-  
 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  www.hhs.gov
Agency for Healthcare Research Quality www.ahrq.gov
www.ahrq.gov
MEPS Home Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
Font Size:
Contact MEPS FAQ Site Map  
S
M
L
XL
 

Respondent Payment Experiment with MEPS Panel 13

October 6, 2010


Table of Contents_

Background
Experimental Design and Implementation
Analytic Measures
Cooperation
Level of effort and estimated costs
Data quality
Results
Weighted Response Rates (Tables 1 -6)
Refusal Rates (Tables 8-12)
Among respondents, cooperation with requests for additional information (Tables 13, 14)
Level of Effort (Tables 15, 16)
Data Quality - Item missing data rates (Table 17)
Data Quality - Selected estimates (Table 18)
Demographic and Geographic Characteristics by Respondent Payment Group (Tables 19 - 27)
Summary and Discussion
References
Table 1: Composite response rate (R1-R5) by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 2: Round 1 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 3: Round 2 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 4: Round 3 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 5: Round 4 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 6: Round 5 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 7: Response rate by NHIS outcome (partial or complete) by round, and overall
Table 8: Percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate in Round 1, by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 9: In Round 2, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 10: In Round 3, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 11: In Round 4, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 12: In Round 5, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 13: Cooperation with request to sign the Authorization Form by incentive group, for Rounds 1, 2, and 3
Table 14: Cooperation with request to complete and return the SAQ by incentive group, in Round 2
Table 15: For each round, the avg. number of days between the start of data collection and the first contact, and the avg. number of days between the first contact and final case resolution
Table 16: For each round, the average number of in-person, telephone contacts and total contacts to close a case, by sampling domain and incentive group
Table 17: Item missing data rates for select variables by incentive group, for Rounds 1, 2 and 3
Table 18: Comparison of selected estimates by incentive group, for Rounds 1, 2 and 3
Table 19: Age distribution of respondents in rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group
Table 20: Race distribution of respondents in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive group
Table 21: Distribution of educational attainment for respondents in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive group
Table 22: Distribution of employment status of respondents in rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive level
Table 23: Distribution of respondent marital status for rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group
Table 24: Distribution of self-reported Health Status for respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive group
Table 25: Distribution of RU size for responding RU's in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive level
Table 26: Distribution of MSA status for responding RU's in Rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group
Table 27: Distribution of responding RU's by region of country for Rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group

The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) is a nationally representative study of health care use and expenses, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). The sample selected for MEPS for a given panel is a subsample of those households that participated in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by CDC during the prior year. The household component of the MEPS has an overlapping panel design, in which a new panel of households is introduced each year and interviewed 5 times over a 2.5 year period, providing data for two full calendar years. Data from the MEPS allow those in health care policy to study how changes in the structure of American health care delivery, private insurance, Federal health care programs, and the demographic composition of the country affect:

  • the kinds and amounts of healthcare Americans use,
  • how the care is paid for,
  • how much is paid for it, and
  • the implications for changes in health care policy.

This report discusses the results of an experiment designed to compare the effect of different respondent payment amounts offered to MEPS reporting units (RUs) within the household component (HC) of MEPS. The experiment was implemented for MEPS Panel 13, first fielded in 2008. This report covers results from all five rounds of data collection for Panel 13.

Background

With each successive year the household component of the MEPS has experienced increased difficulty in obtaining cooperation for the first round of data collection and maintaining response and retention rates across all rounds of data collection. Lower response and retention rates across rounds can potentially affect bias in final survey estimates. For example, Cohen et al (2006) discuss how attrition across rounds affects estimates of health insurance coverage for 2001-2003.

To encourage survey participation, data collection procedures for the household component have included a monetary gift to respondents in appreciation for the time and effort they spend keeping records and participating in the survey. Since 2007, the amount of the respondent gift, or payment has been $30 per household per interview. In general, the use of respondent payments in survey research has become fairly common, and survey practitioners agree that respondent payments increase overall response rates (Goyder, 1994; Willimack, Schuman, Pennell and Lepkowski, 1995; Singer, 1999, 2002).

