Font Size:

MEPS Household Component

Annual Contractor Methodology Report 2017

June 15, 2018

Prepared for:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857

Prepared by:
Westat
1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129
301-251-1500

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 2017
2.3 Testing of the Questionnaire and Interviewer Management System
2.4 Changes to Materials and Procedures for 2017
3 Recruiting and Training
3.1 Field Interviewer Recruiting for 2017
3.2 2017 Interviewer Training
3.2.1 New Interviewer Training
3.2.2 Experienced Interviewer Training – Distance Learning Program
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 Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ) Collection Rates
4.5 Data Collection Results: Patient Profile Collection
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 Data Delivery
6.2 Processing to Support Data Delivery
Appendix A Comprehensive Tables – Household Survey
Table 1-1 Initial MEPS sample size and number of NHIS PSUs, all panels
Table 1-2 Data collection periods and starting RU-level sample sizes, spring 2010 through fall 2017
Table 1-3 Percentage of NHIS households with partially completed interviews in panels 3 to 23
Table 1-4 Distribution of panel 22 sample by sample domain
Table 2-1 Supplements to the CAPI core questionnaire (including hard-copy materials) for 2017
Table 3-1 Spring attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2013-2017
Table 3-2 Fall attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2013-2017
Table 3-3 Components of the 2017 training program
Table 4-1 Data collection schedule and number of weeks per round of data collection,2017
Table 4-2 Average Weekly Completion and Success Rates for High Potential and Remainder (Non-High Potential) Cases during High Potential Phase, Spring 2017
Table 4-3 MEPS HC data collection results, panels 14 through 22
Table 4-4 Response rates by data collection year, 2010-2017
Table 4-5 Summary of MEPS round 1 response and nonresponse, 2012-2017 panels
Table 4-6 Summary of MEPS round 1 response, 2012-2017 panels, by NHIS completion status
Table 4-7 Summary of MEPS panel 22 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 15-22
Table 4-9 Summary of MEPS round 1 results for RUs who were ever traced, panels 15-22
Table 4-10 Interview timing comparison, panels 15 through 22 (mean minutes per interview, single-session interviews)
Table 4-11 Mean contact attempts by NHIS completion status, round 1 of panels 20-22
Table 4-12 Signing rates for medical provider authorization forms for panels 15 through 22
Table 4-13 Signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms for panels 15 through 22
Table 4-14 Results of Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) collection for panels 15 through 22
Table 4-15 Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection for panels 14 through 21
Table 4-16 Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ) collection rates
Table 4-17 Results of patient profile collection in 2012 through 2017
Table 5-1 Number and percent of respondents who called the respondent information line, 2014-2017
Table 5-2 Calls to the respondent information line, 2016 and 2017
Table 6-1 Delivery schedule for major MEPS files, 2015-2017
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 Signing rates for medical provider authorization forms
Table A-4 Signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms
Table A-5 Results of Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) collection
Table A-6 Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection*
Table A-7 Calls to respondent information line
Table A-8 Files delivered during 2017

Introduction

The Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC, Contract 290-2012-00005C, awarded September 8, 2012 and Contract 290-2016-00004I, awarded July 1, 2016) 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 2017.

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 5 in-person interviews conducted over a two and a half year period. Each year a panel completing its fifth interview ends its participation. This report describes work performed for all of the panels active during calendar year 2017. Design work conducted during the year consisted of updates and testing for the instruments fielded during the Fall of 2016 and Spring of 2017. Data collection operations in 2017 were for Panel 20 Round 5, Panel 21, Rounds 3 and 4, and Panel 22, Rounds 1 and 2. Data processing activity focused on delivery of full year utilization and expenditure files for calendar year 2015.

The report touches lightly on procedures and operations that remained unchanged from prior years, focusing primarily on results of the 2017 operations and features of the project that were new, changed, or enhanced for 2017. Tables in the body of the text highlight 2017 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 2017 sample and activities associated with preparing the sample for fielding. Chapters 2 through 5 discuss activities associated with the data collection for 2017: 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

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). Households in a new panel participate in a series of 5 interviews that collect data covering 2 full calendar years. Data from 2 panels—one completing its first year in the study (Round 3) and one completing its second year (Round 5)—are combined each year to produce a series of annual estimation files.

The sample for the new MEPS panel, Panel 22, fielded in 2017, was selected from the new sample design implemented for the NHIS in 2016 with households selected that participated in the NHIS during the first three quarters of 2016. They were drawn from NHIS Panels 1 and 4, the NHIS panels designated for MEPS. This chapter describes the sample drawn for 2016 and 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 for all MEPS panels through Panel 22 and the number of MEPS PSUs from which each panel was drawn. The change in the number of PSUs for Panel 12 reflects redesign of the NHIS sample following the decennial census while the number of PSUs for Panel 22 reflects the NHIS redesign for 2016. The MEPS sample units are ‘reporting units’ (RUs)—groups of related persons living at the address selected for the NHIS at the time of the NHIS interview. Members of the NHIS households who move over the course of the MEPS interviews are split into separate RUs, followed, and interviewed at their new address.

MEPS data collection is conducted in two main fielding periods each year. 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. During the July-December period, Round 2 of the new panel and Round 4 of the remaining continuing panel are fielded. Table 1-2 summarizes the combined workload for the January-June and July-December periods from Spring 2010 through Fall 2017.

**Table 1-1. Initial MEPS sample size 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

* RU: Reporting unit.

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 37,555 in 2010 to a high of 41,135 in 2013; the combined workload for 2017 was 39,169 RUs. The interviewing workload during the Spring field period, when 3 panels are active, is substantially larger than during the Fall. In 2017, the Spring workload of 24,773 RUs was the third highest of the 8 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 subsampled at varying rates across the years.

**Table 1-2. Data collection periods and starting RU-level sample sizes, spring 2010 through fall 2017**
Spring/Fall Data Collection	Sample Size
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

Return To Table Of Contents

The annual samples also include a percentage of households classified as ‘partial completes’ in the NHIS, reflecting the fact that less than a full NHIS interview was obtained. The partial completes are, as a group, more difficult to complete in MEPS than the NHIS ‘full completes’ and therefore receive special attention during data collection. Table 1-3 (column 2) shows the percentage of NHIS interviews classified as “partially complete” in Panels 3 through 22.

Beginning in 2011 (Panel 16), a new sample domain was created by dividing what in prior years had been a single domain, the ‘White/Other’ domain, into two domains, one consisting of NHIS partial completes, the other of NHIS completes. 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. The partial completes in the white, other domain were sub- sampled at rates ranging from 53 percent in Panel 20 to 40 percent in Panel 17.

**Table 1-3. Percentage of NHIS households with partially completed interviews in panels 3 to 22**
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

Return To Table Of Contents

* 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 23.

Table 1-4 shows the distribution of the Panel 22 sample by sample domain.

**Table 1-4. Distribution of panel 22 sample by sample domain**
Sample domain	Number	Percent
Asian	687	7.0
Black	1,438	14.6
Hispanic	1,877	19.1
White, other	5,833	59.3
NHIS complete	4,959	50.4
NHIS partial complete	874	8.9
Total	9,835

Return To Table Of Contents

1.2 Sample Delivery and Processing

The 2017 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 September 19, 2016 with a re-delivery on September 23 to correct a weighting issue. Households selected from the third quarter of the NHIS were delivered on December 2, 2016.

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. With the change in NHIS sample design, the September receipt of the first two-thirds of the new sample was particularly important. In addition to the standard review of the sample files, Westat also began work organizing the new sample, blending it within the structure of the current sample in the old design. As a result of this initial work, PSUs were mapped and MEPS supervisory regions were re-configured to accommodate the differences in sample sizes between the old and new NHIS designs. Of the 168 PSUs in the combined 2017 sample (Panel 20 Round 5, Panel 21 Round 3, and Panel 22 Round 1), 120 are continuing as part of the NHIS sample redesign, 29 will leave with the end of Panel 21, and 19 new PSUs came into MEPs with the 2017 panel.

Upon receipt of the first portion of the 2017 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 computer-assisted (CAPI) instrument used to collect MEPS data and to the field procedures followed by the interviewers who collect the data.

With the concurrent work on the CAPI modernization task as part of the technology upgrade and the planned implementation in 2018, instrument changes to the 2017 instrument were kept to a minimum. Any change made to the current instrument must also be part of the specification for the modernization instrument and be folded into the specification, programming, and testing routine. Changes that were made to sections that have been programmed are risky to make and require an additional testing iteration on an already challenging schedule.

Return To Table Of Contents

2.2 Changes to CAPI Instrument for 2017

The only revision for 2017 CAPI instrument involved a modification so that only new RU members or persons reporting cancer for the first time were prompted to complete a Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire in Round 3. All adult member RU members who reported having cancer in Round 1 were asked to complete the CSAQ, following the pattern established in the prior year.

Supplements to the CAPI Instrument

Table 2-1 shows the supplements in the CAPI instrument for the rounds administered in calendar year 2017. The pattern for 2017 remained unchanged from the prior year.

The SAQ, Your Health and Health Opinions was redesigned for administration in the fall rounds of 2017. The Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) replaced the SF012v2 Health Survey as the new source of the 2017 SAQ questions. In addition, several questions had wording changes or response category changes, such as reversed scales or an additional value in a scale. Replacing the open text field for respondent/proxy completion to coded relationship categories eliminated the need for manual review and upcoding of text fields.

**Table 2-1. Supplements to the CAPI core questionnaire (including hard-copy materials) for 2017**
Supplement	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Round 5
Child Health		X		X
Quality Supplement			X		X
Preventive Care			X		X
Access to Care		X		X
Income			X		X
Assets					X
Medical Provider Authorization Forms	X	X	X	X	X
Pharmacy Authorization Forms		X	X	X	X
Your Health and Health Opinions (SAQ)		X	Round 2 follow up	X	Round 4 follow up
Cancer SAQ	X		X
Diabetes Care Supplement (SAQ)			X		X
Institutional History Form		X	X	X	X
Priority Condition Enumeration	X	New RU members Only	X	New RU members only	X

Return To Table Of Contents

2.3 Testing of the Questionnaire and Interviewer Management System

The testing for the Spring 2017 (Rounds 1/3/5) application was completed in November 2016. Testing of the Fall 2017 instrument was completed in May 2017.

All instrument testing followed a prescribed, multi-stage path, with specific testing tasks coordinated across design and systems groups. Testing began early in the development cycle as programmers tested their work on a flow basis to ensure that the modifications to the instruments were in accord with the specifications developed by design staff. Once programming was completed, design and systems staff at Westat and project staff from AHRQ tested the full CAPI instrument during alpha and beta test periods. Required changes identified during testing were implemented before the CAPI instruments were ‘frozen’, approximately 6 to 8 weeks before the Spring and Fall data collection cycles began.

Each cycle of testing included components focusing on specific aspects of the instrument and supporting field management system: verification of the application against the instrument specifications, testing a variety of training scenarios to simulate data collection situations, overall usability of the instrument and supporting systems, focused testing on specific features such as help screen functionality and medical provider directory searches, historical testing in which data entered into the revised application are compared to previously completed cases to ensure the data are captured and stored as intended, and integration testing of the CAPI application in the context of the full set of management and support systems needed during active data collection.

Additional testing components, including enhanced integration testing and ‘live’ testing, were conducted. The enhanced integration testing allows 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 live testing component uses 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 allows staff to check uncommon paths through the MEPS instrument so that specific changes to the questionnaire can be thoroughly tested.

