018 events, Westat received the files containing data collected in the MPC with linkages to matching events collected in the MPC with events collected in the HC. In processing at Westat, matched events from the MPC served as the primary source for imputing expenditure variables for the 2018 events. A similar file of prescribed medicines was also delivered to support matching and imputation of expenditures for the prescribed medicines at AHRQ. Timely and well-coordinated data handoffs between Westat and the MPC are critical to the timely delivery of the full year expenditure files. With each additional year of interaction and cooperation, the handoffs between the MPC and HC have gone more and more smoothly.

Return To Table Of Contents

Appendix A
Comprehensive Tables – Household Survey

Table A-1. Data collection periods and starting RU-level sample sizes, all panels

Data collection period RU-level sample size
January-June 1996 10,799
Panel 1 Round 1 10,799
July-December 1996 9,485
Panel 1 Round 2 9,485
January-June 1997 15,689
Panel 1 Round 3 9,228
Panel 2 Round 1 6,461
July-December 1997 14,657
Panel 1 Round 4 9,019
Panel 2 Round 2 5,638
January-June 1998 19,269
Panel 1 Round 5 8,477
Panel 2 Round 3 5,382
Panel 3 Round 1 5,410
July-December 1998 9,871
Panel 2 Round 4 5,290
Panel 3 Round 2 4,581
January-June 1999 17,612
Panel 2 Round 5 5,127
Panel 3 Round 3 5,382
Panel 4 Round 1 7,103
July-December 1999 10,161
Panel 3 Round 4 4,243
Panel 4 Round 2 5,918
January-June 2000 15,447
Panel 3 Round 5 4,183
Panel 4 Round 3 5,731
Panel 5 Round 1 5,533
July-December 2000 10,222
Panel 4 Round 4 5,567
Panel 5 Round 2 4,655
January-June 2001 21,069
Panel 4 Round 5 5,547
Panel 5 Round 3 4,496
Panel 6 Round 1 11,026
July-December 2001 13,777
Panel 5 Round 4 4,426
Panel 6 Round 2 9,351
January-June 2002 21,915
Panel 5 Round 5 4,393
Panel 6 Round 3 9,183
Panel 7 Round 1 8,339
July-December 2002 15,968
Panel 6 Round 4 8,977
Panel 7 Round 2 6,991
January-June 2003 24,315
Panel 6 Round 5 8,830
Panel 7 Round 3 6,779
Panel 8 Round 1 8,706
July-December 2003 13,814
Panel 7, Round 4 6,655
Panel 8, Round 2 7,159
January-June 2004 22,552
Panel 7 Round 5 6,578
Panel 8 Round 3 7,035
Panel 9 Round 1 8,939
July-December 2004 14,068
Panel 8, Round 4 6,878
Panel 9, Round 2 7,190
January-June 200522,548
Panel 8 Round 5 6,795
Panel 9 Round 3 7,005
Panel 10 Round 1 8,748
July-December 2005 13,991
Panel 9, Round 4 6,843
Panel 10, Round 2 7,148
January-June 2006 23,278
Panel 9 Round 5 6,703
Panel 10 Round 3 6,921
Panel 11 Round 1 9,654
July-December 2006 14,280
Panel 10 Round 4 6,708
Panel 11 Round 2 7,572
January-June 2007 21,326
Panel 10 Round 5 6,596
Panel 11 Round 3 7,263
Panel 12 Round 1 7,467
July-December 2007 12,906
Panel 11 Round 4 7,005
Panel 12 Round 2 5,901
January-June 2008 22,414
Panel 11 Round 5 6,895
Panel 12 Round 3 5,580
Panel 13 Round 1 9,939
July-December 2008 13,384
Panel 12 Round 4 5,376
Panel 13 Round 2 8,008
January-June 2009 22,960
Panel 12 Round 5 5,261
Panel 13 Round 3 7,800
Panel 14 Round 1 9,899
July-December 2009 15,339
Panel 13 Round 4 7,670
Panel 14 Round 2 7,669
January-June 2010 23,770
Panel 13 Round 5 7,576
Panel 14 Round 3 7,226
Panel 15 Round 1 8,968
July-December 2010 13,785
Panel 14 Round 4 6,974
Panel 15 Round 2 6,811
January-June 2011 23,693
Panel 14 Round 5 6,845
Panel 15 Round 3 6,431
Panel 16 Round 1 10,417
July-December 2011 14,802
Panel 15 Round 4 6,254
Panel 16 Round 2 8,548
January-June 2012 24,247
Panel 15 Round 5 6,156
Panel 16 Round 3 8,160
Panel 17 Round 1 9,931
July-December 2012 16,161
Panel 16 Round 4 8,048
Panel 17 Round 2 8,113
January-June 2013 25,788
Panel 16 Round 5 7,969
Panel 17 Round 3 7,869
Panel 18 Round 1 9,950
July-December 2013 15,347
Panel 17 Round 4 7,656
Panel 18 Round 2 7,691
January-June 2014 24,857
Panel 17 Round 5 7,485
Panel 18 Round 3 7,402
Panel 19 Round 1 9,970
July-December 2014 14,665
Panel 18 Round 4 7,203
Panel 19 Round 2 7,462
January-June 2015 25,185
Panel 18 Round 5 7,163
Panel 19 Round 3 7,168
Panel 20 Round 1 10,854
July-December 2015 15,247
Panel 19 Round 4 6,946
Panel 20 Round 2 8,301
January-June 2016 24,694
Panel 19 Round 5 6,856
Panel 20 Round 3 7,987
Panel 21 Round 1 9,851
July-December 2016 15,390
Panel 20 Round 4 7,729
Panel 21 Round 2 7,661
January-June 2017 24,773
Panel 20 Round 5 7,611
Panel 21 Round 3 7,327
Panel 22 Round 1 9,835
July-December 2017 14,396
Panel 21 Round 4 7,025
Panel 22 Round 2 7,371
January-June 2018 23,768
Panel 21 Round 5 6,899
Panel 22 Round 3 7,023
Panel 23 Round 1 9,846
July-December 2018 14,123
Panel 22 Round 4 6,789
Panel 23 Round 2 7,334
January-June 2019 20,723
Panel 22 Round 5 6,624
Panel 23 Round 3 6,773
Panel 24 Round 1 7,326
July-December 2019 13,403
Panel 23 Round 4 6,569
Panel 24 Round 2 6,834
January-June 2020 19,213
Panel 23 Round 5 6,413
Panel 24 Round 3 6,382
Panel 25 Round 1 6,418
July-December 2020 15,633
Panel 23 Round 6 5,264
Panel 24 Round 4 5,574
Panel 25 Round 2 4,795

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-2. MEPS household survey data collection results, all panels

Panel/round Original sample Split cases (movers) Student cases Out-of-scope cases Net sample Completes Average interviewer hours/ complete Response rate (%)
Panel 1 Round 1 10,799 675 125 165 11,434 9,496 10.4 83.1
Round 2 9,485 310 74 101 9,768 9,239 8.7 94.6
Round 3 9,228 250 28 78 9,428 9,031 8.6 95.8
Round 4 9,019 261 33 89 9,224 8,487 8.5 92.0
Round 5 8,477 80 5 66 8,496 8,369 6.5 98.5
Panel 2 Round 1 6,461 431 71 151 6,812 5,660 12.9 83.1
Round 2 5,638 204 27 54 5,815 5,395 9.1 92.8
Round 3 5,382 166 15 52 5,511 5,296 8.5 96.1
Round 4 5,290 105 27 65 5,357 5,129 8.3 95.7
Round 5 5,127 38 2 56 5,111 5,049 6.7 98.8
Panel 3 Round 1 5,410 349 44 200 5,603 4,599 12.7 82.1
Round 2 4,581 106 25 39 4,673 4,388 8.3 93.9
Round 3 4,382 102 4 42 4,446 4,249 7.3 95.5
Round 4 4,243 86 17 33 4,313 4,184 6.7 97.0
Round 5 4,183 23 1 26 4,181 4,114 5.6 98.4
Panel 4 Round 1 7,103 371 64 134 7,404 5,948 10.9 80.3
Round 2 5,918 197 47 40 6,122 5,737 7.2 93.7
Round 3 5,731 145 10 39 5,847 5,574 6.9 95.3
Round 4 5,567 133 35 39 5,696 5,540 6.8 97.3
Round 5 5,547 52 4 47 5,556 5,500 6.0 99.0
Panel 5 Round 1 5,533 258 62 103 5,750 4,670 11.1 81.2
Round 2 4,655 119 27 27 4,774 4,510 7.7 94.5
Round 3 4,496 108 17 24 4,597 4,437 7.2 96.5
Round 4 4,426 117 20 41 4,522 4,396 7.0 97.2
Round 5 4,393 47 12 32 4,420 4,357 5.5 98.6
Panel 6 Round 1 11,026 595 135 200 11,556 9,382 10.8 81.2
Round 2 9,351 316 49 50 9,666 9,222 7.2 95.4
Round 3 9,183 215 23 41 9,380 9,001 6.5 96.0
Round 4 8,977 174 32 66 9,117 8,843 6.6 97.0
Round 5 8,830 94 14 46 8,892 8,781 5.6 98.8
Panel 7 Round 1 8,339 417 76 122 8,710 7,008 10.0 80.5
Round 2 6,991 190 40 24 7,197 6,802 7.2 94.5
Round 3 6,779 169 21 32 6,937 6,673 6.5 96.2
Round 4 6,655 133 17 34 6,771 6,593 7.0 97.4
Round 5 6,578 79 11 39 6,629 6,529 5.7 98.5
Panel 8 Round 1 8,706 441 73 175 9,045 7,177 10.0 79.3
Round 2 7,159 218 52 36 7,393 7,049 7.2 95.4
Round 3 7,035 150 13 33 7,165 6,892 6.5 96.2
Round 4 6,878 149 27 53 7,001 6,799 7.3 97.1
Round 5 6,795 71 8 41 6,833 6,726 6.0 98.4
Panel 9 Round 1 8,939 417 73 179 9,250 7,205 10.5 77.9
Round 2 7,190 237 40 40 7,427 7,027 7.7 94.6
Round 3 7,005 189 24 31 7,187 6,861 7.1 95.5
Round 4 6,843 142 23 44 6,964 6,716 7.4 96.5
Round 5 6,703 60 8 43 6,728 6,627 6.1 98.5
Panel 10 Round 1 8,748 430 77 169 9,086 7,175 11.0 79.0
Round 2 7,148 219 36 22 7,381 6,940 7.8 94.0
Round 3 6,921 156 10 31 7,056 6,727 6.8 95.3
Round 4 6,708 155 13 34 6,842 6,590 7.3 96.3
Round 5 6,596 55 9 38 6,622 6,461 6.2 97.6
Panel 11 Round 1 9,654 399 81 162 9,972 7,585 11.5 76.1
Round 2 7,572 244 42 24 7,834 7,276 7.8 92.9
Round 3 7,263 170 15 25 7,423 7,007 6.9 94.4
Round 4 7,005 139 14 36 7,122 6,898 7.2 96.9
Round 5 6,895 51 7 44 6,905 6,781 5.5 98.2
Panel 12 Round 1 7,467 331 86 172 7,712 5,901 14.2 76.5
Round 2 5,901 157 27 27 6,058 5,584 9.1 92.2
Round 3 5,580 105 13 12 5,686 5,383 8.1 94.7
Round 4 5,376 102 12 16 5,474 5,267 8.8 96.2
Round 5 5,261 50 8 21 5,298 5,182 6.4 97.8
Panel 13 Round 1 9,939 502 97 213 10,325 8,017 12.2 77.6
Round 2 8,008 220 47 23 8,252 7,809 9.0 94.6
Round 3 7,802 204 14 38 7,982 7,684 7.2 96.2
Round 4 7,670 162 17 40 7,809 7,576 7.5 97.0
Round 5 7,576 70 15 38 7,623 7,461 6.1 97.9
Panel 14 Round 1 9,899 394 74 140 10,227 7,650 12.3 74.8
Round 2 7,669 212 29 27 7,883 7,239 8.3 91.8
Round 3 7,226 144 23 34 7,359 6,980 7.3 94.9
Round 4 6,974 112 23 30 7,079 6,853 7.7 96.8
Round 5 6,845 55 9 30 6,879 6,761 6.2 98.3
Panel 15 Round 1 8,968 374 73 157 9,258 6,802 13.2 73.5
Round 2 6,811 171 19 21 6,980 6,435 8.9 92.2
Round 3 6,431 134 23 22 6,566 6,261 7.2 95.4
Round 4 6,254 116 15 26 6,359 6,165 7.8 97.0
Round 5 6,156 50 5 19 6,192 6,078 6.0 98.2
Panel 16 Round 1 10,417 504 98 555 10,940 8,553 11.4 78.2
Round 2 8,353 248 40 32 8,821 8,351 7.6 94.7
Round 3 8,160 223 19 27 8,375 8,236 6.4 96.1
Round 4 8,048 151 16 13 8,390 8,162 6.6 97.3
Round 5 7,969 66 13 25 8,198 7,998 5.5 97.6
Panel 17 Round 1 9,931 490 92 127 10,386 8,121 11.7 78.2
Round 2 8,113 230 35 19 8,359 7,874 7.9 94.2
Round 3 7,869 180 15 15 8,049 7,663 6.3 95.2
Round 4 7,656 199 19 30 7,844 7,494 7.4 95.5
Round 5 7,485 87 10 23 7,559 7,445 6.1 98.5
Panel 18 Round 1 9,950 435 83 111 10,357 7,683 12.3 74.2
Round 2 7,691 264 32 16 7,971 7,402 9.2 92.9
Round 3 7,402 235 21 22 7,635 7,213 7.6 94.5
Round 4 7,203 189 14 22 7,384 7,172 7.5 97.1
Round 5 7,163 94 12 15 7,254 7,138 6.2 98.4
Panel 19 Round 1 9,970 492 70 115 10,417 7,475 13.5 71.8
Round 2 7,460 222 23 24 7,681 7,188 8.4 93.6
Round 3 7,168 187 12 17 7,350 6,962 7.0 94.7
Round 4 6,946 146 20 23 7,089 6,858 7.4 96.7
Round 5 6,856 75 7 24 6,914 6,794 5.9 98.3
Panel 20 Round 1 10,854 496 85 117 11,318 8,318 12.5 73.5
Round 2 8,301 243 39 22 8,561 7,998 8.3 93.4
Round 3 7,987 173 17 26 8,151 7,753 6.8 95.1
Round 4 7,729 161 19 31 7,878 7,622 7.2 96.8
Round 5 7,611 99 13 23 7,700 7,421 6.0 96.4
Panel 21 Round 1 9,851 462 92 89 10,316 7,674 12.6 74.4
Round 2 7,661 207 32 17 7,883 7,327 8.5 93.0
Round 3 7,327 166 14 19 7,488 7,043 7.2 94.1
Round 4 7,025 119 14 20 7,138 6,907 7.0 96.8
Round 5 6,914 42 8 340 6,930 6,778 5.9 97.8
Panel 22 Round 1 9,835 352 68 86 10,169 7,381 12.8 72.7
Round 2 7,371 166 19 11 7,545 7,039 8.5 93.3
Round 3 7,071 100 12 19 7,164 6,808 6.7 95.0
Round 4 6,815 91 13 18 6,901 6,672 6.8 97.0
Round 5 6,670 35 7 12 6,700 6,584 5.3 98.3
Panel 23 Round 1 9,960 1,931 46 110 10,089 7,351 12.5 72.9
Round 2 7,387 106 14 15 7,492 6,960 8.2 92.9
Round 3 6,987 102 11 18 7,082 6,703 6.1 94.6
Round 4 6,704 74 10 12 6,776 6,522 6.6 96.2
Round 5 6,503 34 4 5 6,536 6,383 5.3 97.7
Round 6 6,398 19 10 18 6,480 5,120 4.8 79.0
Panel 24 Round 1 9,976 153 43 82 10,090 7,186 11.8 71.2
Round 2 7,211 98 19 5 7,323 6,777 7.9 92.5
Round 3 6,812 76 9 7 6,890 6,289 6.0 91.3
Round 4 6,335 44 4 13 6,370 5,446 5.1 85.5
Round 5
Panel 25 Round 1 10,008 184 38 78 10,152 6,265 10.8 61.7
Round 2 5,907 49 14 12 5,958 4,677 5.5 78.5
Round 3                
Round 4                
Round 5                