At the request of the Office of Management and Budget, AHRQ introduced an experiment for the 2008 MEPS panel that compared the effect of three different respondent payment amounts ($30, $50 and $70) on three different categories of measures:

  • cooperation with the survey request, as measured by response rates and refusal rates
  • the level of effort needed, and thus field costs necessary to obtain cooperation in each round, and
  • the quality of the response data

Each sampled household in the 2008 panel was randomly assigned to one of the three different levels of payment. In all cases, the field interviewer provided the respondent payment at the completion of the interview in each round. The full panel sample of 9,939 households was included in the experiment, and the results through all five rounds of MEPS data collection are reported.

Return To Table Of Contents

Experimental Design and Implementation

All households in the Panel 13 sample were randomly assigned to one of three respondent payment groups. The $30 group served as the control group since MEPS offered that amount to responding households starting in 2007 (prior to that, a respondent payment of $25 was offered). Assignments to groups were made at the NHIS segment level to help reduce, but not eliminate, the risk that neighboring sample households in the same MEPS panel would receive different amounts (sampled households in MEPS panels 12 and 14 had only the $30 respondent payment amount but were located in the same segments as Panel 13).

Each MEPS panel represents a subsample of the NHIS sampled households, and the MEPS subsample oversamples various domains of analytic interest. Membership in a domain is based on at least one member having a given characteristic, reflecting race/ethnicity or income status (2002-2008). Income status is based on a model where households are "predicted to be poor" or not, based on data available at the time of sample selection. If multiple characteristics are associated with a given household, the "highest priority" characteristic is chosen to represent the household. For Panel 13 the domains, in priority order were Asians, "predicted to be poor", Hispanic, Black, and Other (basically, those white and not "predicted to be poor"). We will refer to the "predicted to be poor" as low income for the purpose of these discussions1. From past history those households characterized as Hispanic, Black, or Low Income had substantially higher unweighted response rates than Asians or Others.

Statistical staff categorized the segments into one of two strata based on expected response propensity, prior to assignment to the respondent payment condition. Segments with a majority of black, low income, and Hispanic households were assigned to the "expected higher response" stratum and the remaining households were assigned to the "expected lower response rate" stratum. Allocation to respondent payment groups by response propensity strata was proportional to the sample distribution of MEPS households. Roughly, 35 percent of the households in the MEPS sample were in the "expected higher response rate" stratum, so roughly 35 percent of the segments in each respondent payment group came from the "expected higher response" stratum.

At AHRQ’s request, Westat allocated slightly more cases to the $30 respondent payment group as compared to the other two groups. The experiment used this allocation strategy in an effort to obtain close to the same level of precision for each group since we expected the response rates for the $30 group to be lower than the other two groups. The table below shows the assignment to respondent payment group for the full sample, as well as for each of the sampling domains.

Panel 13 Assignment to Respondent Payment Group
  $30 $50 $70 Total
Asian 364 235 267 866
Low Income 725 614 571 1,910
Hispanic 751 599 538 1,888
Black 541 490 477 1,508
Other 1,392 1,166 1,209 3,767
Full sample 3,773 3,104 3,062 9,939

1The “predicted to be poor” or “low income” domain as labeled here was dropped as a sampling domain in 2009 and 2010.

To enhance comparison of the results from the experiment with prior MEPS panels, project staff restricted procedural changes for the year in which the experiment was fielded to those necessary for implementing the experiment. In general, field procedures and operational activities remained unchanged from those used in the previous panel. Pre-field activities, including advance letter mail outs, advance contact calls, and assignment material preparation remained unchanged from prior years, other than updating the respondent payment amount for those households in the $50 and $70 groups. Home office tracking, disseminating information from the respondent calls to the help line, mailing of refusal letters, and other data collection support activities also remained the same as with the previous panel. This was done so that differences detected in the response rates or other evaluative measures by respondent payment group could more readily be generalized beyond this panel.