Return To Table Of Contents

2.4 Changes to Materials and Procedures for 2017

The manuals and the materials for the 2017 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 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 Interviewer Assignment Sheet supports follow-up for Authorization Forms and SAQs not completed at the time of the interview.

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 and MEPS statistical charts were updated with 2014 data. Respondent letters, the community authorization letter, authorization form booklet, and the certificate of appreciation were updated with the signature of the new director for AHRQ.

Return To Table Of Contents

3. Recruiting and Training

3.1 Field Interviewer Recruiting for 2017

Recruiting of new field interviewers for 2017 began in November 2016, a month later than usual. This delay in the recruiting start up was result of changes in the MEPS sample frame for Panel 22. The 2017 MEPS sample was drawn from the NHIS sample which was re-designed in 2016 resulting in a significant change in the allocation of MEPS PSUs: 19 new PSUs come into the MEPS sample and 29 PSUs were identified as leaving the MEPS sample following the end of Panel 21. Recruiting needs were established by estimating the full workload for the new panel and adding it to the existing workloads in Panels 20 and 21. The projected total caseload in each PSU was used to estimate the number of interviewers needed. This number was compared to the number of active interviewers on staff in each PSU to determine the PSU-level staffing recommendations. Based on this assessment, Westat planned to recruit 104 new interviewers, with a goal of having about 450 interviewers actively working during the Spring 2017 data collection period.

For the 2017 recruiting, MEPS used the Westat web-based recruitment management system through which applicants apply online. A total of 93 interviewers attended training and 87 completed the program. With the addition of these new trainees, the project began 2017 data collection with a total of 446 interviewers. Of this total, 18 new interviewers and 24 experienced interviewers were lost to attrition during the Spring interviewing rounds. An additional 10 new interviewers and 44 experienced interviewers were lost during the Fall rounds. Total attrition for the year was 21.5 percent, higher than the attrition rates in 2014 - 2016. This increase in the total attrition for 2017 was based, in large part, on the number of existing PSUs leaving the sample after Panel 21 Round 5.

The breakdown of interviewer attrition is shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Table 3-1 shows the overall attrition rate at the end of the Spring 2017 data collection period, from 2014 through 2017. Note that the total Spring 2017 attrition rate was 9.4 percent, the lowest in many years. This reflects a very successful recruiting effort with more reliable hires and close management of data collection by the field supervisors that aided in retaining staff.

**Table 3-1. Spring attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2013-2017**
Data collection period	New interviewers lost		Experienced interviewers lost		Total interviewers lost
Data collection period	#	%	#	%	#	%
Spring 2013	21	21.9%	46	12.0%	67	14.8%
Spring 2014	26	17.8%	30	9.0%	56	11.6%
Spring 2015	28	34.1%	35	9.0%	63	13.5%
Spring 2016	20	26.7%	28	7.7%	48	10.9%
Spring 2017	18	20.7%	24	6.7%	42	9.4%

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 3-2 shows the overall attrition rate during the Fall data collection period. Note that the total Fall 2017 attrition rate was 13.4 percent, a rate that is comparable to that experienced in 2013 when the MEPS sample changed in response to the 2010 Census. The annual attrition rate for 2017 increased to 21.5 percent and can be attributed to the loss of experienced interviewers in PSUs that are leaving the MEPS sample.

Table 3-2. Fall attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2013-2017

**Table 3-2. Fall attrition rate among new and experienced interviewers, 2013-2016**
Data collection period	New interviewers lost		Experienced interviewers lost		Total interviewers lost
Data collection period	#	%	#	%	#	%
Fall 2013	9	15.8%	46	13.6%	55	13.9%
Fall 2014	16	13.3%	22	7.2%	38	8.9%
Fall 2015	6	11.1%	28	7.9%	34	8.3%
Fall 2016	6	11.1%	24	7.1%	30	7.7%
Fall 2017	10	14.5%	44	13.1%	54	13.4%

Return To Table Of Contents

3.2 2017 Interviewer Training

The key interviewer training efforts in 2017 included (1) the annual in-person training for newly hired interviewers, and (2) distance learning trainings for both new and experienced interviewers. One goal in late 2016 and early 2017 was to continue to provide greater continuity between the training for new hires and that for experienced staff. This training, developed in 2015, re-tooled content from the 2014 in-person refresher training on data quality and packaged it to be administered remotely to interviewers completing their first year working on MEPS. It employs a hybrid approach, combining self-paced e-Learning modules accessed through Westat’s Learning Management System (LMS) with web conferences moderated by field management staff.

Table 3-3. Components of the 2017 training program
Training Efforts	In person		Home study/remote
Training Efforts	2017 New	Experienced	2017 New	Experienced
December 2016
Home study for 2017 Spring data collection for experiences interviewers				X
Data Quality refresher training for MEPS Field Interviewers Class of 2016				X
January – February 2017
Data Quality web conferences for MEPS Field Interviewers Class of 2016 (part of the Data Quality home study beginning in December 2016)				X
Home study for new interviewers as introduction to in-person training			X
New interviewer training	X
Post-classroom home study for new interviewers (part 1)			X
March 2017
Post-classroom home study for new interviewers (part 2)			X
April 2017
Newsletter			X
June 2017
Round 2/4 home study			X	X
September, 2017
Newsletter			X	X
October – December 2017
Additional home studies for Experienced interviewers			X	X
December 2017
Train-the-Trainer Workshop for spring 2018 training team members
Ongoing each month
Data Quality Coaching, FS led			X	X

Return To Table Of Contents

3.2.1 New Interviewer Training

The overall structure for training new interviewers in 2017 followed the pattern established in prior years. It began with home study, followed by an in-person training conducted in Los Angeles, California between January 26 and February 2, and completion of a two-part post-classroom home study component.

The pre-classroom home study package included a project laptop, and an interactive self-paced workbook with exercises and on-line modules administered through Westat’s Learning Management System (LMS). Originally designed in 2009 to incorporate materials previously covered in the longer, 11-day in-person training, the home study had a completion time of about 20 hours. The package was restructured for 2016 to reduce administration time to an estimated 16 hours and eliminate the need for early distribution of the Interviewer Field Procedures Manual. The content was consolidated and contained a series of 17 self-contained job aids and ‘quick start’ guides that could be easily carried into the field for reference. Newly hired interviewers watched several online videos and completed quizzes through Westat’s LMS, which generated regular reports allowing home office and field management staff to monitor the completion of each trainee’s home study. Only minor revisions were made to this home study curriculum for 2017. These changes included a new Checklist for Home Study Completion to help trainees track their completion of each task, a new Tying It All Together module to assess learning transfer, revised content about the sample design, and updates to several job aids to reflect changes in project software and login procedures. New hires received their home study package between January 12 and January 23, 2017. The shipment schedule was timed to allow trainees adequate time 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.

The in-person training component maintained the emphasis on interviewer behaviors and interviewing techniques that facilitate complete and accurate reporting. In all mocks and mini-mocks, trainers were instructed to reinforce good interviewing behaviors (e.g., 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) by calling 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.

The in-person training closely followed the agenda implemented in Spring 2016 with a few modifications. Several modules were revised to reflect changes in the Interview Management System (IMS) associated with the implementation of BFOS6. The administration of some exercises was enhanced by completing the first question or two as a group to clarify instructions prior to independent practice by each trainee or small groups of trainees. A few modules were revised to reduce redundancy, creating time for the addition of a two new modules. On day 1, a new module reinforced important MEPS concepts introduced in the pre-classroom home study, such as the types of Reporting Units (RUs), definitions for the Reference Person and Respondent, the MEPS study design, Key versus Non-Key RU members, and the MEPS event types. On day 7, a new Tying It All Together module featured an interactive review focused on the materials presented on the first six days of the training.

The last ½ day of training utilized an approach first used in 2016 that included a breakout session where new hires met with their regional field supervisor and/or field manager to review expectations and plan for organizing their materials when they got home with the goal of being able to quickly begin contacting their cases. These modules focused on addressing the logistics of managing case assignments, efficiently working cases, and reviewing case materials in preparation for each interview.

With the continued use of the Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ) in Panel 21 Round 3 and Panel 22 Round 1, dyada were adjusted to ensure that trainees got exposure to family members who were prompted to complete the questionnaire.

For the 7 1/2 days of project-specific training, each trainee was assigned to one of six training communities staffed by a primary and support trainer, as well as 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. 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 reenumeration 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 Interviewer Management System (IMS) and ways of introducing the survey and answering respondent questions. To ensure training participants had access to additional coaching and practice, four one-hour structured evening practice labs were scheduled from 6:30-7:30 PM on days 2, 3, 5, and 6 of training. The last of these four labs focused on refusal conversion and aversion techniques. Two additional evening help labs were held from 5:45 PM to 6:30 PM on days 1 and 4 of training to assist trainees with accessing their electronic timesheet to allow for the real time reporting of time and expenses that is now a corporate requirement by Westat. Eighty-seven of the 93 new hires successfully completed training.

In 2017, bilingual trainees who had been certified by Westat for their proficiency in Spanish were trained alongside other new interviewers from their home region as done in prior years. However, for several of the dyads administered during main training, bilingual new hires were paired with other bilingual trainees so that they could conduct these practice interviews in Spanish. 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. A total of 15 interviewers successfully completed 2017 bilingual training.

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 practice on searching the provider directory, an exercise on secure messaging (BSM), and an LMS video on ethics. Additional content added for 2017 included tips for improving data quality from experienced interviewers, as well as instruction and exercises on locating techniques and working with proxy respondents. The locating content was incorporated into the in-person training prior to 2016 and was included in the second parts of the post-classroom home study for 2016 and 2017. New interviewers were required to complete this training before beginning their field work. The second component of the post-classroom home study was sent to new interviewers in mid-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 Learning Management System (LMS). A quiz with immediate feedback functionality was also administered through the LMS. Interviewers were instructed to complete this second home study component by the end of 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

3.2.2 Experienced Interviewer Training – Distance Learning Program

The 2017 experienced interviewer home study for the Spring panels and rounds followed the format of prior years. The self-paced home study addressed procedural and questionnaire updates discussed in Chapter 2. The home study also included information about the new sample and associated changes to the field management structure as well as information about administering the Cancer SAQ. Other topics included enhancements to the IMS for sorting cases and tracking completed cases shipped to Westat’s home office. Finally, the home study addressed interviewer production expectations and reviewed key aspects of the data quality initiative launched in 2013. The home study package was sent to all experienced field staff in December 2016 with completion required by the January 10, 2017, the start date for Panel 20 Round 5.

The home study for the Fall rounds of data collection in 2017 also followed established formats. The two-hour self-paced program contained an instructional memo, example materials, and quiz. Data quality topics included the importance of collection and follow up procedures related to all self-administered questionnaires and strategies for efficiently working cases. Interviewers attending the 2017 in-person training were also required to complete a mock interview with their supervisor, field manager, or designated senior interviewer before beginning the fall rounds of data collection.

Another aspect of the continuing education program for late 2016 and early 2017 built on the education model developed in 2015 to freshen the data quality skills of experienced interviewers. This model re-tooled several of the videos and other content administered during the January 2014 in-person training for all experienced interviewers. The 2016-2017 program targeted the group of new interviewers who attended the in-person training for new hires in January 2016. The 48 hires still active at the end of December 2016 completed on-line data quality training modules administered through Westat’s LMS and participated in one of several follow up discussions over WebEx during January 2017. The sessions reviewed key concepts related to data quality, watched video clips highlighting examples of issues affecting data quality, and participated in group discussions moderated by field management staff.