* Figures in the table are weighted to reflect results of the interim nonresponse subsampling procedure implemented in the first round of Panel 16.

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-3. Response rates by data collection year

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6
2010
Panel 15 73.5 92.2
Panel 14 94.9 96.8
Panel 13 97.9
2011
Panel 16 78.2 94.8
Panel 15 95.4 97.0
Panel 14 98.3
2012
Panel 17 78.2 94.2
Panel 16 96.1 97.3
Panel 15 98.2
2013
Panel 18 74.2 92.9
Panel 17 95.2 95.5
Panel 16 97.6
2014
Panel 19 71.8 93.6
Panel 18 94.5 97.1
Panel 17 98.5
2015
Panel 20 73.5 93.4
Panel 19 94.7 96.7
Panel 18 98.4
2016
Panel 21 74.4 93.0
Panel 20 95.1 96.8
Panel 19 98.3
2017
Panel 22 72.6 93.3
Panel 21 94.1 96.8
Panel 20 96.4
2018
Panel 23 72.9
Panel 22 92.9 96.7
Panel 21 95.0 97.8
2019
Panel 24 71.2 92.5
Panel 23 94.6 96.2
Panel 22 98.3
2020
Panel 25 61.7 78.5
Panel 24 91.3 85.5
Panel 23 97.7 79.0

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-4. Summary of MEPS Round 1 response and nonresponse

2012
P17R1
2013
P18R1
2014
P19R1
2015
P20R1
2016
P21R1
2017
P22R1
2018
P23R1
2019
P24R1
2020
P25R1
Total Sample 10,513 10,468 10,532 11,435 10,405 10,255 10,199 10,172 10,230
Out of scope (%) 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.8
Complete (%) 78.2 74.2 71.8 73.5 74.4 72.6 72.1 70.6 61.2
Nonresponse (%) 21.8 25.8 28.2 26.5 25.6 27.4 26.9 28.6 38.0
Refusal (%) 17.1 20.1 22.4 21.0 20.2 21.8 22.1 24.0 28.7
Not located (%) 3.7 4.3 4.2 4.3 3.7 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.2
Other nonresponse (%) 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 6.1

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-5. Summary of Round 1 response by NHIS completion status

2012
P17R1
2013
P18R1
2014
P19R1
2015
P20R1
2016
P21R1
2017
P22R1
2018
P23R1
2019
P24R1
2020
P25R1
Original NHIS sample (N) 9,931 9,951 9,970 10,854 9,851 9,835 9,839 9,864 9,866
Percent complete in NHIS 80.9 78.1 81.9 80.6 77.6 81.0 80.4 84.2 89.3
Percent partial complete in NHIS 19.1 21.9 18.1 19.4 22.4 19.0 19.6 15.8 10.7
MEPS Round 1 response rate
Percent complete for NHIS completes 80.7 76.9 74.5 75.9 77.3 75.4 75.4 73.5 63.5
Percent complete for NHIS partial completes 68.2 64.5 58.9 63.1 64.8 62.0 63.6 60.3 46.8

Note: Figures shown are based on original NHIS sample and exclude reporting units added to the sample as “splits” and “students.”

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-6. Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for all RUs who ever refused

Panel Net sample (N) Ever refused (%) Converted (%) Final refusal rate (%) Final response rate (%)
Panel 15 9,258 29.4 26.6 21.0 73.5
Panel 16 10,940 26.3 30.9 17.6 78.2
Panel 17 10,386 25.3 30.2 17.2 78.2
Panel 18 10,357 25.5 25.0 18.1 74.2
Panel 19 10,418 30.1 23.3 22.4 71.8
Panel 20 11,318 30.1 29.2 21.0 73.5
Panel 21 10,316 29.1 29.0 20.2 74.4
Panel 22 10,169 30.1 27.6 21.8 72.6
Panel 23 10,089 31.3 25.6 22.4 72.9
Panel 24 10,090 32.6 23.4 24.2 71.2
Panel 25 10,152 34.8 12.3 28.9 61.7

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-7. Summary of MEPS Round 1 results for RUs who were ever traced, panels 16-25

Panel Total sample (N) Ever traced (%) Not located (%)
Panel 15 9,415 16.7 4.1
Panel 16 11,019 18.2 3.0
Panel 17 10,513 18.7 3.6
Panel 18 10,468 16.0 4.3
Panel 19 10,532 19.5 4.1
Panel 20 11,435 14.0 4.3
Panel 21 10,405 12.8 3.7
Panel 22 10,228 13.0 3.9
Panel 23 10,199 12.7 3.0
Panel 24 10,172 12.6 3.0
Panel 25 10,230 11.7 3.2

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-8. Interview timing comparison (mean minutes per interview, single-session interviews)

Round Panel 15 Panel 16 Panel 17 Panel 18 Panel 19 Panel 20 Panel 21 Panel 22 Panel 23 Panel 24 Panel 25
Round 1 74.7 74.0 67.8 78.0 85.5 76.4 75.5 79.9 78.1 79.5 89.0
Round 2 87.2 88.1 90.2 102.9 92.3 86.3 85.3 88.8 88.2 87.0 89.7
Round 3 86.4 87.2 94.3 103.1 94.5 89.7 93.4 93.0 92.6 98.5
Round 4 80.2 85.9 99.6 89.0 84.6 80.5 82.7 84.3 86.8 86.2
Round 5 77.6 85.4 92.2 87.4 84.1 85.3 77.4 78.8 78.7
Round 6 88.4

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-9. Mean contact attempts by NHIS completion status, Round 1

Contact type Panel 20, Round 1 Panel 21, Round 1 Panel 22, Round 1 Panel 23, Round 1 Panel 24, Round 1 Panel 25, Round 1
All RUs Complete Partial All RUs Complete Partial All RUs Complete Partial All RUs Complete Partial All RUs Complete Partial All RUs Complete Partial
N 10,854 8,751 2,103 9,851 7,645 2,206 9,835 7,963 1,872 9,839 7,913 1,050 9,864 8,306 1,558 9,866 8,814 1,052
% of all RUs 100 81.0 19.0 100 77.6 22.4 100 81.0 19.0 100 80.4 10.6 100 84.2 15.8 100 89.3 10.7
In-person 7.2 6.9 8.5 7.0 6.9 8.3 6.3 6.1 7.3 6.2 6.0 7.2 5.5 5.4 6.3 2.6 2.5 2.6
Telephone 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.6 9.7 9.5 11.6
Total 9.6 9.2 11.4 9.3 8.9 11.0 8.4 8.1 9.6 8.2 7.9 9.5 7.3 7.1 8.5 14.4 14.1 17.0

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-10 Signing rates for medical provider authorization forms

Panel/round Authorization forms requested Authorization forms signed Signing rate (%)
Panel 1 Round 1 3,562 2,624 73.7
Round 2 19,874 14,145 71.2
Round 3 17,722 12,062 68.1
Round 4 17,133 10,542 61.5
Round 5 12,544 6,763 53.9
Panel 2 Round 1 2,735 1,788 65.4
Round 2 13,461 9,433 70.1
Round 3 11,901 7,537 63.3
Round 4 11,164 6,485 58.1
Round 5 8,104 4,244 52.4
Panel 3 Round 1 2,078 1,349 64.9
Round 2 10,335 6,463 62.5
Round 3 8,716 4,797 55.0
Round 4 8,761 4,246 48.5
Round 5 6,913 2,911 42.1
Panel 4 Round 1 2,400 1,607 67.0
Round 2 12,711 8,434 66.4
Round 3 11,078 6,642 60.0
Round 4 11,047 6,888 62.4
Round 5 8,684 5,096 58.7
Panel 5 Round 1 1,243 834 67.1
Round 2 14,008 9,618 68.7
Round 3 12,869 8,301 64.5
Round 4 13,464 9,170 68.1
Round 5 10,888 7,025 64.5
Panel 6 Round 1 2,783 2,012 72.3
Round 2 29,861 22,872 76.6
Round 3 26,068 18,219 69.9
Round 4 27,146 20,082 74.0
Round 5 21,022 14,581 69.4
Panel 7 Round 1 2,298 1,723 75.0
Round 2 22,302 17,557 78.7
Round 3 19,312 13,896 72.0
Round 4 16,934 13,725 81.1
Round 5 14,577 11,099 76.1
Panel 8 Round 1 2,287 1,773 77.5
Round 2 22,533 17,802 79.0
Round 3 19,530 14,064 72.0
Round 4 19,718 14,599 74.0
Round 5 15,856 11,106 70.0
Panel 9 Round 1 2,253 1,681 74.6
Round 2 22,668 17,522 77.3
Round 3 19,601 13,672 69.8
Round 4 20,147 14,527 72.1
Round 5 15,963 10,720 67.2
Panel 10 Round 1 2,068 1,443 69.8
Round 2 22,582 17,090 75.7
Round 3 18,967 13,396 70.6
Round 4 19,087 13,296 69.7
Round 5 15,787 10,476 66.4
Panel 11 Round 1 2,154 1,498 69.5
Round 2 23,957 17,742 74.1
Round 3 20,756 13,400 64.6
Round 4 21,260 14,808 69.7
Round 5 16,793 11,482 68.4
Panel 12 Round 1 1,695 1,066 62.9
Round 2 17,787 12,524 70.4
Round 3 15,291 10,006 65.4
Round 4 15,692 10,717 68.3
Round 5 12,780 8,367 65.5
Panel 13 Round 1 2,217 1,603 72.3
Round 2 24,357 18,566 76.2
Round 3 21,058 14,826 70.4
Round 4 21,673 15,632 72.1
Round 5 17,158 11,779 68.7
Panel 14 Round 1 2,128 1,498 70.4
Round 2 23,138 17,739 76.7
Round 3 19,024 13,673 71.9
Round 4 18,532 12,824 69.2
Round 5 15,444 10,201 66.1
Panel 15 Round 1 1,680 1,136 67.6
Round 2 18,506 13,628 73.6
Round 3 16,686 11,652 69.8
Round 4 16,260 11,139 68.5
Round 5 13,443 8,420 62.6
Panel 16 Round 1 1,811 1,223 67.5
Round 2 23,718 17,566 74.1
Round 3 21,780 14,828 68.1
Round 4 21,537 16,329 75.8
Round 5 16,688 12,028 72.1
Panel 17 Round 1 1,655 1,117 67.5
Round 2 21,749 17,694 81.4
Round 3 19,292 15,125 78.4
Round 4 20,086 15,691 78.1
Round 5 15,064 11,873 78.8
Panel 18 Round 1 1,677 1,266 75.5
Round 2 22,714 18,043 79.4
Round 3 20,728 15,827 76.4
Round 4 17,092 13,704 80.2
Round 5 15,448 11,796 76.4
Panel 19 Round 1 2,189 1,480 67.6
Round 2 22,671 17,190 75.8
Round 3 20,582 14,534 70.6
Round 4 17,102 13,254 77.5
Round 5 15,330 11,425 74.5
Panel 20 Round 1 2,354 1,603 68.1
Round 2 25,334 18,479 72.9
Round 3 22,851 15,862 69.4
Round 4 18,234 14,026 76.9
Round 5 16,274 12,100 74.4
Panel 21 Round 1 2,037 1,396 68.5
Round 2 22,984 17,295 75.2
Round 3 20,802 14,898 71.6
Round 4 16,487 13,110 79.5
Panel 22 Round 1 2,274 1,573 69.2
Round 2 22,913 17,530 76.5
Round 3 26,436 19,496 73.7
Round 4 23,249 18,097 77.8
Round 5 17,171 12,168 70.9
Panel 23 Round 1 1,982 1,533 77.3
Round 2 29,576 21,850 73.9
Round 3 23,365 14,475 62.4
Round 4 19,220 13,483 70.2
Round 5
Panel 24 Round 1 2,285 1,306 57.2
Round 2 24,755 15,865 64.1
Round 3 22,657 11,522 50.9
Round 4 14,612 7,716 52.8
Panel 25 Round 1 3,110 1,242 39.9
Round 2 15,259 7,292 47.8