Procedural changes necessary for the implementation of the respondent payment experiment included only the following minor adjustments to the case materials and reporting forms:

  • labels on case folders and RU folders contained a code to indicate the respondent payment amount.
  • the interviewer’s weekly status report and the interviewer assignment sheet were both updated to indicate the respondent payment amount.
  • the check for the appropriate amount was included in each case folder to reduce the risk of paying the respondent the wrong amount.
  • in training, interviewers were reminded to pay attention to the version of the advance letter handed to respondents in Panel 13 since the letter indicated the payment amount.

In addition, home office receipt processing included a step to verify that interviewers were implementing the respondent payment amounts as assigned. About a dozen households in Panel 13 received the incorrect respondent payment amount and thus are excluded from this analysis.

To avoid any possibility of influencing the outcome of the experiment, home office and field supervisors and managers were blinded to the production and response rate status by respondent payment group throughout the Round 1 field period. Although the respondent payment amount for each case was clearly visible on the round 1 materials, staff monitoring production did not view outcomes by respondent payment group until the end of the data collection round. In subsequent rounds, home office did track response outcomes by respondent gift amount.

Return To Table Of Contents

Analytic Measures

As noted above, the experimental analysis addresses three evaluative categories: cooperation, level of effort and data quality.

Cooperation

The primary measures of cooperation are weighted response rates and refusal rates by sampling domain and across the full sample. Response and refusal rates were calculated by individual round and a composite weighted response rates across all 5 rounds was also calculated. The weights reflect the probability of selection but no other adjustments. The analysis examines whether the higher level respondent payments result in improved response rates and diminished refusal rates relative to the $30 payment. The response rate and refusal rate calculations use edited data that reflect updates in an RU status (i.e., complete, refused, ineligible, etc) for each round, based on the knowledge gained about that RU and the persons within the RU across the first full year of data collection.

Round 1 response rates include two components in the calculation. The first component of the overall Round 1 response rate reflects the degree of participation among those RUs found in the sampled households from the NHIS.  The second component of the response rate accounts for the new RU’s that occur with the MEPS data collection. This component is needed to account for nonrespondents in any new RU’s that MEPS misses in the field because the parent RU is a nonrespondent. The Round 1 response rate is the product of both components.

The response rate calculation for subsequent rounds is essentially the same but takes into account whether a case is newly fielded in the round, as is the case with split or student RUs.

Refusal rates reflect a simple ratio of cases coded as final refusals over all eligible cases for the round. The analysis also looks at the proportion of cases that ever gave a refusal, even if later converted to a complete in a round.

Additionally, the analysis includes two other measures of cooperation from just the responding Round 1 RU’s. In an advance mailing just prior to Round 2, eligible persons within RUs are asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire and return it to the interviewer at the round 2 interview. Interviewers also accept completed SAQ’s returned in the next round. The analyses assesses whether the proportion of RU’s that complete and return all eligible SAQ’s within an RU, complete at least some of the eligible SAQ’s within an RU, or do not complete any SAQs for the RU changes depending on the amount of the respondent payment.

As a last cooperation measure, the analysis assesses compliance in the first three rounds of data collection with the request to authorize MEPS to contact RU members’ medical providers for the MEPS follow-up medical provider component. In each round of data collection, interviewers ask eligible persons within an RU to sign an authorization form that allows MEPS to contact his/her medical provider and obtain records indicating medical services received and the costs of those services. The analysis assesses whether cooperation with either of these requests, to complete the SAQ in round 2 or sign the medical authorization form (AF) in the first three rounds improves with the higher respondent payments relative to the $30 payment. While the response rates and refusal rates were calculated based on final edited data files, these data came from the status at initial receipt.

Level of effort and estimated costs

The cost of data collection operations is difficult to control and is on the rise, in a large part because of the amount of effort needed to contact and resolve the sampled housing units. This analysis examines the extent to which the higher respondent payments reduces the average number of contacts required, in-person, by phone and overall, to contact and finalize the status of each sampled RU. In addition, the analysis looks at whether the amount of the respondent payment reduces the number of calendar days on average it takes to close a case once an interviewer starts working it.