Additional Distance Learning Opportunities for Experienced Field Staff In preparation for the rollout of the modernized CAPI instrument for spring 2018 data collection, a number of ad hoc trainings were provided to field staff. During the fall of 2017, experienced field interviewers, as well as their supervisors and field managers, viewed a brief promotional video to build excitement about upcoming changes to the CAPI instrument, and then completed two home study programs in November and December 2017. The home study modules introduced major enhancements to the CAPI instrument, described the benefits of these changes to MEPS staff and study participants, demonstrated new administration techniques, and provided hands-on practice administering select portions of the MEPS instrument. Field interviewers were also required to complete two entire practice interviews shortly before attending the in-person training in early January 2018.

Home Office/Field Manager/Supervisor Train-the-Trainer Workshop. Home office field operations and design staff conducted a four-day, in-person workshop at the Westat home office from December 5-8, 2017. This workshop was attended by a subset of MEPS home office staff, field directors, field managers, field supervisors, and field interviewers who would serve as trainers or in training support roles at the spring 2018 in-person trainings for new and experienced interviewers. The purpose of the workshop was to prepare staff for their training roles by increasing their familiarity with the upgraded CAPI instrument and new training materials. Home office staff presented a selection of the training modules developed for the spring 2018 interviewer trainings and obtained feedback on the draft materials. These modules focused on administration of portions of the CAPI instrument with the most significant changes from the historical CAPI WVS instrument. In addition, the attending staff engaged in individual, hands-on practice using the updated CAPI instrument while home office staff were available to answer their 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 2017. Selected comparisons to results of prior years are also presented. Tables showing results for all years of the study are provided in Appendix A.

4.1 Data Collection Procedures

MEPS data collection management relies on a set of interrelated systems and procedures designed to accomplish three goals, including efficiency, data quality, and cost containment. The systems include a 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 in development in 2017. The CARI system 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, and on-hold procedures designed to prevent the overwork of cases in the field, form a comprehensive framework for the management of MEPS data collection.

In most respects, the procedures followed in the 2017 data collection mirrored those of prior years. including the administration of a Cancer SAQ administered to Round 1 and Round 3 households. As with other hard copy instruments fielded in previous years, this Cancer SAQ required adjustments to trigger the interviewer’s request for the SAQ in appropriate households and to record the results of the request, and, where needed, of followup efforts. A new version of the BFOS system was developed and implemented in 2017 to modernize the software and allow for future updates and expansion. The new BFOS system maintained the core functionality of the previous management system but also included a number of improvements to report content and formatting and displays for supervisors and interviewers. These updates allowed for better integration of the Computer Assisted Recorded Interview (CARI) system and the supervisor dashboard into the management toolkit.

Other aspects of the data collection protocols remained largely unchanged in 2017. 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 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 super visor notified so that he/she could take the proper course of action.

The advance contact calls to Panel 22 Round 1 households were made by a subset of the experienced MEPS interviewers.

For Round 1 households, interviewers were instructed, with few exceptions, to make initial contact with the household in person. For later rounds, interviewers were allowed to make initial contacts to set appointments by telephone, so long as the household had been cooperative in prior rounds.

Procedures for collecting the medical and pharmacy authorization forms for the Medical Provider Component and self-administered questionnaires remained as in recent prior panels.

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 2017. Data collection began with Round 5, followed by Round 3, and then by Round 1. Because the reference period for Round 5 ends December 31—before the Round 5 field period actually begins—the earlier start for Round 5 was intended to ‘front-load’ as much of the work as possible and to reduce the recall period for health care events to be reported in the final Round 5 interview. 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.

The field period dates for the five rounds of data collection conducted in 2017 are shown in Table 4-1.

**Table 4-1. Data collection schedule and number of weeks per round of data collection, 2017**
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 – November 30	21
5	January 10 – May 15	18

Return To Table Of Contents

Data Quality Initiative. The ongoing MEPS data quality initiative, begun during 2013, continued through 2017 with ongoing revisions to the field monitoring procedures to enhance the feedback provided to the interviewers. The initiative included periodic reinforcement of key training points relating to data quality and supervisor training and reinforcement of the data quality reports to better enable supervisors to monitor interviewer performance on key quality indicators.

Data Quality (DQ) Monitoring. The MEPS data quality 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. While focusing on the occurrence of multiple indicators, the reports allowed the supervisor to identify patterns of interviewer behavior such as shorter than expected interviews, interviews in which records were consistently not used, and low CARI consent rates. CARI review was further integrated into weekly monitoring activities with supervisors listening to portions of over 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. Many of the current monitoring reports were put in place following a refresher training designed to improve data quality. The reports allowed targeted remote retraining to maintain the data quality gain experienced. The tools have proven effective at assisting the training staff to slow the erosion of these skills despite the need for additional remote and in-person training experiences to maintain high quality data in the future.

The reports were produced weekly during the Spring and Fall data collection periods and used the productivity thresholds established in 2014. Interviewers who had completed 5 or more Round 1 cases since their last report cases and interviewers who had completed 10 or more Round 2-5 cases since their last report were listed on the weekly summary. Patterns in behavior over time were documented and systematically discussed with interviewers as part of a retraining effort.

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.

Case Potential Listing. The project refined a model detaining a completed interview from a given case (“propensity to complete”) relative to other pending cases in a region. Timing for implementation of the model during the field period was adjusted to better fit operational schedules by panel and round. The model continued to prove useful for identifying cases with higher potential and enabling supervisors to direct interviewer effort during a field period toward these cases and away from cases not likely to result in completion. 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.

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. Results in Table 4-2 illustrate the relative success of the model for identifying cases likely to result in completion or an appointment during the next week of the field period. The results indicate a higher average rate of completion and appointments for cases designated as high potential as compared to other pending cases being worked by the field.

**Table 4-2. Average completion and success rates for high potential and remainder (non-high potential) cases during high potential phase, spring 2017**
High potential		Remainder
Complete	Successful	Complete	Successful
13.2%	28.2%	10.9%	22.7%

* Note: Success = completion or appointment during the following week.

Institutional Population Case Review. Home office staff continued to review cases in which one or more RU members were reported as entering an institution. Weekly reports were generated to identify the specific RU members in multi-person households who had been coded as institutionalized. The home office team reviews the living arrangements reported for all these persons and researches each reported institution to assess its status as a provider of long-term care and thus of the eligibility of the persons in the institution for MEPS data collection. Based on the review, feedback is provided to the field management staff and cases incorrectly coded as institutionalized are re-fielded for an interview. During 2017, 101 cases were reviewed; of these, 8 (8.0 percent) were determined to have been coded incorrectly and required refielding.

Return To Table Of Contents

4.2 Data Collection Results: Interviewing

Table 4-3 provides an overview of the data collection results for Panels 14 through 22, 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.

Of the data collection rounds conducted in 2017, the response rates for Rounds 2 showed a slight increase over the rates for the corresponding round of 2016 and Round 4 was on par with 2016. However, response rates for Rounds 1 and 3 showed decreases from 2016, with Round 1 exhibiting a 1.8 percent decrease from the high-water mark year of 2016, 0.9 percent lower than the more typical rate of Round 1 in 2015. An estimated 30 percent of the 1.8 percent decrease in Round 1 is attributable to a shift in the distribution of cases in the domains due to the changes in NHIS sample composition in Panel 22. The lack of minority oversample reduced the proportion of households with a higher probability to respond as compared to the previous long-standing sample design.

**Table 4-3. MEPS HC data collection results, panels 14 through 22**
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 14	Round 1	9,899	394	74	140	10,227	7,650	12.3	74.8	80.0
	Round 2	7,669	212	29	27	7,883	7,239	8.3	91.8	95.0
	Round 3	7,226	144	23	34	7,359	6,980	7.3	94.9	96.0
	Round 4	6,974	112	23	30	7,079	6,853	7.7	96.8	97.0
	Round 5	6,845	55	9	30	6,879	6,761	6.2	98.3	98.0
Panel 15	Round 1	8,968	374	73	157	9,258	6,802	13.2	73.5	80.0
	Round 2	6,811	171	19	21	6,980	6,435	8.9	92.2	95.0
	Round 3	6,431	134	23	22	6,566	6,261	7.2	95.4	96.0
	Round 4	6,254	116	15	26	6,359	6,165	7.8	97.0	97.0
	Round 5	6,156	50	5	19	6,192	6,078	6.0	98.2	98.0
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
Panel 22	Round 1	9,835	352	68	86	10,169	7,381	12.8	72.6	80.0
Panel 22	Round 2	7,371	166	19	11	7,545	7,039	8.5	93.3	95.0

* 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, 2010-2017**
Year	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Round 5
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

Hours per completed interview in 2017 showed relatively little change from 2016. Hours per complete increased by 0.4 hours for Round 3 but remained within +/- .2 hours for other rounds. An examination of Spring and Fall 2017 hours per complete combining all active rounds provides a similar description. In Spring 2017, the average hours per complete across all rounds was 8.5 while this figure was 8.2 hours per complete in 2016. The increase in Round 3 drove this difference. Average hours per complete in the Fall were identical in 2017 and 2016 at 7.8 hours.

Return To Table Of Contents

Components of Response and Nonresponse

Table 4-5 summarizes components of nonresponse associated with the Round 1 households by panel beginning in 2012. As the table shows, the components of nonresponse other than refusals—the ‘not located’ and ‘other’—have remained relatively stable over the last five years. The combined total for the ‘not located’ and the ‘other nonresponse’ has ranged only between 5.8 and 5.4 percent. The larger year to year changes are reflected in the percentage of refusals, where increases and decreases in the percentage of refusals align closely with corresponding decreases and increases in the completion rate: for 2017, the 1.8 percentage point increase in the response rate pairs aligns with the 1.6 percentage point increase in the refusal rate.

**Table 4-5. Summary of MEPS round 1 response and nonresponse, 2012-2017 panels**
Year/Panel	2012 P17R1	2013 P18R1	2014 P19R1	2015 P20R1	2016 P21R1	2017 P22R1
Total Sample	10,513	10,468	10,532	11,435	10,405	10,255
Out of scope (%)	1.2	1.1	1.1	1.0	0.9	0.8
Complete (%)	78.2	74.2	71.8	73.5	74.4	72.6
Nonresponse (%)	21.8	25.8	28.2	26.5	25.6	27.4
Refusal (%)	17.1	20.1	22.4	21.0	20.2	21.8
Not located (%)	3.7	4.3	4.2	4.3	3.7	3.9
Other nonresponse (%)	1.0	1.4	1.6	1.2	1.7	1.7

Return To Table Of Contents

Tables 4-6 through 4-13 summarize results for additional aspects of the 2017 data collection. Because Round 1 is the most difficult of the 5 rounds, the presentation focuses primarily on Panel 22, Round 1.

**Table 4-6. Summary of MEPS round 1 response, 2012-2017 panels, by NHIS completion status**
Year	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Original NHIS sample (N)	9,931	9,951	9,970	10,854	9,851	9,835
Percent complete in NHIS	80.9	78.1	81.9	80.6	77.6	81.0
Percent partial complete in NHIS	19.1	21.9	18.1	19.4	22.4	19.0
MEPS Round 1 response rate
Percent complete for NHIS completes	80.7	76.9	74.5	75.9	77.3	75.4
Percent complete for NHIS partial completes	68.2	64.5	58.9	63.1	64.8	62.0

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. 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 2017 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 2017 sample classified as partial complete was lower than in 2016 but on par with 2015 (19. 0 percent vs 22.4 percent in 2016 and 19.4 percent in 2015). 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 at least 12 percentage points less than that for the NHIS completes; in 2017, the difference was 13.4. The decrease in the 2016 Round 1 response rate compared to 2015 was reflected in the response rates for both the NHIS completes and partial completes (1.9 percentage points and 2.8 percentage points, respectively).