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-11 Signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms

Panel/round Permission forms requested Permission forms signed Signing rate (%)
Panel 1 Round 3 19,913 14,468 72.7
Round 5 8,685 6,002 69.1
Panel 2 Round 3 12,241 8,694 71.0
Round 5 8,640 6,297 72.9
Panel 3 Round 3 9,016 5,929 65.8
Round 5 7,569 5,200 68.7
Panel 4 Round 3 11,856 8,280 69.8
Round 5 10,688 8,318 77.8
Panel 5 Round 3 9,248 6,852 74.1
Round 5 8,955 7,174 80.1
Panel 6 Round 3 19,305 15,313 79.3
Round 5 17,981 14,864 82.7
Panel 7 Round 3 14,456 11,611 80.3
Round 5 13,428 11,210 83.5
Panel 8 Round 3 14,391 11,533 80.1
Round 5 13,422 11,049 82.3
Panel 9 Round 3 14,334 11,189 78.1
Round 5 13,416 10,893 81.2
Panel 10 Round 3 13,928 10,706 76.9
Round 5 12,869 10,260 79.7
Panel 11 Round 3 14,937 11,328 75.8
Round 5 13,778 11,332 82.3
Panel 12 Round 3 10,840 8,242 76.0
Round 5 9,930 8,015 80.7
Panel 13 Round 3 15,379 12,165 79.1
Round 4 10,782 7,795 72.3
Round 5 9,451 6,635 70.2
Panel 14 Round 2 11,841 9,151 77.3
Round 3 9,686 7,091 73.2
Round 4 9,298 6,623 71.2
Round 5 8,415 6,011 71.4
Panel 15 Round 2 9,698 7,092 73.1
Round 3 8,684 6,189 71.3
Round 4 8,163 5,756 70.5
Round 5 7,302 4,485 66.9
Panel 16 Round 2 12,093 8,892 73.5
Round 3 10,959 7,591 69.3
Round 4 10,432 8,194 78.6
Round 5 8,990 6,928 77.1
Panel 17 Round 2 14,181 12,567 88.6
Round 3 9,715 7,580 78.0
Round 4 9,759 7,730 79.2
Round 5 8,245 6,604 80.1
Panel 18 Round 2 10,977 8,755 79.8
Round 3 9,757 7,573 77.6
Round 4 8,526 6,858 80.4
Round 5 7,918 6,173 78.0
Panel 19 Round 2 10,749 8,261 76.9
Round 3 9,618 6,902 71.8
Round 4 8,557 6,579 76.9
Round 5 7,767 5,905 76.0
Panel 20 Round 2 12,074 8,796 72.9
Round 3 10,577 7,432 70.3
Round 4 9,0994 6,945 76.3
Round 5 8,312 6,339 76.3
Panel 21 Round 2 10,783 7,985 74.1
Round 3 9,540 6,847 71.8
Round 4 8,172 6,387 78.2
Round 5 6,684 5,336 79.8
Panel 22 Round 2 10,510 7,919 75.4
Round 3 8,053 5,953 73.9
Round 4 7,284 5,670 77.8
Round 5 5,726 71.1
Panel 23 Round 2 8,834 6,514 73.8
Round 3 9,614 6,205 64.5
Round 4 8,486 5,900 69.5
Round 5
Round 6
Panel 24 Round 2 10,265 6,676 65.0
Round 3 9,096 4,831 53.1
Round 4 7,100 3,636 51.2
Panel 25 Round 2 6,783 3,180 46.9

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-12 Results of Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) collection

Panel/round SAQs requested SAQs completed SAQs refused Other nonresponse Response rate (%)
Panel 1 Round 2 16,577 9,910 - - 59.8
Round 3 6,032 1,469 840 3,723 24.3
Combined, 1996 16,577 11,379 - - 68.6
Panel 4* Round 4 13,936 12,265 288 1,367 87.9
Round 5 1,683 947 314 422 56.3
Combined, 2000 13,936 13,212 - - 94.8
Panel 5* Round 2 11,239 9,833 191 1,213 86.9
Round 3 1,314 717 180 417 54.6
Combined, 2000 11,239 10,550 - - 93.9
Round 4 7,812 6,790 198 824 86.9
Round 5 1,022 483 182 357 47.3
Combined, 2001 7,812 7,273 380 1,181 93.1
Panel 6 Round 2 16,577 14,233 412 1,932 85.9
Round 3 2,143 1,213 230 700 56.6
Combined, 2001 16,577 15,446 642 2,632 93.2
Round 4 15,687 13,898 362 1,427 88.6
Round 5 1,852 967 377 508 52.2
Combined, 2002 15,687 14,865 739 1,935 94.8
Panel 7 Round 2 12,093 10,478 196 1,419 86.6
Round 3 1,559 894 206 459 57.3
Combined, 2002 12,093 11,372 402 1,878 94.0
Round 4 11,703 10,125 285 1,292 86.5
Round 5 1,493 786 273 434 52.7
Combined, 2003 11,703 10,911 558 1,726 93.2
Panel 8 Round 2 12,533 10,765 203 1,565 85.9
Round 3 1,568 846 234 488 54.0
Combined, 2003 12,533 11,611 437 2,053 92.6
Round 4 11,996 10,534 357 1,105 87.8
Round 5 1,400 675 344 381 48.2
Combined, 2004 11,996 11,209 701 1,486 93.4
Panel 9 Round 2 12,541 10,631 381 1,529 84.8
Round 3 1,670 886 287 496 53.1
Combined, 2004 12,541 11,517 668 2,025 91.9
Round 4 11,913 10,357 379 1,177 86.9
Round 5 1,478 751 324 403 50.8
Combined, 2005 11,913 11,108 703 1,580 93.2
Panel 10 Round 2 12,360 10,503 391 1,466 85.0
Round 3 1,626 787 280 559 48.4
Combined, 2005 12,360 11,290 671 2025 91.3
Round 4 11,726 10,081 415 1,230 86.0
Round 5 1,516 696 417 403 45.9
Combined, 2006 11,726 10,777 832 1,633 91.9
Panel 11 Round 2 13,146 10,924 452 1,770 83.1
Round 3 1,908 948 349 611 49.7
Combined, 2006 13,146 11,872 801 2,381 90.3
Round 4 12,479 10,771 622 1,086 86.3
Round 5 1,621 790 539 292 48.7
Combined, 2007 12,479 11,561 1,161 1,378 92.6
Panel 12 Round 2 10,061 8,419 502 1,140 83.7
Round 3 1,460 711 402 347 48.7
Combined, 2007 10,061 9,130 904 1,487 90.7
Round 4 9,550 8,303 577 670 86.9
Round 5 1,145 541 415 189 47.3
Combined, 2008 9,550 8,844 992 859 92.6
Panel 13 Round 2 14,410 12,541 707 1,162 87.0
Round 3 1,630 829 439 362 50.9
Combined, 2008 14,410 13,370 1,146 1,524 92.8
Round 4 13,822 12,311 559 952 89.1
Round 5 1,364 635 476 253 46.6
Combined, 2009 13,822 12,946 1,705 1205 93.7
Panel 14 Round 2 13,335 11,528 616 1,191 86.5
Round 3 1,542 818 426 298 53.1
Combined, 2009 13,335 12,346 1042 1,489 92.6
Round 4 12,527 11,041 644 839 88.1
Round 5 1,403 645 497 261 46.0
Combined, 2010 12,527 11,686 1,141 1,100 93.3
Panel 15 Round 2 11,857 10,121 637 1,096 85.4
Round 3 1,491 725 425 341 48.6
Combined, 2010 11,857 10,846 1,062 1,437 91.5
Round 4 11,311 9,804 572 935 86.7
Round 5 1,418 678 461 279 47.8
Combined, 2011 11,311 10,482 1,033 1,214 92.6
Panel 16 Round 2 15,026 12,926 707 1393 86.0
Round 3 1,863 949 465 449 50.9
Combined, 2011 15,026 13,875 1,172 728 92.3
Round 4 13,620 12,415 582 623 91.2
Round 5 1,112 516 442 154 46.4
Combined, 2012 13,620 12,931 1,024 777 94.9
Panel 17 Round 2 14,181 12,567 677 937 88.6
Round 3 1,395 690 417 288 49.5
Combined, 2012 14,181 13,257 1,094 1,225 93.5
Round 4 13,086 11,566 602 918 88.4
Round 5 1,429 655 504 270 45.8
Combined, 2013 13,086 12,221 1,106 1,188 93.4
Panel 18 Round 2 13,158 10,805 785 1,568 82.1
Round 3 2,066 1,022 547 497 48.5
Combined, 2013 13,158 11,827 1,332 2,065 89.9
Round 4 12,243 10,050 916 1,277 82.1
Round 5 2,063 936 721 406 45.4
Combined, 2014 12,243 10,986 1,637 1,683 89.7
Panel 19 Round 2 12,664 10,047 1,014 1,603 79.3
Round 3 2,306 1,050 694 615 44.5
Combined, 2014 12,664 11,097 1,708 2,218 87.6
Round 4 11,782 9,542 1,047 1,175 81.0
Round 5 2,131 894 822 414 42.0
Combined, 2015 11,782 10,436 1,869 1,589 88.6
Panel 20 Round 2 14,077 10,885 1,223 1,966 77.3
Round 3 2,899 1,329 921 649 45.8
Combined, 2015 14,077 12,214 2,144 2,615 86.8
Round 4 13,068 10,572 1,127 1,371 80.9
Round 5 2,262 1,001 891 370 44.3
Combined, 2016 13,068 11,573 2,018 1,741 88.6
Panel 21 Round 2 13,143 10,212 1,170 1,761 77.7
Round 3 2,585 1,123 893 569 43.4
Combined, 2016 13,143 11,335 2,063 2,330 86.2
Round 4 12,021 9,966 1,149 906 82.9
Round 5 2,078 834 884 360 40.1
Combined, 2017 12,021 10,800 2,033 1,266 89.8
Panel 22 Round 2 12,304 9,929 1,086 1,289 80.7
Round 3 2,287 840 749 698 36.7
Combined, 2017 12,304 10,769 1,835 1,987 87.5
Round 4 11,333 8,341 1,159 1,833 73.6
Round 5 2,090 811 896 383 38.8
Combined, 2018 11,333 9,152 2,055 2,216 80.8
Panel 23 Round 2 12,349 8,711 1,364 1,289 70.5
Round 3 2,364 819 907 638 34.6
Combined, 2018 12,364 9,530 2,271 1,927 77.1
Round 4
Round 5
Combined, 2019
Round 6 8,537 4,732 682 3,123 55.4
Panel 24 Round 2 12,027 8,726 1,641 1,660 72.6
Round 3 2,810 860 832 1,118 30.6
Combined, 2019 12,027 9,586 2,473 2,778 79.7
Round 4 9,257 4,247 786 4,224 45.9
Panel 25 Round 2 8,109 3,555 529 4,025 43.8

* Totals represent combined collection of the SAQ and the parent-administered questionnaire (PAQ).