Data quality

The data quality assessment focuses on the first three rounds of data collection only since the full range of data editing and final processing are not yet complete for rounds 4 and 5. This analysis assesses the effect of the respondent payment level on data quality using the following metrics:

  • two survey estimates based on responses to MEPS questions in particular rounds of data collection
  • item nonresponse rates, or more specifically the proportion of eligible responses for a given item, that do not have a valid answer (i.e., missing, don’t know or refuse). These data come from the unedited response files.
  • the distribution of several different demographic characteristics for the MEPS respondents. These serve as indicators of potential response bias. These distributions also come from the unedited response files.

Return To Table Of Contents

Results

All significance testing reflects test of proportions (t-tests) of each pair wise comparison, without adjustments for multiple comparisons. The tables and corresponding discussion cover statistically significant differences at α=0.01 and α=0.05 levels. All tables are at the back of the report.

Weighted Response Rates (Tables 1 -6)

In general, these data indicate that response rates do increase with the higher incentive payment amounts. Across the full sample in Round 1 (Table 2), both the $50 and $70 respondent payment amounts resulted in a significantly higher response rate (76.60% and 77.60% respectively) than the control group that received the $30 payment (71.60%). Results were the same in round 2 (Table 3) with the $50 an $70 groups (95.54%, 96.99%) both attaining significantly higher response rates than the $30 group (92.33%). In each of the final three rounds of data collection starting in the second year, only the $70 respondent payment resulted in a significantly higher response rate than the $30 payment group (Tables 4-6).

Ultimately, as shown in Table 1 below, the composite response rate across all five rounds of data collection for the full sample for both the $50 and $70 respondent payment groups (66.74%, and 71.13%, respectively) was higher than the composite response rate for the $30 group (58.84%). Additionally, the composite response rate for the $70 payment group was significantly higher than that of the $50 group.

Table 1: Composite response rate (R1-R5) by sampling domain and respondent payment group

  $30
Incentive
Weighted RR
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
Weighted RR
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
Weighted RR
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Asian 51.25+ 3.22 62.32$ 3.45 63.35@ 3.13
Low Income 71.82@ 2.01 72.55 2.23 78.88@ 2.20
Hispanic 57.14+ 2.11 65.52! 2.33 73.15! 2.35
Black 60.84+ 2.51 70.03@ 2.24 74.39@ 1.90
Other 57.11+ 1.53 65.71@ 1.55 69.97@ 1.55
All Domains 58.84+ 1.13 66.74^ 1.19 71.13^ 1.12

Footnotes

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

In looking at the response rates for the individual sampling domains, the pattern of response rates by respondent payment level for the "other" domain, the largest sample domain and historically with the lowest response rate in the MEPS, mirrors that of the overall sample. In each of the first two rounds of data collection, the response rates among the "other" domain for both the $50 and $70 payment groups are significantly higher than the response rates in the $30 group, but for the last three rounds of data collection, only the response rate for the $70 respondent payment group was significantly higher than the $30 group. However, the composite response rate across all 5 rounds of data collection for both $50 and $70 respondent payment groups within the "other" domain was significantly higher than the $30 group (8.60 and 12.86 percentage points higher, respectively).

Like the "other" domain, the Asian domain also typically has one of the lowest response rates in the MEPS. Ultimately, in looking at the composite response rates as shown in table 1 above, both the $50 and $70 respondent payment groups resulted in noticeably higher response rates than did the $30 group for the Asian domain. Within the individual rounds (see tables 2-6), the response rates for the two higher respondent payment levels tended to be higher than those of the $30 payment group, but only in Round 2 did the difference in response rates between the $30 and the two higher respondent payment amounts attain statistical significance.

For each of the remaining three sampling domains, Low Income, Hispanic and Black, the $70 respondent payment group attained a composite response rate that was significantly higher (p≤0.01) than the $30 respondent payment group’s composite response rate. The $50 respondent group also attains a significantly higher composite response rate relative to the $30 group, but for only the Hispanic and Black domains.