Sample Domain

Table 4-7 breaks out response information for the NHIS completes and partial completes by sample domain categories. 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 2017 sample was 13.4 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 – 18.7 percentage points. The differences were smaller for the other domains: 8.6 percentage points for the Asian domain, 13.2 for the Black domain, and 10.8 for the Hispanic domain. Across all 4 domains, refusal rates ranged from a low of 13.7 percent for the Black domain to 29.0 percent among the Asian domain. Within the subdomains, refusals ranged from a low of 11.3 percent for the completes in the Black domain to a high of 38.8 percent for the partial completes in the White/Other domain.

**Table 4-7. Summary of MEPS panel 22 round 1 response rates, by sample domain by NHIS completion status**
By domain	Net sample (N)	Complete (%)	Refusal (%)	Not located (%)	Other nonresponse (%)
Asian	704	63.8	29.0	3.7	3.6
NHIS complete	543	65.7	27.8	3.5	2.9
NHIS partial complete	161	57.1	32.9	4.3	5.6
Black	1,504	79.1	13.7	5.6	1.7
NHIS complete	1,110	82.5	11.3	4.9	1.2
NHIS partial complete	394	69.3	20.6	7.6	2.5
Hispanic	1,972	76.7	16.2	5.4	1.6
NHIS complete	1,449	79.6	14.3	4.9	1.2
NHIS partial complete	523	68.8	18.9	6.9	2.9
White/other	5,989	70.6	24.8	3.1	1.5
NHIS complete	5,098	73.4	22.3	2.8	1.4
NHIS partial complete	891	54.7	38.8	4.5	2.0
All groups	10,169	72.6	21.8	3.9	1.7
NHIS complete	8,200	75.2	19.8	3.5	1.5
NHIS partial complete	1,969	61.5	30.1	5.7	2.6

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 22 was one percentage point more than in 2016, equaling that of 2014 and 2015, while the rate of refusal conversion decreased for 2017 by 1.4 percent. The increase in overall response rate between the two years resulted in part from the larger percentage of ‘ever refused’ households in 2017.

**Table 4-8. Summary of MEPS round 1 results for RUs who ever refused, panels 15-22**
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

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 2017 (13.0 percent) was similar to that of 2016; the final rate of households that were not located after tracing efforts was also similar to 2016 (3.9 percent compared to 3.7 percent). The 2017 ‘not located’ rate was less than 2013-2015, but 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 15-22**
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

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 15 – 22. Timings for all of the rounds of data collection conducted in 2017 show an increase from the prior year, with the increases being somewhat larger in Rounds 1 and 3 than in Rounds 2, 4, and 5.

**Table 4-10. Interview timing comparison, panels 15 through 22 (mean minutes per interview, single-session interviews)**
Panel	Panel 15	Panel 16	Panel 17	Panel 18	Panel 19	Panel 20	Panel 21	Panel 22
Round 1	74.7	74.0	67.8	78.0	85.5	76.4	75.5	79.9
Round 2	87.2	88.1	90.2	102.9	92.3	86.3	85.3	88.8
Round 3	86.4	87.2	94.3	103.1	94.5	89.7	93.4
Round 4	80.2	85.9	99.6	89.0	84.6	80.5	82.7
Round 5	77.6	85.4	92.2	87.4	84.1	85.3

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 20 - 22. Overall, the number of contacts required per case in Panel 22 showed moderate declines from 2016, an overall decrease of .5 attempts per complete that is reflected in varying degrees for both in-person and telephone contacts and among both the NHIS completes and partial completes. This decrease is chiefly attributed to the newly instituted on-hold process for cases at risk of overwork. As in prior years, in Panel 22 the NHIS partial complete cases required substantially greater effort than the NHIS completes, roughly 1.5 additional in-person contacts per household.

**Table 4-11. Mean contact attempts by NHIS completion status, round 1 of panels 20-22**
Contact type	Panel 20, Round 1			Panel 21, Round 1			Panel 22, Round 1
Contact type	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
% of all RUs	100	81	19	100	77.6	22.4	100	81	19
In-person	7.2	6.9	8.5	7.0	6.9	8.3	6.3	6.1	7.3
Telephone	2.1	2.0	2.5	2.0	1.9	2.4	1.5	1.5	1.7
Total	9.6	9.2	11.4	9.3	8.9	11.0	8.4	8.1	9.6

Return To Table Of Contents

4.3 Data Collection Results: Authorization Form Signing Rates

During the Closing section of the MEPS CAPI interview, interviewers are prompted to ask respondents to sign the authorization forms 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 authorization forms 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 authorization forms 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 authorization forms for Panels 15 through 22. Authorization form signing rates for the rounds conducted in 2017 showed mixed results compared to the previous years:

Up slightly from the three previous panels, the Round 1 signing rate is 69.2 percent.
The Round 2 signing rate for Panel 22 continued to increase over the Panel 21 rate, from 75.2 percent to 76.5 percent.
The Round 3 signing rate, bounced back this year from a decrease to 69.4 percent in Panel 20 to 71.6 percent in Panel 21.
The Round 4 signing rate increased again this year, from 76.9 percent to 79.5 percent.
The signing rate for Panel 20 Round 5 (74.4 percent) declined slightly from the level of the preceding year(74.5) and lower than rates from 2014 -2015.

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 4-12. Signing rates for medical provider authorization forms for panels 15 through 22**
Panel/round		Authorization forms requested	Authorization forms signed	Signing rate (%)
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
Panel 22	Round 2	22,913	17,530	76.5

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 4-13 shows signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms for Panels 15 through 22. In early MEPS panels, pharmacy authorization forms were collected only in Rounds 3 and 5. Beginning in 2009, the project began requesting pharmacy authorization forms 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 19; however, all rounds in 2017 show an increase in the signing rate with rounds 2-4 exhibiting an increase in excess of one percent.

**Table 4-13. Signing rates for pharmacy authorization forms for panels 15 through 22**
Panel/round		Authorization forms requested	Authorization forms signed	Signing rate (%)
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	9,099	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
Panel 22	Round 2	10,510	7,919	75.4

Return To Table Of Contents

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

Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQ) are requested from 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. Table 4-14 shows both the round-specific response rates and the combined rates after the follow up round is completed. Prior to Panel 18, persons completing the SAQ received $5.00; the gift was discontinued with Panel 18. In the years shown prior to Panel 18, the collection rate for the SAQ, after follow up, had remained relatively steady at about 92-95 percent. In the three cycles of SAQ collection completed since the $5.00 gift was discontinued, the response rate after followup has ranged from 86.2 percent (Panel 21, Rounds 2-3) to 89.9 percent (Panel 18, Rounds 2-3).The initial round of SAQ data collection for Panel 22 (Round 2) also showed a increase of 3 percent in response compared to prior panels; followup for this SAQ was still active in early 2018.

**Table 4-14. Results of Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) collection for panels 15 through 22**
Panel/round		SAQs requested	SAQs completed	SAQs refused	Other nonresponse	Response rate (%)
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
Panel 22	Round 2	12,304	9,929	1,086	1,289	80.7

Return To Table Of Contents

In Rounds 3 and 5, 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 Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) for Panels 14 through 21 are shown in Table 4-15. Completion rates for the DCS have declined over the years shown in the table, ending below 83 percent for the first time in Panel 21, Round 3.

Table 4-15. Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection for panels 14 through 21

**Table 4-15. Results of Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS) collection for panels 14 through 21**
Panel/round		DCSs requested	DCSs completed	Response rate (%)
Panel 14	Round 3	1,174	1,048	89.3
Panel 14	Round 5	1,177	1,066	90.6
Panel 15	Round 3	1,117	1,000	89.5
Panel 15	Round 5	1,097	990	90.3
Panel 16	Round 3	1,425	1,283	90.0
Panel 16	Round 5	1,358	1,256	92.5
Panel 17	Round 3	1,315	1,177	89.5
Panel 17	Round 5	1,308	1,174	89.8
Panel 18	Round 3	1,362	1,182	86.8
Panel 18	Round 5	1,342	1,187	88.5
Panel 19	Round 3	1,272	1,124	88.4
Panel 19	Round 5	1,316	1,144	87.2
Panel 20	Round 3	1,412	1,190	84.5
Panel 20	Round 5	1,3862	1,174	84.9
Panel 21	Round 3	1,422	1,170	82.5

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 4-16 shows collection rates for the Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ), which was first collected in 2016 and again in 2017 (in Panel 22, Round 1 and Panel 21, Round 3). Key RU members age 18 and older who reported in the MEPS interview that they had cancer were requested to complete a short questionnaire asking about their experiences with cancer. The response rate for the targeted respondents in Panel 22 Round 1 was 82.4 percent (almost three percent higher than in Panel 21 Round 1); for those in Panel 21, Round 3 households, the rate of 77.8 percent was down compared to 83.4 percent in Panel 20, Round 3. The higher cooperation rate in Round 3 is most likely due to the higher cooperation that MEPS receives from households who have participated in earlier rounds of the survey.

**Table 4-16. Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ) collection rates**
Panel/round	C-SAQs requested	C-SAQs completed	Response rate (%)
Panel 20 Round 3	935	780	83.4
Panel 21 Round 1	891	709	79.6
Panel 21 Round 3	171	133	77.8
Panel 22 Round 1	1,060	873	82.4

Return To Table Of Contents

4.5 Data Collection Results: Patient Profile Collection

The pharmacy component of the Medical Provider Component collects information about MEPS participants’ prescription medicine usage as captured on the summary ‘patient profile’ form generated by pharmacies. The patient profile lists the prescriptions filled or refilled for the patient during the year. Continuing the procedure started several years ago, the project sends a mailed request to household respondents who have reported using certain pharmacies, asking them to contact those pharmacies to request a copy of their patient profile. The procedure serves as a backup effort to obtain information from pharmacies that do not participate when contacted by representatives from the Medical Provider Component. In 2017, the collection of profiles by the MEPS household component operation was limited to respondents in Panel 20, Round 5 households. These respondents had completed their full cycle household interviews, and no follow up efforts were made for those who did not respond to the mailed request.

For the 2017 effort, summarized in Table 4-17, patient profile requests were sent to 2,723 patient-pharmacy pairs in 1,953 reporting units. Completed profiles were received for 12.0 percent of the pairs, a rate lower than that of the previous year, but comparable to that of the two years prior shown in the table. Despite the overall low rate of return, the effort does allow the study to include some prescription profile data for patients associated with pharmacies whose data would otherwise be totally unrepresented in the MEPS pharmacy estimates.

Return To Table Of Contents

**Table 4-17. Results of patient profile collection in 2012 through 2017**
Pharmacy	Total number	Total received	Percent received	Total complete	Completes as a percent of total
2017 – P19R5 all mail collection
Total RUs	1,953	342	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%	203	14.6%
Total Pairs	1,990	348	17.4%	290	14.5%

Return To Table Of Contents

4.6 Quality Control

As in past years, validation interviews were completed with a portion of the participating MEPS households. The validation interviews were conducted primarily by telephone by the MEPS team of seven validation interviewers. 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.

At least 10 percent of the interviews completed by each interviewer on each panel/round are validated during the data collection period. In addition, for interviewers who travel and complete interviews outside of their home regions, an additional 10 percent of the interviews they complete for a given region are validated. Finally, all interviews completed in less than 30 minutes are validated.