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-13 Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection*

Panel/round DCSs requested DCSs completed Response rate (%)
Panel 4 Round 5 696 631 90.7
Panel 5 Round 3 550 508 92.4
Round 5 570 500 87.7
Panel 6 Round 3 1,166 1,000 85.8
Round 5 1,202 1,166 97.0
Panel 7 Round 3 870 848 97.5
Round 5 869 820 94.4
Panel 8 Round 3 971 885 91.1
Round 5 977 894 91.5
Panel 9 Round 3 1,003 909 90.6
Round 5 904 806 89.2
Panel 10 Round 3 1,060 939 88.6
Round 5 1,078 965 89.5
Panel 11 Round 3 1,188 1,030 86.7
Round 5 1,182 1,053 89.1
Panel 12 Round 3 917 825 90.0
Round 5 883 815 92.3
Panel 13 Round 3 1,278 1,182 92.5
Round 5 1,278 1,154 90.3
Panel 14 Round 3 1,174 1,048 89.3
Round 5 1,177 1,066 90.6
Panel 15 Round 3 1,117 1,000 89.5
Round 5 1,097 990 90.3
Panel 16 Round 3 1,425 1,283 90.0
Round 5 1,358 1,256 92.5
Panel 17 Round 3 1,315 1,177 89.5
Round 5 1,308 1,174 89.8
Panel 18 Round 3 1,362 1,182 86.8
Round 5 1,342 1,187 88.5
Panel 19 Round 3 1,272 1,124 88.4
Round 5 1,316 1,144 87.2
Panel 20 Round 3 1,412 1,190 84.5
Round 5 1,386 1,174 84.9
Panel 21 Round 3 1,422 1,170 82.5
Round 5 1,481 1,177 81.0
Panel 22 Round 3 1,453 1,074 73.9
Round 5 1,348 1,018 75.5
Panel 23 Round 3 1,464 1,101 75.2
Round 5 1,350 933 69.1
Panel 24 Round 3 1,350 843 62.4

* Tables represent combined DCS/proxy DCS collection.

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-14. Results of patient profile collection

Pharmacy Total number Total received Percent received Total complete Completes as a percent of total
2019 P22R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 921 173 18.8% 125 13.6%
Total Pairs 1,387 199 14.3% 183 13.2%
2018 P21R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 2,920 417 20.7% 316 15.6%
Total Pairs 4,116 486 16.6% 425 14.5%
2017 P20R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 1,953 3424 17.5% 254 13.0%
Total Pairs 2,723 372 13.7% 326 12.0%
2016 P19R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 2,038 374 18.4% 285 14.0%
Total Pairs 2,854 430 15.1% 394 13.8%
2015 P18R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 1,404 260 18.5% 186 13.2%
Total Pairs 2,042 289 14.2% 255 12.5%
2014 P17R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 2,230 372 16.7% 269 12.1%
Total Pairs 3,233 443 13.7% 386 11.9%
2013 P16R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 2,014 417 20.7% 316 15.6%
Total Pairs 2,911 486 16.6% 425 14.5%
2012 P15R5 all mail collection
Total RUs 1,390 290 20.8% 2036 14.6%
Total Pairs 1,990 348 17.4% 290 14.5%

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-15. Calls to respondent information line

Reason for call Spring 2000 (Panel 5 Round 1, Panel 4 Round 3, Panel 3 Round 5) Fall 2000 (Panel 5 Round 2, Panel 4 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address change 23 4.0 13 8.3 8 5.7
Appointment 37 6.5 26 16.7 28 19.9
Request callback 146 25.7 58 37.2 69 48.9
Refusal 183 32.2 20 12.8 12 8.5
Willing to participate 10 1.8 2 1.3 0 0.0
Other 157 27.6 35 22.4 8 5.7
Report a respondent deceased 5 0.9 1 0.6 0 0.0
Request a Spanish-speaking interview 8 1.4 1 0.6 0 0.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.3
Total 569 156 141

Reason for call Spring 2001 (Panel 6 Round 1, Panel 5 Round 3, Panel 4 Round 5) Fall 2001 (Panel 6 Round 2, Panel 5 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 27 3.7 17 12.7 56 15.7
Appointment 119 16.2 56 41.8 134 37.5
Request callback 259 35.3 36 26.9 92 25.8
No message 8 1.1 3 2.2 0 0.0
Other 29 4.0 7 5.2 31 8.7
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 2 1.5 10 2.8
Special needs 5 0.7 3 2.2 0 0.0
Refusal 278 37.9 10 7.5 25 7.0
Willing to participate 8 1.1 0 0.0 9 2.5
Total 733 134 357

Reason for call Spring 2002 (Panel 7 Round 1, Panel 6 Round 3, Panel 5 Round 5) Fall 2002 (Panel 7 Round 2, Panel 6 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 28 4.5 29 13.9 66 16.7
Appointment 77 12.5 71 34.1 147 37.1
Request callback 210 34.0 69 33.2 99 25.0
No message 6 1.0 3 1.4 5 1.3
Other 41 6.6 17 8.2 10 2.5
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 30 7.6
Special needs 1 0.2 0 0.0 3 0.8
Refusal 232 37.6 14 6.7 29 7.3
Willing to participate 22 3.6 5 2.4 7 1.8
Total 617 208 396

Reason for call Spring 2003 (Panel 8 Round 1, Panel 7 Round 3, Panel 6 Round 5) Fall 2003 (Panel 8 Round 2, Panel 7 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 20 4.2 33 13.7 42 17.9
Appointment 83 17.5 87 36.1 79 33.8
Request callback 165 34.9 100 41.5 97 41.5
No message 16 3.4 7 2.9 6 2.6
Other 9 1.9 8 3.3 3 1.3
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4
Special needs 5 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 158 33.4 6 2.5 6 2.6
Willing to participate 17 3.6 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 473 241 234

Reason for call Spring 2004 (Panel 9 Round 1, Panel 8 Round 3, Panel 7 Round 5) Fall 2004 (Panel 9 Round 2, Panel 8 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 8 1.6 26 13.2 42 10.9
Appointment 67 13.3 76 38.6 153 39.7
Request callback 158 31.5 77 39.1 139 36.1
No message 9 1.8 5 2.5 16 4.2
Other 8 1.6 5 2.5 5 1.3
Proxy needed 5 1.0 2 1.0 0 0.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.5
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 228 45.4 6 3.0 27 7.0
Willing to participate 19 3.8 0 0.0 1 0.3
Total 502 197 385

Reason for call Spring 2005 (Panel 10 Round 1, Panel 9 Round 3, Panel 8 Round 5) Fall 2005 (Panel 10 Round 2, Panel 9 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 16 3.3 23 8.7 27 6.8
Appointment 77 15.7 117 44.3 177 44.4
Request callback 154 31.4 88 33.3 126 31.6
No message 14 2.9 11 4.2 28 7.0
Other 13 2.7 1 0.4 8 2.0
Proxy needed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3
Special needs 1 0.2 1 0.4 0 0.0
Refusal 195 39.8 20 7.6 30 7.5
Willing to participate 20 4.1 3 1.1 2 0.5
Total 490 264 399

Reason for call Spring 2006 (Panel 11 Round 1, Panel 10 Round 3, Panel 9 Round 5) Fall 2006 (Panel 11 Round 2, Panel 10 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 7 1.3 24 7.5 11 4.1
Appointment 61 11.3 124 39.0 103 38.1
Request callback 146 27.1 96 30.2 101 37.4
No message 72 13.4 46 14.5 21 7.8
Other 16 3.0 12 3.8 8 3.0
Proxy needed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 4 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 216 40.1 15 4.7 26 9.6
Willing to participate 17 3.2 1 0.3 0 0.0
Total 539 318 270

Reason for call Spring 2007 (Panel 12 Round 1, Panel 11 Round 3, Panel 10 Round 5) Fall 2007 (Panel 12 Round 2, Panel 11 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 8 2.1 21 7.3 23 7.6
Appointment 56 14.6 129 44.8 129 42.6
Request callback 72 18.8 75 26.0 88 29.0
No message 56 14.6 37 12.8 33 10.9
Other 20 5.2 15 5.2 6 2.0
Proxy needed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 5 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.3
Refusal 160 41.8 10 3.5 21 6.9
Willing to participate 6 1.6 1 0.3 2 0.7
Total 383 288 303

Reason for call Spring 2008 (Panel 13 Round 1, Panel 12 Round 3, Panel 11 Round 5) Fall 2008 (Panel 13 Round 2, Panel 12 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 20 3.4 12 4.7 21 5.7
Appointment 92 15.5 117 45.9 148 39.9
Request callback 164 27.6 81 31.8 154 41.5
No message 82 13.8 20 7.8 22 5.9
Other 13 2.2 12 4.7 8 2.2
Proxy needed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 4 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 196 32.9 13 5.1 18 4.9
Willing to participate 24 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 595 255 371

Reason for call Spring 2009 (Panel 14 Round 1, Panel 13 Round 3, Panel 12 Round 5) Fall 2009 (Panel 14 Round 2, Panel 13 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 10 2.2 13 4.3 19 5.1
Appointment 49 10.8 87 29.0 153 41.1
Request callback 156 34.4 157 52.3 153 41.1
No message 48 10.6 23 7.7 20 5.4
Other 3 0.7 8 2.7 3 0.8
Proxy needed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 4 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 183 40.3 11 3.7 24 6.5
Willing to participate 1 0.2 1 0.3 0 0.0
Total 454 300 372

Reason for call Spring 2010 (Panel 15 Round 1, Panel 14 Round 3, Panel 13 Round 5) Fall 2010 (Panel 15 Round 2, Panel 14 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 2 0.8 42 8.2 25 5.3
Appointment 44 18.0 214 41.6 309 66.0
Request callback 87 35.7 196 38.1 46 9.8
No message 17 7.0 33 6.4 17 3.6
Other 7 2.9 8 1.6 14 3.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 2.6
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2
Special needs 1 0.4 1 0.2 1 0.2
Refusal 86 35.2 20 3.9 43 9.2
Willing to participate 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 244 514 468

Reason for call Spring 2011 (Panel 16 Round 1, Panel 15 Round 3, Panel 14 Round 5) Fall 2011 (Panel 16 Round 2, Panel 15 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 16 3.4 46 8.0 72 9.8
Appointment 175 37.6 407 71.0 466 63.5
Request callback 81 17.4 63 11.0 69 9.4
No message 24 5.2 26 4.5 23 3.1
Other 12 2.6 8 1.4 25 3.4
Request SAQ help 1 0.2 2 0.3 32 4.4
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 46 6.3
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Refusal 157 33.7 21 3.7 0 0.0
Willing to participate 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
Total 466 573 734

Reason for call Spring 2012 (Panel 17 Round 1, Panel 16 Round 3, Panel 15 Round 5) Fall 2012 (Panel 17 Round 2, Panel 16 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 18 5.0 107 13.4 108 12.2
Appointment 130 36.1 517 64.9 584 65.8
Request callback 60 16.7 94 11.8 57 6.4
No message 21 5.8 17 2.1 18 2.0
Other 10 2.8 25 3.1 16 1.8
Proxy needed 0 0.0 1 0.1 2 0.2
Request SAQ help 2 0.6 6 0.8 42 4.7
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 117 32.5 30 3.8 60 6.8
Willing to participate 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 360 797 887

Reason for call Spring 2013 (Panel 18 Round 1, Panel 17 Round 3, Panel 16 Round 5) Fall 2013 (Panel 18 Round 2, Panel 17 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 18 4.4 82 10.8 53 9.0
Appointment 143 35.0 558 73.0 370 62.6
Request callback 71 17.4 88 11.5 70 11.8
No message 8 2.0 11 1.4 16 2.8
Other 2 0.5 4 .5 5 0.9
Proxy needed 1 0.2 1 0.1 1 0.2
Request SAQ help 1 0.2 0 0.0 31 5.3
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 2 0.5 0 0.0 2 0.3
Refusal 162 39.5 19 2.5 43 7.3
Willing to participate 1 0.2 1 0.1 0 0.0
Total 409 764 591

Reason for call Spring 2014 (Panel 19 Round 1, Panel 18 Round 3, Panel 17 Round 5) Fall 2014 (Panel 19 Round 2, Panel 18 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 11 3.2 71 11.1 62 8.4
Appointment 75 22.1 393 61.5 490 66.5
Request callback 70 20.6 113 17.7 70 9.5
No message 11 3.2 12 1.9 28 3.9
Other 0 0.0 5 0.8 7 0.9
Proxy needed 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 1 0.2 4 0.5
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 165 48.5 44 6.9 74 10.0
Willing to participate 8 2.4 0 0.0 1 0.1
Total 340 639 737