In addition to looking at the response rates by sampling domain, we also looked at the effect of the respondent payment amount on the response rates of cases sampled for the MEPS that had final outcome codes as "partial completes" in the NHIS. The NHIS partial complete cases consistently have lower response rates in the MEPS, higher refusal rates, and are more difficult and thus more costly to work. Table 7 shows the response rates for the NHIS partial completes and fully complete cases by respondent payment group for each round of data collection, and across all rounds. As can be seen in table 7, the composite response rate for both the $50 group (52.31%) and the $70 group (58.78%) are higher than the composite rate for the $30 group (45.97%) though only the 13 percentage point difference between the $30 and $70 group attains statistical significance. In general, in all but the 4th round of data collection, the response rate for the $70 group was statistically significantly higher than the response rate of the $30 group. The response rate for the $50 group was also statistically significantly higher than the $30 group, but only in two of the five rounds, rounds 2 and 3. Overall, the $70 respondent payment resulted in greater improvements in the response rate for the NHIS partials, the hardest cases to complete, than did the $50 respondent payment relative to the control group.

To summarize the response rate findings, the response rate tables indicate significant gains in the overall or composite response rate for the full sample with the $70 respondent payment relative to the $30 group, an increase of 12 percentage points. In fact, the composite response rate for the $70 respondent payment group was four percentage points higher than the composite response rate for the $50 group, also a statistically significant difference. Similarly, in looking at the individual round level response rates for the full sample, only the $70 group continued to attain response rates higher than the $30 group through the last three rounds of data collection (p≤0.01).

In terms of subgroup differences in response rates, the composite response rate for both the $50 and $70 respondent payment groups were higher than the composite response rate for the $30 group for all sample domains other than low income, though the only statistically significant differences occurred with the Hispanic subdomain between the $50 and $70 groups. The subgroup, NHIS partials attained almost a 13 percentage point gain in the composite response rate with the $70 respondent payment relative to the $30 group, a statistically significant difference. The difference in the overall response rate for the NHIS partials receiving $50 and $30 did not attain statistical significance.

Refusal Rates (Tables 8-12)

The refusal rates follow a very similar pattern to that of the response rates in terms of attaining statistically significant differences between the two higher respondent payment groups relative to the control or $30 respondent payment group. Across the full sample in round 1, the final refusal rate and the percent of RU’s that refused at some time during the round were significantly lower in the two higher respondent payment groups relative to the $30 group. Specifically, the final refusal rate for the $70 group was 17.36%, for the $50 group it was 17.03%, but for the $30 group, the final refusal rate was 21.70% (Table 8). This is in accordance with the fact that the two higher respondent payment groups had significantly higher response rates relative to the $30 group, suggesting that the higher response rates in fact reflect lower refusal rates rather than drops in other types of noninterviews.

In round 2 (Table 9), across the full sample, the two higher respondent payment groups continued to achieve a statistically significant lower refusal rate as compared to the $30 group. However, in each of rounds 3, 4 and 5, only the $70 respondent payment group continued to achieve significantly lower refusal rates (and higher response rates) relative to the $30 group.

This same pattern occurs within the "other" domain, which historically has the highest refusal rates of all sampled domains. In each of the first two rounds of data collection the increased response rate in both the higher respondent payment groups relative to the $30 group reflects a significantly lower refusal rate in both the $50 and $70 respondent groups. However, for each of rounds 3, 4 and 5, only the $70 respondent payment group had a significantly lower final refusal rate relative to the $30 group within the "other" domain. The percent of cases in the "other" domain that ever refused during a round of data collection followed a very similar pattern looking across rounds. In the first round, both the $50 and $70 respondent payment groups had significantly lower proportions of cases that ‘ever-refused’ as compared to the $30 group. However, by the last two rounds of data collection, only the $70 group still had a significantly smaller percentage of RU’s that ‘ever-refused’ during the round as compared to the $30 group.

Within the Asian domain, another domain with a traditionally high refusal rate, the respondent payment amount only affects the final refusal rate in the second round of data collection. In the second round both the $50 and $70 groups achieve a final refusal rate of about 2%, but the $30 respondent group had a final refusal rate of almost 11%. However, the significant drop in refusal rates in the Asian domain with the higher respondent payments does not continue into subsequent rounds, other than in Round 4 where the difference between the $50 and $30 groups attains statistical significance (p≤0.05).