Approximately 22.8 percent of the MEPS households who participated during Spring data collection and 23.7 percent of those who participated during the Fall period completed a validation interview. This is about 5 percent less for Spring and Fall data collection than 2016. In addition MEPS field supervisors and managers observed 77 interviews during the year as part of a comprehensive mentoring process. Generally, MEPS is developing and using technical solutions in place of in-person observations; however, there are specific needs met by specialized observation. This total included observation of all 65 of the interviewers who were newly hired at the start of the year and still active at the time of their 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.

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 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 which was provided to AHRQ whenever an entry or update to an incident occurred. A security incident report was also filed for each confirmed incident with the Westat IRB.

A total of 11 incidents of lost or stolen laptops or hardcopy material were reported in 2017. Two MEPS laptops were reported lost or stolen; however, both were recovered. In both reported laptop thefts/losses 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.

Nine reports included suspected or confirmed loss of hard copy materials with respondent PII or breach of confidentiality. In three of these incidents the documents were recovered without compromise of PII. Authorization forms with PII and respondent signatures, reported lost in six incidents, were not recovered. The respondents in these households were notified of the loss and asked to re-sign the forms; all but two respondents agreed to re-sign forms. The HHS Privacy Incident Response Team (PIRT) was notified of all incidents involving the loss/compromise of PII.

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

As each wave of cases became available for fielding, clerical staff created RU folders containing the hard-copy materials associated with each case. Materials included authorization forms, follow-up SAQs, and mini labels to be affixed to new documents generated during data collection. At the same time the cases became available, supervisors received a Supervisor Assignment Log listing all of the cases to be released in their region for that wave. 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 case folders directly to the interviewers. A file with the assignments was also sent to programming staff to make the electronic assignments in the field management system, Basic Field Operating System (BFOS).

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 then forwarded to the appropriate supervisor. 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 receive and initiate 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 2014 – 2017.

**Table 5-1. Number and percent of respondents who called the respondent information line, 2014-2017**
Calls made	Original sample size	Number of calls	Calls as a percent of sample size
Round 1
2014 – Panel 19 Round 1	9,970	340	3.4%
2015 – Panel 20 Round 1	10,854	436	4.0%
2016 – Panel 21 Round 1	9,851	301	3.1%
2017 – Panel 22 Round 1	9,835	346	3.5%
Rounds 3/5
2014 – Panel 17 Round 5/Panel 18 Round 3	14,887	639	4.3%
2015 – Panel 18 Round 5/Panel 19 Round 3	14,331	691	4.8%
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%
Rounds 2/4
2014 – Panel 18 Round 4/Panel 19 Round 2	14,667	737	5.0%
2015 – Panel 19 Round 4/Panel 20 Round 2	15,249	570	3.7%
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%

Table 5-2 shows the number and types of calls received on the respondent hotline during 2016 and 2017. 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, 2016 and 2017**
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

Monitoring Production. Home office staff monitored production, cost, and data quality and 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. Validation abstracts, which contain information from the interview to be used during interview validation calls, were generated electronically and sent via BFOS Secure Messaging (BSM) to the validators. 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. All material containing personally identifiable information (PII) was shipped via Federal Express which facilitates tracking of late or lost shipments. Details of each FedEx shipment, including the FedEx tracking number and RUIDs of cases contained in the package were entered by the sender in a FedEx notification module in the field management system (BFOS) which generated a BSM message to alert the recipient of the expected package. 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, DCSs and Cancer SAQs were receipted and sent for TeleForm scanning. The receipt department also tracked the hardcopy receipts against dates interviews had been reported as completed and transmitted; they alerted the field whenever the materials for a completed interview did not arrive within 10 days of the interview date.

Helpdesk Support. The MEPS CAPI Helpdesk again provided technical support for field interviewing activities during 2017. Helpdesk staff were available 7 days a week to help field staff resolve CAPI, Field Management System, transmission, and laptop problems. Incoming calls are 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 delivered in 2017.

Return To Table Of Contents

6.1 Data Delivery

The primary objective of MEPS is to produce a series of data files for public release each calendar year. The interround 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.

Public Use File Deliveries

The principal files delivered during calendar year 2017 are listed below.

The 2016 Point in Time File;
Full Year 2015 Use and Insurance File;
Full Year 2015 Use and Expenditure File;
Full Year 2015 Expenditure Event Files for events included in the Medical Provider Component data collection including hospital inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room events, office-based physician visits, and home health agency events;
Full Year 2015 Expenditure Event files for events not included in the Medical Provider Component data collection, including dental events, office-based non-physician events, and other medical expenses;
Full Year 2015 Prescribed Medicines Expenditure File;
Full Year 2015 Medical Conditions File;
Full Year 2015 Jobs File;
Full Year 2015 Appendix to MEPS Event Files;
2015 Person Round Plan File.

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 2017 appears in the 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 delivered in 2016 for MPC collection of data about 2015 health events, Westat again applied the program developed in 2014 for unduplicating 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 2017, following completion of MPC data collection and processing for 2015 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 2015 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

6.2 Processing to Support Data Delivery

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 2017, 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 Point-in-Time and 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.

At several points in recent years AHRQ has accelerated the schedule for delivery of the annual files in order to make MEPS data more quickly available to users. Given the interconnections among the many processes involved in preparing the files, acceleration requires coordination not only among the analytic groups who prepare the files, but also with schedules for Household data collection and for file transfers with the Medical Provider Component. The MEPS contract called for an acceleration of one month for files to be delivered in 2017 (for data year 2015). The project began planning to meet that requirement during 2014, increased these efforts in 2015, and tested the new schedule for files delivered in 2016. Table 6-1 shows the pattern of acceleration for the file deliveries for data years 2013-2015. The dates shown reflect the end point of file preparation – delivery for web release.

Return To Table Of Contents

**Table 6-1. Delivery schedule for major MEPS files, 2015-2017**
Year	2015 (FY 13)	2016 (FY 14)	2017 (FY 15)
Point in Time File	5/15/15	4/15/16	4/15/17
Full Year Use File	2/13/15	2/12/16	2/10/17
Non-MPC Event Files	6/12/15	6/10/16	5/12/17
MPC Event Files	7/10/15	7/14/16	6/9/17
Prescribed Medicine File	8/14/15	8/12/16	7/14/17
Full Year Expenditure File	9/11/15	9/9/16	8/11/17

Return To Table Of Contents

Support Activities

A number of discrete activities, described briefly below, contribute to the delivery effort.

Return To Table Of Contents

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 2016 to capture data collected in the Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS), the Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ), and the Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire (CSAQ). 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. The edits and the flags settings used with TeleForm replicate those embedded in the Computer Assisted Data Entry (CADE) programs used in prior years for the DCS and SAQ so that the TeleForm data have the same edits and flags as in previous years.

Return To Table Of Contents

Coding

Coding refers to the process of converting data items collected in text format to pre-specified numeric codes. The plan for the 2017 coding effort (for items collected during data year 2016) was described in Deliverables 17.506, .507, and .508 ). For the MEPS-HC, 5 types of information require coding including:

Medical conditions;
Prescribed medicines;
Source of Payment for medical events and prescriptions;
Industry/Occupation; and
Geographic identifiers.

Condition and Prescribed Medicine Coding

In 2017, coding was performed on the conditions and prescribed medicine text strings reported by household respondents for calendar year 2016. An automated system enabled coders to easily search for and assign the appropriate ICD-10-CM code (for conditions) or 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, uncodeable text strings, foreign medicines, and compound drugs. All coding actions were tracked in the system and error rates calculated weekly. Both the condition and prescribed medicine coding efforts were staffed by 3 coders.

The 2017 coding cycle was the first year, medical conditions were coded using ICD-10-CM codes. Westat and AHRQ began planning for this transition in 2015 with decisions for implementation of the transition finalized in August 2016. Given the limited specificity of condition information reported by household respondents and the greatly increased specificity required for coding to ICD-10, the decision was made to limit coding to the first three bytes of the fully detailed seven byte ICD-10 codes. Westat used the General Equivalence Mappings (GEM), a crosswalk developed by CMS, for associating ICD-9-CM codes with their ICD-10 equivalent, for converting the existing history from ICD-9 to ICD-10. Additionally, the history table was truncated to include only the five most recent years of data. Due to the projected increase in coding workload, the schedule for the 2017 coding cycle was revised so that condition coding for DY2016 began early in March, approximately six weeks earlier than prior years.

For data year 2016, a total of 21,517 text strings were manually coded for health conditions, representing an increase of 8,563 strings when compared to the previous year. This total was the net after two stages of file unduplication. In the first stage of unduplication, a program was run to identify exact duplicate text strings among the 120,461 condition strings reported by household respondents; the program identified 29,173 unique strings. In the second stage the unique strings were compared to the history table consisting of strings coded in the past 5 years (2011-2015) that had successfully been converted to ICD-10-CM codes using the GEM crosswalk.. Where strings in this comparison matched, the ICD-10 code assigned previously was assigned to the new text string; this step reduced the workload to the 21,517 strings actually coded in 2017. However, this represented a 60 percent increase in the workload for manual coding.

In addition to the fact that this was the first year coding to ICD-10-CM, household reported descriptions of medical conditions are frequently incomplete or ambiguous and historically difficult to code with precision. The individual coders’ error rates in 2017 (3 percent on average) was comparable to the previous year although remaining above the contract target of 2 percent. To ensure the quality of coding, all of the coding work was reviewed by a highly experienced and credentialed verifier whose error rate is below the contract target. One-on-one training was conducted with individual coders as needed.

Prescription medicine text strings were coded to the set of Generic Product Identifier (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, ARHQ developed procedures for assigning partial GPI codes and higher level drug categories that were implemented in 2017 for coding 2016 data. 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 reduced the number of prescribed medicine text strings sent for manual coding significantly; 10,352 strings were coded from 2016 data compared to the 24,634 strings coded previously from 2015 data. Like the 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 initial total of 213,256 strings was reduced to 56,239 in the first stage of unduplication and to the 29,173 strings in the second stage with AHRQ’s matching programs further reducing the number of strings to 10,352. The overall coding error rate (across all three coders) was 3 percent, 1 percent higher than the contractual goal of 2 percent. As with the 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 ten source of payment options in which health care expenditures are reported in the MEPS public use files. These payment sources include:

Out of pocket;
Medicare;
Medicaid;
Private Health Insurance;
Veterans Administration, including CHAMPVA;
Tricare or CHAMPUS;
Other federal;
Other state and local;
Workers’ Compensation; and
Other.

The SOP Coding Guidelines Manual, with the schema from the Coding Plan, is updated each year before the start of the annual coding cycle, submitted for AHRQ approval, and distributed to the coders. Since the Medical Provider Component 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.

Each year, the source of payment text strings extracted from the reference year data are 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 2017 was for the payment sources reported for 2016 events. For the bill was paid by a source identified in response to a direct question about payment (REIMNAM), a total of 2,987 previously coded source of payment text strings were reviewed and updated as needed. After unduplication of the strings reported for 2016, coders reviewed and coded 1,277 strings. For the bill was sent to a source other than the respondent and the respondent names that source (WHOBILL#,) coders reviewed and coded 2,290 strings. For text strings reported as direct payers for prescription medicine (SRCNAME), 460 previously coded strings were reviewed and updated as needed. And 318 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) Computer-Assisted Industry and Occupation (I&O) codes, which can be cross-walked to the 2007 North American Industrial Classification (NAIC) coding system, and 2010 Standard Occupational Classifications (SOC). The codes characterize the jobs reported by household respondents and are released annually on the FY JOBS file. During 2017, 18,133 jobs were coded for the 2016 JOBS file.

Return To Table Of Contents

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 FY2016 coding cycle, 18,659 unique address records for full year reporting units were processed, as well as 7,277 records for point-in-time households.