Reason for call Spring 2015 (Panel 20 Round 1, Panel 19 Round 3, Panel 18 Round 5) Fall 2015 (Panel 20 Round 2, Panel 19 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 10 2.3 61 8.8 55 9.6
Appointment 95 21.8 438 63.4 346 60.7
Request callback 85 19.5 112 16.2 52 9.1
No message 14 3.2 17 2.5 4 0.7
Other 2 0.5 3 0.4 3 0.5
Proxy needed 1 0.2 7 1.0 8 1.4
Request SAQ help 1 0.2 3 0.4 11 1.9
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 206 47.2 47 6.8 91 16.0
Willing to participate 22 5.0 3 0.4 0 0.0
Total 436 691 570

Reason for call Spring 2016 (Panel 21 Round 1, Panel 20 Round 3, Panel 19 Round 5) Fall 2016 (Panel 21 Round 2, Panel 20 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 8 2.7 64 11.7 48 7.9
Appointment 93 30.9 362 66.2 373 61.7
Request callback 47 15.6 59 10.8 83 13.7
No message 1 0.3 7 1.3 6 1.0
Other 2 0.7 1 0.2 3 0.5
Proxy needed 0 0.0 5 0.9 6 1.0
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 3 0.5 11 1.8
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 139 46.2 46 8.4 75 12.4
Willing to participate 10 3.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 301 547 605

Reason for call Spring 2017 (Panel 22 Round 1, Panel 21 Round 3, Panel 20 Round 5) Fall 2017 (Panel 22 Round 2, Panel 21 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 10 2.9 51 9.6 35 6.8
Appointment 86 24.9 355 66.6 318 61.4
Request callback 59 17.1 90 16.9 64 12.4
No message 1 0.3 2 0.4 5 1.0
Other 2 0.6 3 0.6 4 0.8
Proxy needed 1 0.3 7 1.3 5 1.0
Request SAQ help 1 0.3 0 0.0 15 2.9
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.2
Refusal 172 49.7 23 4.3 70 13.5
Willing to participate 14 4.0 1 0.2 1 0.2
Total 346 533 518

Reason for call Spring 2018 (Panel 23 Round 1, Panel 22 Round 3, Panel 21 Round 5) Fall 2018 (Panel 23 Round 2, Panel 22 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 5 1.3 37 7.9 38 7.3
Appointment 59 15.4 318 68.1 335 63.9
Request callback 50 13.1 50 10.7 60 11.5
No message 4 1.0 5 1.1 1 0.2
Other 0 0.0 1 0.2 3 0.6
Proxy needed 2 0.5 4 0.9 6 1.1
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 1 0.2 15 2.9
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Special needs 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 211 55.1 46 9.9 61 11.6
Willing to participate 51 13.3 5 1.1 5 1.0
Total 383 467 524

Reason for call Spring 2019 (Panel 24 Round 1, Panel 23 Round 3, Panel 22 Round 5) Fall 2019 (Panel 24 Round 2, Panel 23 Round 4)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2 and 4
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 5 1.5 36 7.4 30 5.6
Appointment 59 17.2 328 67.5 344 64.8
Request callback 39 11.4 56 11.5 56 10.5
No message 2 0.6 4 0.8 7 1.3
Other 2 0.6 4 0.8 0 0.0
Proxy needed 2 0.6 6 1.2 11 2.1
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 2 0.4 5 0.9
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 48 9.9 0 0.0
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Refusal 185 53.9 0 0.0 78 14.7
Willing to participate 49 14.3 2 0.4 0 0.0
Total 353 486 531

Reason for call Spring 2020 (Panel 25 Round 1, Panel 24 Round 3, Panel 23 Round 5) Fall 2020 (Panel 25 Round 2, Panel 24 Round 4, Panel 23 Round 6)
Round 1 Rounds 3 and 5 Rounds 2, 4, and 6
N % N % N %
Address/telephone change 5 0.9 37 6.3 28 2.4
Appointment 142 24.2 332 56.1 278 23.9
Request callback 102 17.4 121 20.4 276 23.7
No message 22 3.8 18 3.0 60 5.2
Other 2 0.3 5 0.8 5 0.4
Proxy needed 6 1.0 3 0.5 10 0.9
Request SAQ help 0 0.0 1 0.2 35 3.0
SAQ refusal 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Special needs 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Refusal 209 35.7 62 10.5 203 17.5
Willing to participate 98 16.7 13 2.2 266 22.9
Total 586 592 1,163

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-16. Files delivered during 2020