Only round 2 shows a statistically significant drop in final refusal rates for all sampling domains other than the low income domain with the two higher respondent payment amounts relative to the control (see table 9). By round 5 though (table 12), only the ‘other’ and the Black domain continued to see reduced refusal rates relative to the $30 respondent payment group, and only for the $70 respondent payment group. This is also the case in terms of response rates (tables 1-6). Round 2 shows statistically higher response rates in almost all domains, as well as the full sample, for the higher respondent payment amounts relative to the control. But by round 5, only the Black and the Other domains, along with the full sample show significantly improved response rates relative to the control, and only for the $70 group. This inverse relationship between response and refusal rates reinforces the finding that the higher respondent payment amount improves the response rate primarily by decreasing the refusal rate.

Among respondents, cooperation with requests for additional information (Tables 13, 14)

The analysis included two additional measures of cooperation. These measures assess whether the higher respondent payment amount increased the number of eligible adults within a cooperating RU who:

  • provided authorization to contact their medical provider in any of the first three rounds of data collection , or
  • completed the Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) in the second round of data collection

Table 13 shows the proportion of households for whom the eligible adults signed and returned some, none or all of the requested authorization forms, by respondent payment amount in each of the first three rounds. As seen in the table, none of the percentage point differences in respondents’ willingness to sign the authorization form by respondent payment amount attained statistical significance. However, there may be a trend or pattern indicating that fewer RU’s return "none" of the requested authorization form in the $70 group relative to the $30 group. In Round 1, the table shows about a 5 percentage point decrease in the number of households returning ‘none’ of the requested authorization forms between the $70 and $30 group. Likewise, there is about a 5 percentage point increase in the proportion of households in which all of the requested authorization forms are completed and returned in the $70 group relative to the $30 group. In rounds 2 and 3, the same pattern can be observed, but the percentage point differences are less dramatic.

In terms of completing and returning the SAQ in Round 2 (table 14), a significantly higher percentage of households return all of the requested SAQ’s in the $70 group (87.55%) relative to the $30 group (83.42%). Similarly, a significantly lower percentage of households return "none" of the requested SAQs in the $70 group (6.26%) relative to the $30 group (8.64%). The percentage point difference between the $50 respondent payment group and the $30 group does not attain statistical significance. These results suggest that the higher respondent payment does help motivate respondents to follow-through and complete the SAQ.

Level of Effort (Tables 15, 16)

These two tables address how much time and effort interviewers must use to close a sampled case and reach a final outcome albeit a complete or some other final outcome. The amount of effort spent closing out the full sample in the data collection period translates to the cost of conducting data collection.

In table 15, the first row of data with each round shows whether interviewers start to work cases differently depending on the respondent payment amount. In round 1, interviewers start all their cases, regardless of the assigned respondent payment amount within about the same time period, about 34 days after the start of the new year. However, in round 2, 3 and 4 the data suggest that interviewers did tend to start working the cases in the higher respondent payment groups a little earlier than the $30 group. This may in part reflect the fact that they realize after the first round that it is somewhat easier to close a case at the higher respondent payment levels than the $30 level (discussed in more detail below – data on table 16).

Of greater consequence, in all rounds, regardless of when the interviewer starts working a case, the cases in the two higher respondent payment groups both require fewer days to close out than the cases in the $30 respondent payment group (Table 15). In rounds 3 and 4, interviewers close cases in the $70 respondent payment group in significantly fewer days than both the $50 and $30 respondent payment groups. Though by round 5, it takes interviewers about 25 days to close a case for both of the higher respondent payment groups, and about 30 days to close a case in the $30 group. These differences have a practical impact in terms of cost.

Table 16 shows the average number of total contacts, and the average number of contacts by mode of contact needed to close a case. In all rounds, the two higher respondent payment amounts require significantly fewer contacts on average to close a case. In each round, it takes close to one less contact on average to close a case for the $70 respondent payment group relative to the $30 group.

Data Quality – Item missing data rates (Table 17)

As can be seen in Table 17, the amount of the respondent payment did not affect the percentage of item missing data across any of the variables included in this analysis, for any of the first three rounds of data collection. A variable is considered to have missing data if the question was eligible for the person to answer, and the person either did not provide any answer, or answered with "don’t know" or "refused." The percentage of missing data was calculated from the raw response data, prior to any editing or other internal processing.