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**
Spring/Fall Data Collection	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 2005	22,548
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	25,485
Panel 20 Round 5	7,723
Panel 21 Round 3	7,507
Panel 22 Round 1	10,255
July-December 2017	14,714
Panel 21 Round 4	7,158
Panel 22 Round 2	7,556

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	5500	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	6629	6529	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
Panel 22	Round 1	9,835	352	68	86	10,169	7,381	12.8	72.7
Panel 22	Round 2	7,371	166	19	11	7,545	7,039	8.5	93.3

* 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 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
Panel 22	Round 2	22,913	17,530	76.5

Return To Table Of Contents

**Table A-4 Signing rates for pharmacy authorization**
Panel/round		Permission forms requested	Permission forms signed	Signing rate (%)
Panel 1	Round 3	19,913	14,468	72.7
Panel 1	Round 5	8,685	6,002	69.1
Panel 2	Round 3	12,241	8,694	71.0
Panel 2	Round 5	8,640	6,297	72.9
Panel 3	Round 3	9,016	5,929	65.8
Panel 3	Round 5	7,569	5,200	68.7
Panel 4	Round 3	11,856	8,280	69.8
Panel 4	Round 5	10,688	8,318	77.8
Panel 5	Round 3	9,248	6,852	74.1
Panel 5	Round 5	8,955	7,174	80.1
Panel 6	Round 3	19,305	15,313	79.3
Panel 6	Round 5	17,981	14,864	82.7
Panel 7	Round 3	14,456	11,611	80.3
Panel 7	Round 5	13,428	11,210	83.5
Panel 8	Round 3	14,391	11,533	80.1
Panel 8	Round 5	13,422	11,049	82.3
Panel 9	Round 3	14,334	11,189	78.1
Panel 9	Round 5	13,416	10,893	81.2
Panel 10	Round 3	13,928	10,706	76.9
Panel 10	Round 5	12,869	10,260	79.7
Panel 11	Round 3	14,937	11,328	75.8
Panel 11	Round 5	13,778	11,332	82.3
Panel 12	Round 3	10,840	8,242	76.0
Panel 12	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
Panel 22	Round 2	10,510	7,919	75.4

Return To Table Of Contents

**Table A-5 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
Panel 22	Round 2	12,304	9,929	1,086	1,289	80.7

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

Return To Table Of Contents

Table A-6 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
Panel 5	Round 5	570	500	87.7
Panel 6	Round 3	1,166	1,000	85.8
Panel 6	Round 5	1,202	1,166	97.0
Panel 7	Round 3	870	848	97.5
Panel 7	Round 5	869	820	94.4
Panel 8	Round 3	971	885	91.1
Panel 8	Round 5	977	894	91.5
Panel 9	Round 3	1,003	909	90.6
Panel 9	Round 5	904	806	89.2
Panel 10	Round 3	1,060	939	88.6
Panel 10	Round 5	1,078	965	89.5
Panel 11	Round 3	1,188	1,030	86.7
Panel 11	Round 5	1,182	1,053	89.1
Panel 12	Round 3	917	825	90.0
Panel 12	Round 5	883	815	92.3
Panel 13	Round 3	1,278	1,182	92.5
Panel 13	Round 5	1,278	1,154	90.3
Panel 14	Round 3	1,174	1,048	89.3
Panel 14	Round 5	1,177	1,066	90.6
Panel 15	Round 3	1,117	1,000	89.5
Panel 15	Round 5	1,097	990	90.3
Panel 16	Round 3	1,425	1,283	90.0
Panel 16	Round 5	1,358	1,256	92.5
Panel 17	Round 3	1,315	1,177	89.5
Panel 17	Round 5	1,308	1,174	89.8
Panel 18	Round 3	1,362	1,182	86.8
Panel 18	Round 5	1,342	1,187	88.5
Panel 19	Round 3	1,272	1,124	88.4
Panel 19	Round 5	1,316	1,144	87.2
Panel 20	Round 3	1,412	1,190	84.5
Panel 20	Round 5	1,386	1,174	84.9
Panel 21	Round 3	1,422	1,170	82.5

* Tables represent combined DCS/proxy DCS collection.