Date Description
1/2/2020 UEGN3562.03: Delivery of the 2nd set 2018 Pre-Imputation Files: ER, HS, MVE and OP
1/2/2020 WGTS5009.01: Delivery of Person-Level Use PUF Weight, Single Panel Person Weight, and MSA18_13 Variables for FY18
1/3/2020 EMPL2210.01: Unweighted Medians for the 2019 Point-in-Time Hourly Wage Variable
1/3/2020 HINS1297.01: Delivery of the 2018 HINS Building Block Variables and COVERM Tables for Panel 22 Rounds 3 - 5 and Panel 23 Rounds 1 – 3
1/3/2020 HINS1298.01: Delivery of the 2018 HINS Month-by-Month, Tricare plan, Private, Medicare, and Medicaid HMO/Gatekeeper, and PMEDIN/DENTIN Variables
1/3/2020 HINS1299.01: Delivery of the FY 2018 HINS Medicare Part D supplemental variables
1/3/2020 HLTH1043.02: Redelivery of 2018 BMI Cross-tabulations and Frequencies
1/3/2020 HLTH1044.01: Delivery of Adult and Child Height and Weight for the MEPS Master Files for FY 2018
1/3/2020 PRPL0133.24: FY18 PRPL Specifications Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Link and Variable Editing, and Variable Editing: Post JOBS Linking
1/3/2020 PCND015601: 2018 Person-Level Priority Conditions Cross-Tabulations
1/6/2020 EMPL2211.01: Full Year 2018 Jobs File Codebook Format Question
1/6/2020 PRPL0134.01: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #1
1/6/2020 UEGN3573.01: Feedback on the RTI's FY2018 MPC Test Files
1/7/2020 PRPL0133.26: FY18 PRPL Specifications Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Link and Variable Editing, and Variable Editing: Post JOBS Linking
1/7/2020 UEGN3574.01: The 2018 Utilization Standard Error Benchmarking Tables Using Person Use PUF Weights Revised- PERWT18P
1/8/2020 ADMN0911.01: Delivery of 2018 FAMID Variables and CPS Family Identifier
1/8/2020 DOCM0678.02: Delivery of the 2019 MPC files for Sample selection - Wave 1
1/8/2020 DOCM0679.02: Delivery of the 2019 PC Sample file - Wave 1
1/9/2020 DOCM067803: Delivery of the 2019 MPC files for Sample selection - Wave 1 supplemental
1/9/2020 PRPL0133.28: FY18 PRPL Specifications Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Link and Variable Editing, and Variable Editing: Post JOBS Linking
1/10/2020 DOCM0681.01: Delivery of the 2020 NPI Provider Directory from the Panel 25 MEPS Laptop
1/10/2020 GNRL2189.01: FY 2018 (Panel 22 and Panel 23) Snapshots of HC Source Tables Including the CONDX, JOBSX, SAQ, and DCS Tables
1/14/2020 GNRL2193.01 and GNRL2194.01: Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) -P23R4
1/14/2020 GNRL2193.02 and GNRL2194.02: Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person-level) -P24R2
1/14/2020 GNRL3003.01: NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of the 2018 JOBS File Delivery Document for Review
1/14/2020 GNRL3002.01: NCHS Checklist and FY2018 Use PUF Preliminary Delivery Document
1/15/2020 DEMO1016.02: Delivery of the Output Listings for Final Case Review of the MOPID and DAPID Variables’ Construction for FY2018
1/15/2020 PCND0156.02: Redelivery for 2018 Person-Level Priority Conditions Cross-Tabulations
1/15/2020 UEPD1210.06: 2018 INSURC18 variable for use in the Prescribed Medicines Imputation
1/17/2020 COND0979.01: 2018 Preliminary Conditions File Specifications
1/17/2020 PRPL0135.01: FY18 PRPL Specifications for the OOPELIG, Imputation and final file creation programs
1/21/2020 EMPL2212.01: Full Year 2018 Jobs File Codebook Information
1/21/2020 PRPL0134.04: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #1
1/21/2020 PRPL0136.01: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #2
1/22/2020 GNRL3004.01: Preliminary Versions of the Codebook and Delivery Document of the FY 2018 Use PUF for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
1/22/2020 GNRL3005.01: Preliminary Version of the 2018 JOBS File Codebook and Delivery Document for AHRQ and NCHS Review
1/22/2020 PRPL0134.06: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #1
1/23/2020 UEGN 2803.01: 2018 High payment to charge ratio HHA events
1/23/2020 WGTS1874.01: Creation of the Delivery File for the 2017 PIT P21R3/P22R1 Preliminary Individual Panel Person and Family Weights and Preliminary (draft) Variance Strata and PSU
1/23/2020 WGTS1876.01: Creation of the Delivery Files for the 2017 PIT P21R3/P22R1: PUF and Internal Files. These files cover the person- and family-level weights, location, and variance estimation variables
1/24/2020 PRPL0136.10: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #2
1/27/2020 DEMO1016.03: Delivery of the MOPID and DAPID Variables for FY2018
1/28/2020 GNRL3005.02: Final Versions of the 2018 JOBS File Codebook and Delivery Document
1/28/2020 GNRL3004.02: Final Versions of the 2018 Use PUF Codebook and Document for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
2/3/2020 ADMN0915.01: ADMN-DEMO Basic Edit Specs delivery
2/3/2020 PRPL0137.01: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #3a
2/4/2020 PRPL0137.02: Output from 2018 PRPL Program #3a – Duplicate Union/Employer Review Spreadsheets
2/6/2020 COND0979.23: 2018 Preliminary Conditions File Specifications
2/7/2020 WGTS1951.01: Panel 24 DU weights review output
2/10/2020 UEGN3571.02: Variable List for the 2018 MPC EXP PUF files (OP, OB, IP and ER)
2/11/2020 WGTS1966.01: Panel 24 Round 1 Family weight review output
2/11/2020 EMPL2215.01: PIT2019 Panel 24 Round 1/Panel 23 Round 3 Editing of High Wage Outliers – Request for Approval
2/12/2020 WGTS1967.01: Panel 24/Round 1 person weights review output
2/12/2020 WGTS1969.01: Panel 23/Round 3 person weights review output to AHRQ
2/13/2020 WGTS1974.01: Panel 23/Round 3 family weight review output to AHRQ
2/14/2020 GNRL3007.01: HC-203: 2018 Jobs Public Use File Delivery for Web Release
2/14/2020 WGTS1879.01: Derivation of the 2016 Full Year Expenditure Family Weight, MEPS and CPS-Like, for Panel 20 and Panel 21 Combined
2/14/2020 WGTS1946.01: Deriving Location Variables (Region and MSA) for Panels 22 and 23, Full Year 2018, based on GEO FIPS Codes, using OMB MSA definitions of both Year 2018 and the Current (2019) Year
2/17/2020 WGTS1901.01: MEPS Panel 22 Round 3 - Creation of Family-Level Weights
2/17/2020 WGTS1918.01: MEPS, Combined Panel 22/Round 3 and Panel 23/Round 1, Computation of the Composite Family Weights
2/17/2020 WGTS1939.01: Derivation of the 2017 Full Year Expenditure Family Weight, MEPS and CPS-Like, for Panel 21 and Panel 22 Combined
2/17/2020 WGTS1952.01: MEPS Computation of the Person and Family Poststratification Control Totals for March 2019 from the March 2019 CPS (including the poverty level variable)
2/18/2020 WGTS1953.01: MEPS Computation of the Person and Family Poststratification Control Totals for December 2018 from the March 2019 CPS (including the poverty level variable)
2/18/2020 WGTS1956.01: Creation of CPS Control Total Files Containing the Raking Dimensions for the Full Year 2018 USE Person Weights
2/18/2020 WGTS1959.01: Developing Panel 23 Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) Use Weights for Full Year 2018
2/19/2020 GNRL3006.01: HC-204: Delivery of the Full Year 2018 Use PUF for Web Release
2/19/2020 GNRL3008.01: Preliminary Version of the 2019 Point-in-Time File
2/19/2020 WGTS1947.01: Derivation of the Annualized MEPS Families and Identification of the Responding MEPS Families for MEPS Panel 23 Full Year 2018
2/19/2020 WGTS1951.01: MEPS Panel 24 Round 1 – DU Level Weights
2/19/2020 WGTS1960.01: Developing Panel 22 Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) Use Weights for Full Year 2018
2/19/2020 WGTS1961.01: Deriving location variables (Region and MSA) for Panel 24 Round 1, based on GEO FIPS Codes, using the OMB MSA definitions of both year 2013 and the most recent OMB MSA updates
2/19/2020 WGTS1962.01: Creation of CPS Control Total Files Containing the Raking Dimensions for the Full Year 2018 Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) Use Person Weight
2/19/2020 WGTS1964.01: Developing Sample Weights for the MEPS Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) for the Panels 22 and 23 Full Year 2018 Use File (PUF), and Creating the Full Year 2018 Person Use SAQ Weights Delivery File
2/19/2020 WGTS1966.01: MEPS Panel 24 Round 1 – Family-Level Weights
2/19/2020 WGTS1967.01: MEPS Panel 24 Round 1 – Person-Level Weights
2/19/2020 WGTS1974.01: MEPS Panel 23 Round 3 - Creation of Family-Level Weights
2/19/2020 WGTS1975.01: Creation of the Delivery File for the 2019 PIT P23R3/P24R1 Preliminary Individual Panel Person and Family Weights
2/20/2020 UEGN 2794.01: 2018 HHA Outlier Donor and Recipient Events
2/20/2020 WGTS1949.01_Do_Not_Email: Derivation of MEPS Panel 22 Full Year 2018 Person Use Weights (Rounds 3-5)
2/20/2020 WGTS1954.01: Create the P22P23 Full Year 2018 “Base Weight” and the Location Variable Delivery File
2/20/2020 WGTS1976.01: Delivery File Providing a Linkage between the Person Records Sampled for MEPS Panel 24 and the Person Records in the 2018 NHIS Weights File
2/20/2020 WGTS1977.01: PIT 2019 P23R3/P24R1 Person weights review output
2/21/2020 PRPL0138.01: 2018 PRPL Review of JOBID QC
2/21/2020 WGTS1978.01: PIT 2019 P23R3/P24R1 Family weights review output to AHRQ
2/24/2020 GNRL3009.01: FY 2018 Person-Level Consolidated PUF Variable List Changes for AHRQ Review
2/26/2020 WGTS1938.01: Food Security Weights for MEPS Panels 21 and 22 Full Year 2017
2/26/2020 WGTS1955.01: Derivation of the annualized MEPS Families and Identification of the Responding MEPS Families for the Panel 22 Full Year 2018
2/27/2020 UEGN2802.01: 2018 Household reported OP and HS events with unexpected expenditures
2/27/2020 WGTS1923.01: Raking Panels 21 and 22 (Panel 21/rounds 3-5 and Panel 22/rounds 1-3) Separately for the Individual Panel Full Year 2017 Person-Level Weights Including the Poverty Status
2/27/2020 WGTS1958.01: MEPS: Establishing Variance Estimation Strata and PSUs, and Estimating Standard Errors Using SUDAAN for the Full Year 2018 PUF, Panel 22, Rounds 3-5 and Panel 23, Rounds 1-3
2/28/2020 EMPL2216.02: Point-In-Time 2019 Hourly Wage Top Code Value
2/28/2020 EMPL2217.01: Employment Person-Level Variable Specifications for the Full Year 2019 Population Characteristics/Consolidated PUFs
2/28/2020 WGTS5010.01: Delivery of 2019 Point-in-Time Person-Level and Family-Level
3/2/2020 EMPL2216.04: Point-In-Time 2019 Hourly Wage Top Code Value
3/2/2020 HLTH1046.03: Delivery of VA-SAQ Datasets for FY 2018
3/2/2020 PRPL0139.01: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program # 3b
3/3/2020 GNRL3009.02: FY 2018 Person-Level Consolidated PUF Variable List Changes for AHRQ Review
3/3/2020 HINS1301.01: 2019 HINS Point-in-Time Delivery Preliminary Data File for Benchmarking
3/3/2020 PRPL0140.01: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #4
3/3/2020 UEGN 2799.01: 2018 Benchmark Tables: Initial Delivery
3/3/2020 UEGN3577.01: The 2018 DN/HHP/OM/HHA Events Final Imputation Files
3/4/2020 ADMN0916.01: Point-in-Time 2019 Weighted ADMN-DEMO Crosstabs delivery
3/4/2020 WGTS1945.01: Delivery Files for the FY 2017 Individual Panel Expenditure Person-Level Weights, Panel 21 and Panel 22
3/4/2020 WGTS1948.01_Do_Not_Email: Derivation of the MEPS Panel 23 Full Year 2018 Person Use Weights (Rounds 1-3)
3/4/2020 WGTS1968.01: Panel 22 Full Year 2018: Derivation of Eligibility and Response Indicators for the CPS-like Families
3/5/2020 COND0979.32: 2018 Preliminary Conditions File Specifications
3/6/2020 CODE0914.01: 2018 File of GEO Coded Addresses for the MEPS Master Files
3/6/2020 EMPL2218.01: Delivery of the Pre-Top Coded Version of the Point-in-Time Hourly Wage Variables for 2019 Point-in-Time
3/9/2020 INCO0751.01: Delivery of the 2019 NHIS Link File
3/9/2020 WGTS5012.01: Delivery of MEPS Panel 24 DU Weighting Master File
3/10/2020 GNRL3011.01: NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of the 2019 Point-in-Time Delivery Document
3/10/2020 HLTH1046.05: Full Year 2019 HLTH Basic Edit Specifications
3/10/2020 WGTS5011.01: Internal Use File Used for the Weights Development for 2019 Point-in-Time
3/11/2020 UEGN 2799.02 2018 Benchmark Tables: Second Delivery
3/11/2020 UEGN3577.02: The 2018 MVN Final Imputation File
3/12/2020 CODE0916.01: PMED - Delivery of FY18 PMED Authority Table for the CLIN 0003K Longitudinal Survey Tool Discussion
3/12/2020 CODE1241.01: MEPS Delivery of Updated Internal Conditions Files for 2016 and 2017
3/13/2020 GNRL1993.02: HC-201: Full Year 2017 Consolidated Use, Expense, and Insurance PUF Delivery for Web Release – Updated
3/13/2020 HINS1303.01: Delivery of the Revised Specifications for the FY2019 HINS Variables
3/13/2020 PRPL0140.08: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #4
3/14/2020 EMPL2217.04: Employment Person-Level Variable Specifications for the Full Year 2019 Population Characteristics/Consolidated PUFs
3/16/2020 DSDY0059.01: Delivery of the DSDY Variable Specifications FY19 for AHRQ Approval
3/18/2020 ACCS0190.01: 2019 ACCS Constructed Variable Specifications
3/18/2020 EMPL2217.06: Employment Person-Level Variable Specifications for the Full Year 2019 Population Characteristics/Consolidated PUFs
3/18/2020 EMPL2217.06: Employment Person-Level Variable Specifications for the Full Year 2019 Population Characteristics/Consolidated PUFs
3/18/2020 GNRL3013.01: Preliminary Versions of the Codebook and Delivery Document of the 2019 Point-in-Time PUF for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
3/18/2020 WGTS1980.01: FY2018 combined Panels expenditure person weight review output
3/19/2020 PRPL0140.17: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #4
3/23/2020 DSDY0059.03: Delivery of the DSDY Variable Specifications FY19 for AHRQ Approval