Return To Table Of Contents

**Table A-7. 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

Return To Table Of Contents

**Table A-8. Files delivered during 2017**
Date	Delivery	Group	Description
1/3/2017	2015	UEGN	Delivery of the 2015 Pre-Imputation Files
1/4/2017	2015	HINS	Delivery of the 2015 HINS Building Block Variables and COVERM Tables for Panel 19 Rounds 3 – 5 and Panel 20 Rounds 1 – 3
1/4/2017	2015	HINS	Delivery of the 2015 HINS Month-by-Month, Tricare plan, Private, Medicare, and Medicaid HMO/Gatekeeper, and PMEDIN/DENTIN variables
1/4/2017	2015	HINS	Delivery of the FY 2015 HINS Medicare Part D supplemental variables
1/4/2017	2015	PRPL	FY15 PRPL Specifications Coverage Record and HMO Variables, JOBS Link and Variable Editing, and Variable Editing: Post JOBS Linking
1/5/2017	2017	DOCM	2017 NPI provider file uploaded to RTI
1/6/2017	2016	EMPL	Unweighted Medians for the 2016 Point-in-Time Hourly Wage Variable
1/6/2017	2015	HLTH	Delivery of Adult and Child Height and Weight for the MEPS Master Files for FY 2015
1/6/2017	2015	PCND	2015 Person-Level Priority Conditions Cross-Tabulations
1/9/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 MPC files for Sample selection - Wave 1
1/9/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 PC Sample file - Wave 1
1/9/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 Provider file for NPI coding - Wave 1
1/9/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 MOS Sample file - Wave 1
1/9/2017	2015	GNRL	Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) -P20R4
1/9/2017	2015	UEGN	Specifications for the 2015 Non-MPC Expenditure Event Files
1/10/2017	2015	UEGN	The 2015 Utilization Standard Error Benchmarking Tables Using Person Use PUF Weights- PERWT15P
1/11/2017	2015	WGTS	Create the Full Year 2015 Person Use SAQ Weights Delivery File
1/16/2016	2015	GNRL	Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) – P21R2
1/17/2017	2015	ADMN	Delivery of 2015 FAMID Variables and CPS Family Identifier
1/17/2017	2015	DEMO	Delivery of the Output Listings for Final Case Review of the MOPID and DAPID Variables’ Construction for FY2015
1/17/2017	2015	COND	2015 Preliminary Conditions File and Associated Documents for AHRQ Review
1/18/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2015 JOBS File Codebook and Delivery
1/18/2017	2015	GNRL	FY2015 Use PUF Preliminary Codebook and Delivery Document for AHRQ and NCHS Review
1/18/2017	2015	GNRL	FY 2015 (Panel 19 and Panel 20) Delivery Database Snapshots JOBS Files with Industry and Occupation Codes, COND Files with Condition Codes, and CCS Codes
1/25/2017	2015	UEPD	2015 INSURC15 variable for use in the Prescribed Medicines Imputation
1/26/2017	2015	DEMO	Delivery of the MOPID and DAPID Variables for FY2015
2/1/2017	2016	EMPL	PIT2016 Panel 21 Round 1 Editing of High Wage Outliers – Request for Approval
2/1/2017	2015	UEGN	2015 MPC HHA provider reported low charge events
2/1/2017	2016	WGTS	Panel 21 Round 1 DU weights review output
2/1/2017	2016	WGTS	Panel 21 Round 1 Family weights review output
2/2/2017	2016	WGTS	Panel 21 Round 1 Person weights review output
2/2/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS: Establishing Variance Estimation Strata and PSUs for the 2016 Point-in-Time PUF Panel 21 Round 1, and Panel 20, Round 3
2/3/2017	2015	WGTS	Panel 20/Round 3 Person weights review output
2/6/2017	2015	WGTS	Panel 20/Round 3 family weights review output
2/10/2017	2015	GNRL	HC-176: 2015 Jobs Public Use File Delivery for Web Release
2/10/2017	2015	GNRL	HC-174: Delivery of the Full Year 2015 Use PUF for Web Release
2/13/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS Panel 20 Round 3 - Creation of Family-Level Weights
2/13/2017	2016	WGTS	Creation of the Delivery File for the 2016 PIT P20R3/P21R1 Preliminary Individual Panel Person and Family Weights and Preliminary (draft) Variance Strata and PSU
2/14/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS Panel 21 Round 1 – DU Level Weight
2/16/2017	2015	COND	FY 2015 Preliminary CLNK File
2/16/2017	2016	EMPL	PIT2016 Panel 21 Round 1 Editing of High Wage Outliers – Request for Approval
2/16/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS Panel 21 Round 1 – Family-Level Weights
2/16/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS Panel 21 Round 1 – Person-Level Weights
2/16/2017	2016	WGTS	Preliminary run for Estimating Standard Errors Using SUDAAN for the Panel 21, Round 1 and Panel 20, Round 3 PIT 2016 PUF Data—Checking the Variance Strata and PSUs
2/17/2017	2015	UEGN	Deliver the variable List for the 2015 Non-MPC Expenditure Event PUF Files (DN, OM and HH)
2/21/2017	2015	UEPD	2015 Prescribed Medicines price outlier review
2/21/2017	2016	WGTS	2016 P20R3/P21R1 Family weights review output
2/22/2017	2016	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2016 Point-in-Time File
2/22/2017	2016	WGTS	2016 P20R3/P21R1 Person weights review output
2/24/2017	2015	WGTS	MEPS Panels 19 and 20 Full Year 2015: Combine and Rake the P19 and P20 Weights to Obtain the P19P20FY15 Person-Level USE Weights
2/24/2017	2015	WGTS	Establishing Variance Estimation Strata and PSUs, and Estimating Standard Errors Using SUDAAN for the Full Year 2015 PUF, Panel 19, Rounds 3-5 and Panel 20, Rounds 1-3
3/2/2017	2016	EMPL	Point-In-Time 2016 Hourly Wage Top Code Value
3/2/2017	2015	MEPS	Updated SOP Coding Static Table from the 2015 MPC, for transfer to Westat
3/3/2017	2016	WGTS	Delivery of 2016 Point-in-Time Person-Level and Family-Level Weights
3/3/2017	2016	WGTS	Internal Use File Used for the Weights Development for 2016 Point-in-Time
3/6/2017	2016	WGTS	Final: Estimating Standard Errors Using SUDAAN for the Panel 21, Round 1 and Panel 20, Round 3 PIT 2016 PUF Data—Checking the Variance Strata and PSUs
3/6/2017	2016	WGTS	(Point-in-Time) Complete construction and hand off all Point-in-Time weight variables (person weight, family weight, variance PSU, variance strata, MSA13, and REGION13) - P20/P21
3/6/2017	2015	WGTS	MEPS, Combined Panel 20/Round 3 and Panel 21/Round 1, Computation of the Composite Family Weights
3/7/2017	2016	HINS	2016 HINS Point in Time Delivery Preliminary Data File for Benchmarking
3/7/2017	2015	UEGN	The 2015 DN/HHP/OM/HHA Events Final Imputation Files
3/7/2017	2015	UEGN	2015 Benchmark Tables for DN, OM, HHP, and HHA
3/8/2017	2016	INCO	Delivery of the 2016 NHIS Link File
3/9/2017	2016	WGTS	Delivery of MEPS Panel 21 DU Weighting Master File
3/10/2017	2015	CODE	2015 File of GEO Coded Addresses – for the MEPS Master Files
3/10/2017	2016	EMPL	Delivery of the Pre-Top Coded Version of the Point-in-Time Hourly Wage Variables for 2016 Point-in-Time
3/14/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2015 Conditions File Delivery Document and Recode Materials for Review
3/14/2017	2016	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2016 Point-in-Time Delivery Document for AHRQ and NCHS Review (Deliverable #: 16.611 (Draft) )
3/14/2017	2015	UEGN	2015 Benchmark Tables for MVN Events
3/14/2017	2015	UEGN	The 2015 MVN Final Imputation File
3/16/2017	2015	GNRL	Redelivery: Preliminary Version of the 2015 Conditions File Delivery Document and Recode Materials for Review
3/17/2017	2015	WGTS	Delivery File Providing a Linkage between the Person Records Sampled for MEPS Panel 21 and the Person Records in the 2015 NHIS Weights File
3/17/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS, Combined Panel 20/Round 3 and Panel 21/Round 1, Computation of the Composite Person Weights
3/20/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS Panel 21 Round 1 – Creation of DU Weighting Master File Delivery
3/22/2017	2015	GNRL	2015 Preliminary Conditions File and Associated Documents for NCHS and AHRQ Review
3/22/2017	2016	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2016 Point-in-Time Delivery Document and Codebook for AHRQ and NCHS Review (16.611 (Draft))
3/27/2017	2015	UEGN	Deliver the variable List for the 2015 MPC Expenditure Event PUF Files (OP, OB, ER and IP)
3/29/2017	2015	WGTS	FY2015 Combined Panels Expenditure Person Weight (PERWT15F) review output – delivery
3/29/2017	2015	WGTS	FY2015 Combined Panels Expenditure Person Weight (PERWT15F) review output - delivery
3/29/2017	2015	WGTS	FY2015 Individual Panels Expenditure Person Weights (WTP19P15F and WTP20P15F) review output, digital delivery
4/3/2017	2015	GNRL	Delivery of the File Containing Variables Recoded or Dropped from the USE PUF after DRB Review - P19/P20
4/7/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 MPC files for Sample selection - Wave 2
4/7/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 PC Sample file - Wave 2
4/7/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 Provider file for NPI coding - Wave 2
4/7/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 MOS Sample file - Wave 2
4/8/2017	2015	UEGN	2015 Benchmark Tables for MPC Events
4/10/2017	2015	UEGN	The 2015 Final Imputation Files: ER, HS, MVE, OP and SBD
4/10/2017	2015	WGTS	Delivery of the Individual Panel Raked Person Weights for P19P20FY15
4/10/2017	2015	WGTS	Delivery of the FY 2015 Expenditure File Original Person Weight
4/12/2017	2015	GNRL	Delivery of the File Containing Variables Recoded or Dropped from the USE PUF after DRB Review - P19/P20
4/13/2017	2015	EMPL	Delivery of 2015 Covered Person Records for Employment Variable Imputation
4/13/2017	2015	PRPL	Delivery of the FY 2015 OOPELIG2 Dataset for Approval
4/14/2017	2015	GNRL	NCHS Checklists and Preliminary Versions of Documents for the FY 2015 Non-MPC Event (DV, OM, and HH) PUF
4/14/2017	2016	GNRL	HC177: 2016 Point-in-Time PUF Delivery for Web Release
4/17/2017	2016	GNRL	Delivery of the Person-Level Sample Crosswalk Files for Panel 21 Round 1 - Round 2
4/17/2017	2016	HINS	Changes to the FY 2016 HINS Basic and Inter-Round
4/19/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Versions of the 2015 Non-MPC Event (DV, OM, and HH) PUF Codebooks and Documents for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
4/19/2017	2014 2015	PCND	2014 and 2015 Remission and Cancer Age of Diagnosis Variable Datasets
4/20/2017	2016	GNRL	Delivery of the File Containing Variables Recoded or Dropped from the 2016 Point-In-Time PUF after DRB Review – P20/P21
4/20/2017	2015	WGTS	P19P20 FY2015 Person-level SAQ Expenditure Weights
4/20/2017	2015	WGTS	Developing Sample Weights for the MEPS Diabetes Questionnaire Component (DCS) for the Panels 19 and 20 Full Year 2015 Expenditure File (PUF)
4/24/2017	2015	UEGN	The 2015 Utilization Standard Error Benchmarking Tables Using Expenditure File Person Original Weight- PERWT15F_ORIG
4/26/2017	2015	WGTS	Delivery of the Poverty-Adjusted Family Level Weight, CPS-Like Family Level Weight, Poverty-Adjusted DCS and SAQ Weights for FY2015
5/3/2017	2015	PRPL	Delivery of the FY 2015 PRPL Hot Deck Imputation Results for Approval
5/3/2017	2015	WGTS	Delivery of the Individual Panel 19 and Panel 20 SAQ Expenditure Weight for FY2015
5/5/2017	2015	CODE	Weekly report #5 for condition coding - DY2016
5/5/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of 2015 PMED PUF (RX15V01)
5/8/2017	2015	WGTS	Panel 19 and Panel 20 Combined, Full Year 2015: Raking Person Weights Including the Poverty Status to Obtain the Expenditure Person Weights.
5/10/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of 2015 PMED PUF (RX15V02)
5/11/2017	2015	UEGN	Predictive Mean Matching Imputation Method Applied to the Expenditure Imputation of the MPC Event Types for the Full Year 2015 Data
5/11/2017	2015	UEGN	Predictive Mean Matching Imputation Method Applied to the Expenditure Imputation of the non-MPC Event Types for the Full Year 2015 Data
5/11/2017	2015	WGTS	P19 FY2015 Person-level SAQ Expenditure Weights
5/11/2017	2015	WGTS	P20 FY2015 Person-level SAQ Expenditure Weights
5/11/2017	2015	WGTS	Derivation of the 2015 Full Year Expenditure Family Weight, MEPS and CPS-Like, for Panel 19 and Panel 20 Combined
5/12/2017	2015	GNRL	HC-178b, HC-178c, and HC-178h: 2015 Expenditure Event PUFs for Non-MPC Event Types (DV, OM, and HH) and All Related Files for Web Release
5/12/2017	2015	GNRL	NCHS Checklists and Preliminary Versions of Documents for the FY 2015 MPC Event (IP, ER, OP, OB) PUFs
5/15/2017	2015	GNRL	FY15 Office-Based Medical Provider Visits Dataset (HC178G)
5/16/2017	2015	PRPL	Delivery of the FY 2015 OOPELIG2 Dataset for Approval
5/17/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Versions of the 2015 MPC Event (IP, ER, OP, OB) PUF Codebooks for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
5/17/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of 2015 PMED PUF (RXNAME_CANNABIS_REVIEW.xlsx - A Complete Listing of all Cases for Cannabis Related Confidentiality Risks)
5/17/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of 2015 PMED PUF (TC15XTABS.lst, TC15XTABS.xlsx)
5/22/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of 2015 PMED PUF (RX15V03)
5/25/2017	2015	WGTS	Delivery of the FY 2015 Expenditure File Final Person Weight – PERWT15F
5/26/2017	2016	DOCM	DY2016 Wave III Estimates for MPC Sample File
5/31/2017	2015	DOCM	Delivery of the Updated 2015 MOS Sample file - Wave 1 USCP
6/5/2017	2015	GNRL	NCHS/DRB Review of FY 2015 Event PUFs (IP, ER, OP, & OB)
6/5/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of 2015 PMED PUF (RX15V05.LST, RX15V06.LST, RX15V05X.LST, TOP10RX15_USE.LST, TOP10TC15_USE.LST, TOP10TC15_EXP.LST, TOP25RX15_EXP.LST and the preliminary version of the Prescription Drug Estimates Tables
6/6/2017	2016	GNRL	FY2016 Person-Level Use PUF Variable List Changes for AHRQ Review
6/9/2017	2015	GNRL	HC-178d, HC-178e, HC-178f, and HC-178g: 2015 Expenditure Event PUFs for MPC Event Types (IP, ER, OP, and OB) and All Related Files for Web Release
6/9/2017	2015	PRPL	Delivery of the FY 2015 OOPELIG3 Dataset, Benchmarking results, POSTIMPFIN results for final approval of OOPPREM variables, and Preliminary Delivery Dataset
6/12/2017	2015	GNRL	Addendum to the FY 2015 (Panel 19 & Panel 20) Delivery Database Snapshots: Edited Segments since the Previous Delivery of 1/18/17
6/12/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of the 2015 PMED PUF (final version of the Prescription Drug Estimates Tables)
6/13/2017	2015	EMPL	Delivery of 2015 Covered Person Records for Employment Variable Imputation
6/13/2017	2015	GNRL	NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of Delivery Document for the FY 2015 Prescribed Medicines (PMED) PUF
6/13/2017	2015	UEPD	Delivery of 2015 PMED PUF (RX15V05X) SAS dataset and the format files (RX15V05X.sas7bcat and rxexpf2.sas)
6/16/2017	2015	DOCM	Delivery of the Updated 2015 MOS Sample file - Wave 1 USCP
6/16/2017	2016	DSDY	Delivery of the DSDY "Missed Days” top code values for AHRQ approval
6/16/2017	2015	PCND	2015 Priority Conditions Benchmarking Table
6/16/2017	2015	UEPD	2015 PMED PUF data (RX15V06.sas7bdat) and the format files ((RX15V06.sas7bcat, rxexpv06f.sas and rxexpv06f2.sas)
6/20/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the Updated 2016 MOS Sample file - Wave 1 USCP
6/20/2017	2016	GNRL	Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) -P20R5
6/21/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2015 Prescribed Medicines (PMED) Event PUF Codebook for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
6/22/2017	2015	UEGN	Delivery of the Dropped Variables Due to DRB Review – FY15 EXP PUF files for DV, OM, ER, OP, OB, IP and RX
6/23/2017	2015	DOCM	Delivery of the Updated 2015 MOS Sample file - Wave 2 USCP
6/23/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the Updated 2016 MOS Sample file - Wave 2 USCP
6/23/2017	2016	GNRL	Full-Year 2016 Annotated and Consolidated Specifications, F1 Help Text, and Overall Context Flow for Web Release
6/30/2017	2015	GNRL	Addendum to the FY 2015 (Panel 19 & Panel 20) Delivery Database Snapshots: Edited Segments since the Previous Delivery of 6/12/17
7/5/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of 2016 MPC Sample file - Wave 3
7/5/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 PC Sample file
7/5/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 Provider file for NPI coding - Wave 3
7/6/2017	2015	GNRL	NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of the Document for the FY 2015 Consolidated Data PUF
7/6/2017	2015	GNRL	NCHS Checklist and Preliminary Version of Delivery Document for the FY 2015 Person Round Plan (PRPL) PUF
7/7/2017	2015	UEGN	The 2015/2015 QC Finding Tables of PUF Event Expenditures
7/10/2017	2017	HINS	Changes to the HINS Point-In-Time 2017 specifications
7/11/2017	2017	GNRL	Point-in-Time 2017 PUF Variable List Changes for AHRQ Review
7/14/2017	2016	CODE	Output of Matching program for Marc
7/14/2017	2015	GNRL	Delivery of the 2015 Prescribed Medicines (PMED) PUF and all Related Files for Web Release
7/17/2017	2016	CODE	Output of Matching program for Marc
7/17/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2015 Consolidated File
7/18/2017	2015	GNRL	Revised NCHS Checklist for the FY 2015 Consolidated Data PUF for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
7/18/2017	2014	UEGN	2014 Re-matching Review Summary
7/19/2017	2015	GNRL	FY 2015 Conditions PUF Preliminary Versions of Codebook and Delivery Document for Use in AHRQ Review
7/19/2017	2015	GNRL	FY 2015 Conditions PUF Preliminary Versions of Codebook and Delivery Document for Use in AHRQ Review
7/19/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Versions of the Codebook and Document for the FY 2015 Consolidated PUF for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
7/19/2017	2015	GNRL	FY 2015 Person Round Plan PUF Preliminary Versions of Codebook and Delivery Document for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review
7/19/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2015 Appendix to the Event PUFs Delivery Document, Codebooks, and Table 1 for Review
7/24/2017	2016	GNRL	Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) -P21R3
7/25/2017	2015	GNRL	Preliminary Versions of the Codebook and Document for the FY 2015 Consolidated Data PUF for Use in AHRQ and NCHS Review – Edited
7/26/2017	2016	UEGN	The DN Text Strings Recoding for FY2016
7/27/2017	2016	GNRL	Delivery of the Person-Level Sample Crosswalk Files for Panel 20 Round 1 - Round 5
7/28/2017	2015	GNRL	HC179: Preliminary Version of the 2015 PRPL File
7/31/2017	2017	GNRL	MEPS P20R5 raw data files
7/31/2017	2015	PRPL	Ad Hoc Delivery of the FY 2015 Preliminary Unencrypted PRPL File
8/7/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the File of Provider Names for FY 2016
8/11/2017	2015	GNRL	HC-181: Full Year 2015 Consolidated Use, Expense, and Insurance PUF Delivery for Web Release
8/11/2017	2015	GNRL	H178I: Delivery of the Final Appendix to the 2015 Event Files and all Related Files for Web Release
8/11/2017	2015	GNRL	HC-179: Delivery of the 2015 Person Round Plan (PRPL) PUF and Related Files for Web Release
8/11/2017	2015	GNRL	HC-180: Delivery of the Final 2015 Conditions File and All Related Files for Web Release
8/15/2017	2017	GNRL	MEPS P21R3 raw data files
8/18/2017	2017	GNRL	Delivery of End-Of-Round files (RU level and Person level) -P22R1
8/21/2014	2016	ACCS	2016 ACCS Other Specify Text String Recoding
8/25/2017	2016	CSAQ	Cancer SAQ- Panel 20 Round 3/Panel 21 Round 1-Constructed Variables
8/28/2017	2016	ACCS	2016 ACCS Other Specify Text String Recoding
9/5/2017	2016	DOCM	MEPS 2016 Static table for conditions after the 2016 condition coding cycle
9/8/2017	2016	HINS	Delivery of the P2116 EPCP Cross-tabs and Editing Results Documents
9/15/2017	2016	DEMO	MEPS Race Programming Specifications for FY2016
9/15/2017	2017	GNRL	MEPS P22R1 raw data files
9/20/2017	2014	UEGN	2014 MPC Rematched Files: Delivery of Final Imputed Files and Benchmark Tables
9/20/2017	2014	UEGN	2014 MPC Rematched Files: Findings on RTI SBD_SUM2 File
9/22/2017	2016	HINS	Delivery of the P2016 EPCP Cross-tabs and Editing Results
9/28/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 SOP and SRCS Static Tables to RTI
9/29/2017	2017	EMPL	PIT2017 Unweighted Establishment Size Medians
9/29/2017	2016	HINS	Delivery of HINS Panel 21 Rounds 1 - 3 At Any Time/At Interview Date/At 12/31/16 Variables
10/2/2017	2016	PRPL	Full Year 2016 PRPL File Revisions
10/16/2017	2016	EMPL	FY2016 Panel 21 Editing of High Wage Outliers or Substantially Different Wages – Request for Approval
10/16/2017	2016	EMPL	FY2016 Panel 21 Editing of Low Wage Outliers or Wages that Do No Change – Request for Approval
10/17/2017	2016	WGTS	Delivery of the ADMN/DEMO Variables Used for Weights Development for P20P21FY16
10/18/2017	2017	WGTS	March 2017 CPS and December 2016 control totals output, digital delivery
10/19/2017	2015	WGTS	Panel 20 Full Year 2015: Derivation of Eligibility and Response Indicators for the CPS-like Families
10/19/2017	2017	WGTS	MEPS Computation of the Person and Family Poststratification Control Totals for March 2017 from the March 2017 CPS (including the poverty level variable)
10/23/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of the 2016 MPC Pre-Matching Household Component Production File – RTI
10/23/2017	2016	HINS	Delivery of HINS Panel 20 Rounds 3 - 5 At Any Time/At Interview Date/At 12/31/16 Variables
10/24/2017	2016	WGTS	MEPS Computation of the Person and Family Poststratification Control Totals for December 2016 from the March 2017 CPS (including the poverty level variable.)
11/2/2017	2016	WGTS	Derivation of the Annualized MEPS Families and Identification of the Responding MEPS Families for MEPS Panel 21 Full Year 2016
11/3/2017	2016	DOCM	Delivery of Person-Level Base Weight and Family Pseudo Weight for FY2016
11/3/2017	2016	WGTS	Delivery of Person-Level Base Weight, Individual Panel Base Weight, Family Membership Flag, and MSA variables for FY2016
11/6/2017	2016	CODE	Revised schedule and delivery of final coded files for DY2016
11/6/2017	2016	HINS	Results of the QC Cross Tabs for the HINS 2016 HMO/Gatekeeper FY variables
11/7/2017	2015	WGTS	Developing Panel 20 Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) Use Weights for Full Year 2015
11/8/2017	2016	EMPL	FY2016 Panel 20 Editing of High Wage Outliers or Substantially Different Wages – Request for Approval
11/8/2017	2016	EMPL	FY2016 Panel 20 Editing of Low Wage Outliers or Wages that Do No Change – Request for Approval
11/13/2017	2016	WGTS	Panel 20 Full Year 2016 person Weight Review Output, digital delivery
11/14/2017	2016	EMPL	Approval of Weighted NUMEMP Medians for P20 R3-5 and P21 R1-3 of FY 2016
11/14/2017	2016	WGTS	Panel 21 Full Year 2016 person Weight Review Output, digital delivery
11/15/2017	2016	UEGN	The 2016 HHA Same Person/Provider for the Same Month Duplicate Counts
11/20/2017	2016	EMPL	FY 2016 Hourly Wage Imputation Output for Approval
11/22/2017	2016	DSDY	Delivery of the DSDY QC cross tabs for persons with a positive weight
11/27/2017	2016	FOOD	FY 2016 Food Security PUF Constructed Variables and Labels
11/27/2017	2016	HLTH	2016 BMI Cross-tabulations and Frequencies
11/28/2017	2016	UEPD	2016 (Panel 20 & 21) Household Prescribed Medicine and Associated Files - Set 1
11/29/2017	2016	DSDY	Delivery of the DSDY "Missed Days” top code values for AHRQ approval
11/30/2017	2014	WGTS	Deriving location variables (Region and MSA) for Panel 21 Round 1, based on Geo FIPS Codes, using the OMB MSA definitions of both year 2014 and the most recent OMB MSA updates
12/1/2017	2016	EMPL	Full Year 2016 Wage Top Code Value for AHRQ Approval
12/4/2017	2016	WGTS	Full Year 2016 person weights Nursing Home and Mortality adjustments review output to AHRQ, digital delivery
12/5/2017	2016	WGTS	Panel 20 Full Year 2016 SAQ Use person weight review output
12/5/2017	2016	WGTS	Panel 21 Full Year 2016 SAQ Use person weight review output
12/5/2017	2016	WGTS	Full Year 2016 SAQ person weight for the Use PUF review output
12/8/2017	2016	EMPL	Delivery of the Full Year 2016 Pre-Top-Coded Hourly Wage Variables and Person-Level, Uncondensed Industry and Occupation Codes
12/8/2017	2016	WGTS	Full Year 2016 combined panels Use file person weight review output
12/12/2017	2016	WGTS	Delivery of the Variance Strata and PSU Variables for FY2016
12/13/2017	2016	EMPL	Full Year 2016 JOBS File Establishment Size Top Code Value and Extent of JOBS Wage Top Coding for AHRQ Approval
12/13/2017	2016	WGTS	Delivery of the SAQ Use PUF Weight and Individual Panel SAQ Weight Variables for FY2016
12/14/2017	2016	GNRL	Preliminary Version of the 2016 Full-Year Use PUF Dataset
12/15/2017	2017	DOCM	2017 MPC sample file specs
12/15/2017	2017	DOCM	2017 PC sample file specs
12/15/2017	2017	DOCM	2017 provider file for NPI coding specs
12/15/2017	2015	UEGN	The 2015 MEPS Master Files (File2 Files and Post Imputation Files)
12/15/2017	2015	UEGN	Delivery of PDF files for the 2015 Post-Imputation Files and the 2015 Post-Edited, Pre-Imputed Files for the MEPS Master Files
12/15/2017	2016	WGTS	Delivery of Person-Level Use PUF Weight, Single Panel Person Weight, and MSA16_13 Variables for FY16
12/18/2017	2016	UEGN	2016 Pre-Editing Expenditures QCs
12/21/2017	2016	EMPL	Full Year 2016 Wage Top Coding Results
12/22/2017	2016	WGTS	Derivation of MEPS Panel 20 Full Year 2016 Person Use Weights (Rounds 3-5)
12/21/2017	2016	UEPD	2016 (Panel 20 & 21) PMED Supplemental File - Set 2: Person-Level File and Additional 3 Segment Variable Files
12/27/2017	2016	NCO	Delivery of the 2016 (Panel 20 & 21) INCOME File
12/27/2017	2016	UEGN	2016 Pre-Editing Expenditure QCs
12/27/2017	2016	UEPD	2016 (Panel 20 & 21) PMED Supplemental File - Set 3: Person/Round-Level Files
12/28/2017	2016	DEMO	Delivery of the Output Listings for Case Review of the MOPID and DAPID Variables’ Construction for FY2016
12/28/2017	2016	HINS	Delivery of the HINS Ever Insured in FY 2016 variables LASTAGE and INSCV916 to be added to the internal “MEPS Master Files"