3/24/2020 EMPL2217.09: Employment Person-Level Variable Specifications for the Full Year 2019 Population Characteristics/Consolidated PUFs
3/24/2020 HLTH1045.15: Delivery of VA-SAQ Frequencies prior to variable construction for FY 2018
3/25/2020 PRPL0137.09: Output and Frequencies from 2018 PRPL Program #3a
3/25/2020 WGTS1963.01: MEPS Panels 22 and 23 Full Year 2018: Combine and Rake the P22 and P23 Weights to Obtain the P22P23FY18 Person-Level USE Weights
3/25/2020 WGTS1981.01: MEPS Panel 24 Round 1 – Creation of DU Weighting Master File Delivery
3/26/2020 WGTS1969.01: MEPS Panel 23 Round 3 - Creation of Person-Level Weights
3/27/2020 HINS1303.06: Delivery of the Revised Specifications for the FY2019 HINS Variables
3/30/2020 DSDY0060: FY 2019 Disability Days Basic Edit Specifications
3/30/2020 PCND0158.01: 2019 PCND Constructed Variable Specification
3/31/2020 WGTS1977.01: MEPS, Combined Panel 23/Round 3 and Panel 24/Round 1, Computation of the Composite Person Weights
4/1/2020 HINS1306.01: Changes to the FY 2019 HINS Basic and Inter-Round Edit specifications
4/2/2020 PRPL0142.01: OOPIMPCT settings on State Exchange records linked to JOBS
4/3/2020 ADMN0917.01: ADMN/DEMO FY19 constructed variable specs delivery
4/3/2020 WGTS5013.01: Delivery of the FY 2018 Expenditure File Original Person Weight
4/3/2020 WGTS1980.01: Panel 22 and Panel 23 Combined, Full Year 2018: Raking Person Weights Including the Poverty Status to Obtain the Expenditure Person Weights
4/6/2020 EMPL2219.01: Full Year 2019 Employment Source Variable Editing Specifications
4/7/2020 DOCM0678.04: Delivery of the 2019 MPC files for Sample selection - Wave 2
4/7/2020 DOCM0679.05: Delivery of the 2019 PC Sample file - Wave 2
4/8/2020 COND0982.01: Delivery of the Specifications for the FY 2018 Conditions PUF
4/8/2020 UEGN 2799.03: 2018 Benchmark Tables: Final Delivery
4/8/2020 UEGN3577.03 - The 2018 Final Imputation Files: ER, HS, MVE, OP and SBD
4/9/2020 PRPL0143.01: Delivery of the FY 2018 OOPELIG2 Dataset for Approval
4/10/2020 GNRL3014.01: HC205: 2019 Point-in-Time PUF Delivery for Web Release
4/14/2020 DSDY0060.03: FY 2019 Disability Days Basic Edit Specifications
4/14/2020 GNRL3015.01: NCHS Checklists and Preliminary Versions of Documents for the FY 2018 Non-MPC Event (DV, OM, and HH) PUFs
4/14/2020 GNRL3016.01: NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of the 2018 Conditions File Delivery Document and Recode Materials for Review
4/14/2020 PCND0158.05: 2019 PCND Constructed Variable Specification
4/16/2020 HINS1306.04: Changes to the FY 2019 HINS Basic and Inter-Round Edit specifications
4/16/2020 UEGN3571.03: 2018 MPC EXP PUF files (OP, OB, ER and IP): Guidance for disclosure risk recoding
4/16/2020 UEGN3578.01: The Insurance Coverage Variable INSCV7&YY in the (YY)/(Prior YY) QC Finding Tables of PUF Event Expenditures
4/17/2020 HINS1306.09: Changes to the FY 2019 HINS Basic and Inter-Round Edit specifications
4/22/2020 GNRL3018.01: FY 2018 Preliminary Conditions File, Codebook and Delivery Document
4/20/2020 UEGN3574.04 -The 2018 Utilization Standard Error Benchmarking Tables Using Expenditure File Person Original Weight- PERWT18F
4/20/2020 WGTS1970.01: Panel 23 Full Year 2018: Derivation of Eligibility and Response Indicators for the CPS-like Families
4/23/2020 GNRL4003.01: Delivery of the File Containing Variables Recoded or Dropped from the 2019 Point-In-Time PUF Due to DRB Review – P23/P24
4/23/2020 PRPL0144.01: Delivery of the FY 2018 PRPL Hot Deck Imputation Results for Approval
4/23/2020 PRPL0145.01: Revising Program 3a for Testing – JOBS linking
4/24/2020 GNRL4004.01: Delivery of the File Containing Variables Recoded or Dropped from the USE PUF Due to DRB Review – P22/P23
4/27/2020 WGTS1987.01: Full Year 2018 combined Panels SAQ expenditure person weight for the Consolidated PUF, Review Output
4/30/2020 PRPL0144.07: Delivery of the FY 2018 PRPL Hot Deck Imputation Results for Approval - donors used multiple times
4/30/2020 PRPL0144.09: Delivery of the FY 2018 PRPL Hot Deck Imputation Results for Approval
4/30/2020 UEGN2808.01: 2018 Predictive Mean Matching Imputation Method Applied to the Expenditure Imputation of the non-MPC Event Types
4/30/2020 UEGN2809.01: 2018 Predictive Mean Matching Imputation Method Applied to the Expenditure Imputation of the MPC Event Types
5/4/2020 COND0983.01: 2019 Conditions Basic Edit Specifications
5/4/2020 PCND0159.01: 2019 PCND Basic Edit Specifications
5/5/2020 PRPL0144.02: Delivery of the FY 2018 PRPL Hot Deck Imputation Results for Approval - donors used multiple times
5/5/2020 WGTS1982.01: FY2018 Consolidated PUF Family Weights Review Output
5/6/2020 ACCS0191.01: 2019 ACCS Basic Edit Specifications
5/6/2020 COND0982.03: Delivery of the Specifications for the FY 2018 Conditions PUF
5/12/2020 COND0983.05: 2019 Conditions Basic Edit Specifications
5/12/2020 GNRL3019.01: NCHS Checklists and Preliminary Versions of Documents for the FY 2018 MPC Event (IP, ER, OP, OB) PUFs
5/13/2020 WGTS1985.01: Full Year 2018 Panel 22 SAQ Expenditure person weight review output
5/13/2020 WGTS1986.01: Full Year 2018 Panel 23 SAQ Expenditure person weight review output
5/14/2020 PRPL0144.35: Delivery of FY 2018 PRPL Test Hot Deck Imputation Results for Review
5/15/2020 GNRL3020.01: HC-206b, HC-206c, and HC-206h: 2018 Expenditure Event PUFs for Non-MPC Event Types (DV, OM, and HH) and All Related Files for Web Release
5/15/2020 PCND0159.04: 2019 PCND Basic Edit Specifications
5/15/2020 WGTS5014.01: Delivery of the Individual Panel Raked Person Weights for P22/P23 FY18
5/20/2020 COND0984.01: FY 2018 Preliminary CLNK File
5/20/2020 GNRL3022.01: Preliminary Versions of the 2018 MPC Event (IP, ER, OP, OB) PUF Codebooks and Documents for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
5/20/2020 PRPL0144.39: Delivery of FY 2018 PRPL Test Hot Deck Imputation Results for Review
5/20/2020 UEPD1215.02: Delivery of the 2018 PMED PUF (RX18V01 and RX18V02)
5/20/2020 UEPD1215.03: Delivery of 2018 PMED PUF (TC18XTABS.lst, TC18XTABS.xml)
5/21/2020 PRPL0144.42: Delivery of FY 2018 PRPL Additional Hot Deck Imputation Results for Review
5/22/2020 PCND0159.06: 2019 PCND Basic Edit Specifications
5/27/2020 PRPL0144.52: Delivery of FY 2018 PRPL Revised Hot Deck Imputation Results for Review – Version 3, Final
5/27/2020 PRPL0144.55: Delivery of FY 2018 PRPL Revised Hot Deck Imputation Results for Review – Version 3, Final
5/28/2020 PRPL0144.58: Delivery of FY 2018 PRPL Revised Hot Deck Imputation Results for Review – Version 3, Final
5/29/2020 WGTS1988.01: FY2018 Expenditure DCS weight review output to AHRQ
6/1/2020 UEPD1215.06: Delivery of the 2018 PMED PUF (RX18V05.LST, RX18V06.LST, RX18V05X.LST, TOP10RX18_USE.LST, TOP10TC18_USE.LST, TOP10TC18_EXP.LST, TOP25RX18_EXP.LST)
6/8/2020 GNRL2189.02: Addendum to the FY 2018 (Panel 22 & Panel 23) Delivery Database Snapshots: Edited Segments since the Previous Delivery of 1/10/20
6/8/2020 HLTH1049.01: Delivery of VA-SAQ Constructed Variables Dataset for FY 2018
6/8/2020 UEPD1215.07: Delivery of 2018 PMED PUF (RX18V05X) SAS dataset and the format files (RX18V05X.sas7bcat, rx18v05xf.sas and rxexpf2.sas)
6/8/2020 WGTS1987.01: P22P23 FY2018 Person-level SAQ Expenditure Weights
6/9/2020 GNRL3021.01: NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of Delivery Document for the FY 2018 Prescribed Medicines (PMED) PUF
6/9/2020 PRPL0146.01: Delivery of the FY 2018 OOPELIG3 Dataset, Benchmarking results, POSTIMPFIN results for final approval of OOPPREM variables, the Preliminary Encrypted Delivery Dataset, and the Preliminary Unencrypted Delivery Dataset
6/9/2020 WGTS1989.01: Developing Sample Weights for the MEPS Veteran Self-Administered Questionnaire (VSAQ) Component for the Full Year 2018 Consolidated (Expenditure) Public Use File
6/10/2020 WGTS5015.01: Delivery of the Individual Panel 22 and Panel 23 SAQ Expenditure Weight for FY2018
6/10/2020 WGTS5016.01: Delivery of the Poverty-Adjusted Family-Level Weight, CPS-Like Family-Level Weight, Poverty-Adjusted DCS and SAQ Weights for FY2018
6/11/2020 WGTS5007.02: Redelivery of the Variance Strata and PSU Variables for FY2018
6/12/2020 GNRL3023.01: HC-206d, HC-206e, HC-206f, and HC-206g: 2018 Expenditure Event PUFs for MPC Event Types (IP, ER, OP, and OB) and All Related Files for Web Release
6/12/2020 PCND0160.01: 2018 Priority Conditions Benchmarking Document
6/15/2020 UEPD1215.08: Redelivery of the 2018 PMED PUF (RX18V05X) SAS dataset
6/15/2020 UEPD1215.09: 2018 PMED PUF data (RX18V06.sas7bdat) and the format files ((RX18V06.sas7bcat, rxexpv06f.sas and rxexpv06f2.sas)
6/15/2020 WGTS5017.01: Delivery of the FY 2018 Expenditure File Final Person Weight – PERWT18F
6/16/2020 GNRL3024.01: FY2019 Person-Level Use PUF Variable List Changes for AHRQ Review
6/16/2020 UEGN3581.01: Delivery of the FY2018 PMM Imputation Input and Output Data Files
6/19/2020 GNRL4009.01 and GNRL4010.01: Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) -P23R5
6/19/2020 UEGN3582.01: Delivery of the Dropped Variables Due to DRB Review – FY18 EXP PUF files for DV, ER, OP, OB, IP and RX
6/22/2020 PRPL0146.03: Delivery of the FY 2018 OOPELIG3 Dataset, Benchmarking results, POSTIMPFIN results for final approval of OOPPREM variables, the Preliminary Encrypted Delivery Dataset, and the Preliminary Unencrypted Delivery Dataset
6/23/2020 GNRL3025.02: Preliminary Versions of the 2018 Prescribed Medicines (PMED) Event PUF Codebook and Delivery Document for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review – UPDATED
6/23/2020 PRPL0146.11: Delivery of the FY 2018 OOPELIG3 Dataset, Benchmarking results, POSTIMPFIN results for final approval of OOPPREM variables, the Preliminary Encrypted Delivery Dataset, and the Preliminary Unencrypted Delivery Dataset
6/26/2020 GNRL3024.02: FY2019 Person-Level Use PUF Variable List Changes for AHRQ Review
6/29/2020 CODE124301: PMED Matching Programs Log and LST Files for FY19 Wave 1 - For Rebecca Ahrnsbrak
6/30/2020 WGTS5018.01: Delivery of FY18 Veteran Self-Administered Questionnaire Weight, VSAQW18F, for Expenditure Files
7/2/2020 HINS1311.01: Changes to the HINS Point-In-Time 2020 specifications
7/6/2020 CODE0919.01: FY19 SOP Matched SOPCODE Inconsistencies For AHRQ’s Review
7/6/2020 UEGN3584.01: The 2018/2017 QC Finding Tables of the PUF Event Expenditures
7/10/2020 GNRL3026.01: HC-206a: Delivery of the 2018 Prescribed Medicines (PMED) PUF and all Related Files for Web Release
7/13/2020 HLTH1050.01: FY2016, FY2017 PUF Population of the CSAQ and DCS Eligibility Variables
7/14/2020 GNRL3027.01: NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of Delivery Document for the FY 2018 Person Round Plan (PRPL) PUF
7/14/2020 GNRL3028.01: NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of the Delivery Document for the FY 2018 Consolidated Data PUF
7/15/2020 DOCM0679.04: Delivery of the 2019 PC Sample file - Wave 3
7/15/2020 DOCM0680.04: Delivery of the 2019 Provider file for NPI coding - Wave 3
7/15/2020 DOCM0678.05: Delivery of the 2019 MPC files for Sample selection - Wave 3
7/15/2020 HLTH1051.03: VSAQ 2018 Low Frequency Counts
7/22/2020 GNRL3029.01: FY 2018 Conditions PUF Preliminary Versions of Codebook and Delivery Document for Use in AHRQ Review
7/22/2020 GNRL3030.01: Preliminary versions of the Codebook and Document for the FY 2018 Consolidated Data PUF for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
7/22/2020 GNRL3031.01: HC209: Preliminary Version of the 2018 Consolidated File
7/22/2020 GNRL3032.01: FY 2018 Person Round Plan PUF Preliminary Versions of Codebook and Delivery Document for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
7/23/2020 UEGN3585.01: The FY2019 Initial Variable Construction Specifications
7/24/2020 GNRL3032.02: Preliminary Version of the 2018 Person Round Plan File Delivery Document - UPDATED
7/22/2020 GNRL3033.01: Preliminary Version of the 2018 Appendix to the Event PUFs Delivery Document, Codebooks, and Tables for Review
7/24/2020 GNRL4009.02 and GNRL4010.02 Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) -P24R3
7/28/2020 GNRL3026.02: HC-206a: Delivery of the 2018 Prescribed Medicines (PMED) PUF and all Related Files for Web Release – Updated
7/28/2020 GNRL3030.02: Final Versions of the Codebook and Document for the FY 2018 Consolidated Data PUF for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
7/28/2020 GNRL3032.03: Final Versions of the 2018 Person Round Plan File Codebook and Delivery Document
7/28/2020 GNRL3033.02: Final Version of the 2018 Appendix to the Event PUFs Delivery Document, Codebooks, and Tables for Review
7/30/2020 UEGN3586.01: Delivery of the EVNT Table for Panel 24 Round 1-3 MRD Data
8/3/2020 UEGN3587.01: The DN Text Strings Recoding for FY2019
8/6/2020 DOCM0682.01: File of Provider Names for FY 2019
8/10/2020 CODE1245.01: MEPS Delivery of the ICD-10-CM/CCSR Crosswalk and COND Coding Uncodeable Text Strings for FY19
8/10/2020 COND0985.01: 2019 Preliminary Conditions File Specifications
8/14/2020 GNRL3035.01: HC-209: Full Year 2018 Consolidated Use, Expense, and Insurance PUF Delivery for Web Release
8/14/2020 GNRL3036.01: HC-206I: Delivery of the Final Appendix to the 2018 Event Files and all Related Files for Web Release
8/14/2020 GNRL3037.01: HC-208: Delivery of the 2018 Person Round Plan (PRPL) PUF and Related Files for Web Release
8/14/2020 GNRL3038.01: HC-207: Delivery of the Final 2018 Conditions File and All Related Files for Web Release
8/17/2020 ACCS0192.01: 2019 ACCS Other Specify Text String Recoding