Abbreviations used in table: ADMN, Administrative Analytical Group; ADW, Administrative/Demographics/Weights Analytical Group; BMI, body mass index; CAPI, Computer Assisted Personal Interview; CLNK, Condition-Event Link File; CODE, analytic group containing codes such as ICD, CCS, and CPT; COND, Conditions Analytical Group; COVERM, Oracle table that holds health insurance building block variables; CPS, Current Population Survey; DAPID, person ID of the person’s dad; DCS, Diabetes Care Supplement; DEMO, Demographics Analytical Group; DN, dental; EMPL, Employment Analytical Group; ER, emergency room; FAMID, family ID; GNRL, General Analytical Group; GEO, geographic coding; HC, Household Component; HH, home health; HHA, home health agency; HHP, home health paid independent; HINS, Household Insurance Analytical Group; HLTH, Health Analytical Group; INCO, Income Analytical Group; IP, inpatient; JOBS, Jobs File; MOPID, person ID of the person’s mother; MPC, Medical Provider Component; MVE, medical visit— MPC eligible; MVN, medical visit—non-MPC eligible; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey; OB, office-based; OM, other medical events; OP, outpatient; PCND, Person-Level Conditions Analytical Group; PMED, Prescribed Medicines File; PRPL, Person Round Plan File; PSU, primary sampling unit; RXLK, Prescribed Medicines-Event Link File; SAQ, Self-Administered Questionnaire; UEGN, Use and Expenditure Analytical Group; WGTS, Weight Analytical Group.

Return To Table Of Contents