8/18/2020 CODE1246.01: MEPS Delivery of PMED Proposed Updates to Inconsistencies Found in the Authority Table and EXACT/INXCT Matching Output
8/20/2020 GNRL4009.03 and GNRL4010.03: Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) - P25R1
8/21/2020 UEGN3586.02: Delivery of the EVNT Table for Panel 25 Round 1 SRD Data
8/24/2020 COND0985.05: 2019 Preliminary Conditions File Specifications
8/26/2020 COND0985.08: 2019 Preliminary Conditions File Specifications
8/27/2020 UEGN 2820.01: 2019 Review of copayment thresholds
8/28/2020 COND0985.10: 2019 Preliminary Conditions File Specifications
9/1/2020 DOCM0683.01: MEPS – 2019 Conditions Authority File After the 2019 HC Condition Coding
9/1/2020 UEGN3588.01: Specifications for the 2019 Pre-Imputation UEGN Files
9/2/2020 GNRL4009.04: Delivery of Version 2 of the RU-level End-Of-Round (EOR) File – Panel 24 Round 3
9/4/2020 GNRL3020.02: HC-206b, HC-206c, and HC-206h: 2018 Expenditure Event PUFs for Non-MPC Event Types (DV, OM, and HH) and All Related Files for Web Release – UPDATED
9/9/2020 COND0986.01: Multiple Duplicate CLNKS in Panel 2319
9/9/2020 UEGN 2828.01: 2019 Specs for MPC rolling event Edits
9/9/2020 UEGN 2830.01: 2019 Specs for HHA rolling event Edits
9/11/2020 WGTS1982.01: Derivation of the 2018 Full Year Expenditure Family Weight, MEPS and CPS-Like, for Panel 22 and Panel 23 Combined
9/11/2020 WGTS1978.01: MEPS, Combined Panel 23/Round 3 and Panel 24/Round 1, Computation of the Composite Family Weights
9/11/2020 WGTS1979.01: Creation of the Delivery Files for the 2019 PIT P23R3/P24R1: PUF and Internal Files. These files cover the person- and family-level weights, location, and variance estimation
9/14/2020 COND0986.07: Multiple Duplicate CLNKS in Panel 2319
9/15/2020 EMPL2221.01: FY2019 JOBS File Specifications for Approval
9/15/2020 UEGN3589.01: Delivery of the Specification for the 2019 Utilization Count Variables Construction
9/15/2020 UEGN3588.02: Updated specifications for the 2019 Pre-Imputation UEGN Files (ER, HHA, HHP, HS, MVE, MVN, and OP)
9/16/2020 CODE0922.01: Delivery of NAICS and SOCS Files Requested by AHRQ
9/16/2020 UEPD1216.01: Delivery of 2019 PMED Pre-imp files spec
9/17/2020 UEPD1216.04: Delivery of 2019 PMED Pre-imp files spec
9/22/2020 PRPL0147.01: Full Year 2019 PRPL File Revisions to Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Linking, and Post-Linking Editing
9/25/2020 EMPL2221.03: FY2019 JOBS File Specifications for Approval
9/30/2020 PRPL0147.07: Full Year 2019 PRPL File Revisions to Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Linking, and Post-Linking Editing
10/2/2020 CODE1247.01: MEPS 2019 Delivery of PMED Final Reports for Uncodeable, Compounds, Foreign Meds, No-MDDB, Drug Groupings
10/2/2020 DOCM0684.01: Delivery of 2019 Static Tables for SOP After the 2019 HC SOP Coding
10/5/2020 PRPL0147.02: Full Year 2019 PRPL File Revisions to Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Linking, and Post-Linking Editing
10/5/2020 UEGN 2831.01: 2019 Specs for flagging elderly person with private insurance from current job
10/5/2020 UEGN 2817.01: 2019 Specs to re-allocate imputed expenditures equally distributed among two or more sources
10/6/2020 GNRL3039.01: Plan for Incorporating P23R6 and R7 Data into FY2020 Constructed Variables
10/7/2020 DOCM068402: Redelivery of 2019 Static Tables for SOP After the 2019 HC SOP Coding
10/7/2020 WGTS1983.01: Raking Panels 22 and 23 (Panel 22/rounds 3-5 and Panel 23/rounds 1-3) Separately for the Individual Panel Full Year 2018 Person-Level Weights Including the Poverty Status
10/7/2020 WGTS1984.01: Delivery Files for the FY 2018 Individual Panel Expenditure Person-Level Weights, Panel 22 and Panel 23
10/7/2020 WGTS1971.01: Updating Master Variance File Strata and PSUs for Panel 24, Round 1
10/7/2020 WGTS1972.01: MEPS: Establishing Variance Estimation Strata and PSUs for the 2019 Point-in-Time PUF, Panel 24, Round 1 and Panel 23, Round 3
10/7/2020 WGTS1973.01: Final: Estimating Standard Errors Using SUDAAN for the Panel 24, Round 1 and Panel 23, Round 3 PIT 2019 PUF Data—Checking the Variance Strata and PSUs
10/8/2020 WGTS1989.02: Developing Sample Weights for the MEPS Veteran Self-Administered Questionnaire (VSAQ) Component for the Full Year 2018 Consolidated (Expenditure) Public Use File
10/8/2020 PRPL0147.13: Full Year 2019 PRPL File Revisions to Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Linking, and Post-Linking Editing
10/8/2020 PRPL0147.15: Full Year 2019 PRPL File Revisions to Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Linking, and Post-Linking Editing
10/9/2020 EMPL2221.06: FY2019 JOBS File Specifications for Approval
10/13/2020 WGTS5019.01: Delivery of the ADMN/DEMO Variables Used for Weights Development for P23P24FY19
10/14/2020 EMPL2222.01: FY2019 Panel 24 Editing of High Wage Outliers or Substantially Different Wages – Request for Approval
10/14/2020 EMPL2223.01: FY2019 Panel 24 Editing of Low Wage Outliers or Wages that Do Not Change – Request for Approval
10/14/2020 HINS1318.01: P2419 EPCP QC crosstabs
10/16/2020 CODE0922.01: Delivery of NAICS and SOCS Files Requested by AHRQ
10/16/2020 EMPL2221.07: FY2019 JOBS File Specifications for Approval
10/16/2020 DOCM0686.01: Delivery of 2019 Static Tables for SRCS After the 2019 HC SRCS Coding
10/16/2020 HINS1319.01: P2319 EPCP QC crosstabs
10/19/2020 DOCM0685.01: Delivery of the 2019 MPC Pre-Matching Household Component Production File
10/19/2020 EMPL2221.09: FY2019 JOBS File Specifications for Approval
10/20/2020 EMPL2223.02: FY2019 Panel 24 Editing of Low Wage Outliers or Wages that Do Not Change – Request for Approval
10/20/2020 WGTS1992.01: March 2020 CPS and December 2019 control totals output, digital delivery
10/21/2020 EMPL2221.14: FY2019 JOBS File Specifications for Approval
10/22/2020 PRPL0147.29: Full Year 2019 PRPL File Revisions to Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Linking, and Post-Linking Editing
10/24/2020 HINS1319.04: P2319 EPCP QC crosstabs
10/29/2020 CODE1248.01: MEPS 2019 Delivery of Authority File after PMED Coding and Files for Matching Programs
10/30/2020 CODE0924.01: Delivery of 2019 Static Table for WHOBILL - After the 2019 HC WHOBILL Coding
10/30/2020 COND0987.01: Applying FY18 Masking Rules to FY16 and FY17 Preliminary Conditions Data
10/30/2020 DOCM0687.01: Delivery of Person-Level Base and Family Pseudo Weight for FY19
10/30/2020 WGTS5020.01: Delivery of Person-Level Base Weight, Individual Panel Base Weight, Family Membership Flag, and MSA variables for FY19
11/3/2020 EMPL2224.01: FY 2019 Wage Imputation Specification – Review and Approval Requested
11/4/2020 ADMN0918.01: Weighted Crosstabs delivery of ADMN and DEMO variables
11/4/2020 EMPL2225.01: FY2019 Panel 23 Editing of High Wage Outliers or Substantially Different Wages – Request for Approval
11/4/2020 EMPL2226.01: FY2019 Panel 23 Editing of Low Wage Outliers or Wages that Do Not Change – Request for Approval
11/5/2020 COND0987.04: Applying FY18 Masking Rules to FY16 and FY17 Preliminary Conditions Data
11/5/2020 WGTS1993.01: March 2020 CPS and revised December 2019 control totals output, digital delivery
11/9/2020 CODE0925.01: MEPS - Updated PMED Matching Programs
11/9/2020 HINS1322.01: Results of the QC Cross Tabs for the HINS 2019 HMO/Gatekeeper FY variables
11/13/2020 DSDY0061.01: FY 2020 Disability Days Variable Planning
11/13/2020 EMPL2229.01: FY2019 Wage Imputation Failures
11/23/2020 EMPL2230.04: FY 2019 Hourly Wage Imputation Output for Approval
11/23/2020 PRPL0148.01: FY19 PRPL Specifications Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Link and Variable Editing, and Variable Editing: Post JOBS Linking
11/23/2020 UEGN3591.01: Deliver to AHRQ for approval specifications for the non-MPC (DN, OM, and HH) Expenditure Event files
11/24/2020 DSDY0062.01: FY 2019 Disability Days Weighted Crosstabs and Frequencies for AHRQ
11/24/2020 DSDY0063.01: FY 2019 Delivery of the DSDY “Missed Days” top code values for AHRQ approval
11/24/2020 UEPD1216.02: 2019 (Panel 23 & 24) Household Prescribed Medicine and Associated Files - Set 1
11/27/2020 EMPL2232.01: Full Year 2019 Wage Top Code Value for AHRQ Approval
12/4/2020 COND0987.02: Applying FY18 Masking Rules to FY16 and FY17 Preliminary Conditions Data – Redelivery
12/4/2020 EMPL2233.01: FY19 Pre-Top Coded Wage and Uncondensed IO Codes Data Delivery
12/4/2020 PRPL0148.12: FY19 PRPL Specifications Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Link and Variable Editing, and Variable Editing: Post JOBS Linking
12/4/2020 UEGN2835.01: 2019 Events with questionable information observed during pre-editing QC review
12/7/2020 UEGN2835.04 2019 Events with questionable information observed during pre-editing QC review
12/7/2020 WGTS5021.01 - Delivery of the Variance Strata and PSU Variables for FY2019
12/7/2020 WGTS2000.01: Panel 23 Full Year 2019 SAQ Use person weight review output
12/7/2020 WGTS2001.01: Panel 24 Full Year 2019 SAQ Use person weight review output
12/8/2020 UEGN2836.01: 2019 Listing of cases where a simple event has the exact same charge and payment sum as the flat fee bundle
12/8/2020 WGTS2002.01: Full Year 2019 SAQ Use person weight for the combined Panels review output to AHRQ
12/9/2020 EMPL2234.01: Full Year 2019 JOBS File Establishment Size Top Code Value and Extent of JOBS Wage Top Coding for AHRQ Approval
12/10/2020 EMPL2234.02: Full Year 2019 JOBS File Establishment Size Top Code Value and Extent of JOBS Wage Top Coding for AHRQ Approval
12/10/2020 GNRL3040.01: Preliminary Version of the 2019 Full Year Use PUF Dataset
12/10/2020 UEGN 2816.01: 2019 Specs for processing flat fee bundles
12/10/2020 WGTS1985.01: P22FY2018 Person-level SAQ Expenditure Weights
12/11/2020 UEGN3592.01: Delivery of the FY19 Pre-Imputation files
12/11/2020 WGTS2004.01: Full Year 2019 combined Panels person weight review output
12/11/2020 WGTS1986.01: P23FY2018 Person-level SAQ Expenditure Weights
12/11/2020 WGTS1988.01: Developing Sample Weights for the MEPS Diabetes Questionnaire Component (DCS) for the Panels 22 and 23 Full Year 2018 Expenditure File (PUF)
12/14/2020 DOCM0689.01: 2020 MPC sample file specs
12/14/2020 DOCM0690.01: 2020 PC sample file specs
12/14/2020 DOCM0691.01: 2020 provider file for NPI coding specs
12/15/2020 WGTS1996.01: Derivation of the Annualized MEPS Families and Identification of the Responding MEPS Families for MEPS Panel 24 Full Year 2019
12/15/2020 WGTS2005.01: MEPS: Establishing Variance Estimation Strata and PSUs, and Estimating Standard Errors Using SUDAAN for the Full Year 2019 PUF, Panel 23, Rounds 3-5 and Panel 24, Rounds 1-3
12/15/2020 (WGTSMEMO1994.01): New Weighting Memo #1994.01_Do_Not_Email: Derivation of the MEPS Panel 23 Full Year 2019 Person Use Weights (Rounds 3-5)
12/15/2020 WGTS1999.01: Creating Factors to Adjust the 2019 Full Year Person Weights to Better Reflect the Number of Persons who Died or Spent Part of the Year in a Nursing Home
12/16/2020 GNRL4025.01 - Redelivery of the RU-level End-Of-Round (EOR) Files
12/16/2020 WGTS1991.01_Do_Not_Email: Derivation of the MEPS Panel 24 Full Year 2019 Person Use Weights (Rounds 1-3)
12/17/2020 EMPL2235.01: Full Year 2019 Wage Top Coding Results
12/17/2020 UEGN 2818.01: 2019 Specifications for Last Step Edits
12/17/2020 UEPD1216.03: 2019 (Panel 23 & 24) PMED Supplemental File - Set 2: Person-Level File and Additional 3 Segment Variable Files
12/18/2020 WGTS2000.01: Developing Panel 23 Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) Use Weights for Full Year 2019
12/18/2020 WGTS2001.01: Developing Panel 24 Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) Use Weights for Full Year 2019
12/21/2020 DEMO1017.01: Delivery of the Output Listings for Case Review of the MOPID and DAPID Variables’ Construction for FY2019
12/21/2020 WGTS2002.01: Developing Sample Weights for the MEPS Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) for the Panels 23 and 24 Full Year 2019 Use File (PUF), and Creating the Full Year 2019 Person Use SAQ Weights Delivery File
12/21/2020 WGTS5022.01: Delivery of the SAQ Use PUF Weight and Individual Panel SAQ Weight Variables for FY2019
12/21/2020 WGTS5023.01: Delivery of Person-Level Use PUF Weight, Single Panel Person Weight, and MSA19_13 Variables for FY19
12/22/2020 UEGN35900.1: Delivery of the 2018 Post-Imputation Files for the MEPS Master Files
12/22/2020 WGTS2004.01: MEPS Panels 23 and 24 Full Year 2019: Combine and Rake the P23 and P24 Weights to Obtain the P23P24FY19 Person-Level USE Weights
12/22/2020 WGTS2006.01: Create the P23P24 Full Year 2019 Person Use Weight and Individual Panel Weights Delivery File
12/22/2020 WGTS1997.01: Creation of CPS Control Total Files Containing the Raking Dimensions for the Full Year 2019 USE Person Weights
12/22/2020 WGTS2003.01: Creation of CPS Control Total Files Containing the Raking Dimensions for the Full Year 2019 Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) Use Person Weight
12/24/2020 INCO0754.01: Delivery of the 2019 (Panel 23 & 24) Income File
12/24/2020 UEPD1216.04: 2019 (Panel 23 & 24) PMED Supplemental File - set 3: Person/Round-Level Files
12/28/2020 PRPL0150.01: Output and Frequencies from 2019 PRPL Test Program #1 and Program #2
12/28/2020 UEGN3594.01: Deliver to AHRQ for approval specifications for the MPC (OB, OP, ER, and IP) Expenditure Event files
12/29/2020 COND0988.01: FY 2019 Specifications for the CLNK and RXLK PUFs
12/29/2020 GNRL4026.01 and GNRL4027.01: Delivery of End-Of-Round files (Person-Level and RU Level) -P23R6
12/29/2020 GNRL4028.01: Delivery of the EVNT, PMED and EPCP Tables for the Panel 23 Round 6 SRD Data

Return To Table Of Contents