Four of the variables included in the analysis are those for which it seemed that in most cases the household respondent would know and could provide an answer for any other adult household member. Thus, we did not expect to see any differences by respondent payment amount, unless the higher response rates in the higher respondent payment groups tended to bring in largely uncooperative or less motivated respondents.

We included the final two variables, the date of the person’s last flu shot and last check up, as a way to assess whether differences in item missing data rates might reflect an increase in respondents’ willingness to check records or talk with other household members in the higher respondent payment groups in order to get a response. However, as with the other variables, the analysis did not find any significant differences in item missing data rates by respondent payment amount for these two variables either.

Data Quality – Selected estimates (Table 18)

To examine whether the respondent payment amount affects how people answer questions, and thus the resulting survey estimates, the table includes an analysis of two estimates calculated for each of the first three rounds. Again, this analysis uses the raw response data prior to any editing or cleaning.

The first estimate reflects the proportion of RU’s reporting at least one office-based medical visit during the round. As Table 18 shows, the proportion does not differ by the amount of the respondent payment.

The second estimate reflects the proportion of RU’s with all members younger than 65 years of age that report at least one person in the household having health insurance on the day of the MEPS interview. Again, as seen in table 18, this proportion does not differ by the amount of the respondent payment.

These findings along with the item missing data findings suggest that the respondent payment amount does not affect how respondents answer the MEPS survey questions. In other words, these data do not support concerns that higher respondent payment amounts could bring in less motivated respondents.

Demographic and Geographic Characteristics by Respondent Payment Group (Tables 19 – 27)

This analysis assesses whether the demographic characteristics of respondents to the MEPS survey differed by the respondent payment amount. In other words, the analysis looks at whether the responding population differs when a higher respondent payment amount is provided relative to the control group. This analysis used the raw, unedited data.

We looked at several standard demographic characteristics of the actual MEPS respondent thought to be correlated with the decision to respond to the MEPS: age, race, education level, employment status, marital status, self-reported health status, and the number of people living in the RU. In addition, we looked at several geographic characteristics of the RU known to be related to response propensity based on data from prior panels of MEPS: region of the country and MSA status (in-MSA or not). Across all variables, and across all rounds, the analysis found no evidence that the respondent payment amount has an effect on who chooses to complete the MEPS interview. In other words, similar distributions across the demographic and geographic variables were observed in each of the respondent payment groups.

Return To Table Of Contents

Summary and Discussion

The primary objective of the MEPS Panel 13 respondent payment experiment was to assess whether increasing the respondent payment would increase response rates to the MEPS in the first and subsequent rounds of data collection, as well as across all five rounds of data collection. Another objective was to learn whether any observed increase in response rates reflected a simultaneous drop in refusal rates, indicating that the respondent payment affects response rates by decreasing refusal to the survey request.

Both of these hypotheses were realized in the experiment. Across the full sample, in rounds 1 and 2, both levels of higher respondent payments resulted in statistically higher response rates than the $30 respondent payment group. In the last three rounds of data collection, only the $70 respondent payment group continued to attain higher response rates (p≤0.01) relative to the $30 group. This same pattern across rounds emerged in regards to refusal rates, with both of the higher respondent payment amounts resulting in lower refusal rates than the $30 group (p≤0.01) in rounds 1 and 2, but only the $70 respondent payment group attaining lower refusal rates in all subsequent rounds (p≤0.01). This negative correlation between the response and refusal rates strongly suggests that the gains in response rates come from a decrease in refusals rather than a change in other noninterview dispositions (e.g., noncontacts or unable to locate/access).

The composite response rate across all 5 rounds of data collection was higher for both the $50 and $70 respondent payment group relative to the $30 group across the full sample, and for all sample domains (p≤0.01) other than the low income domain. In addition, in looking across the full sample, the difference in response rates between the $70 and $50 respondent payment groups was also statistically significant, with a composite response rate of 71.13% and 66.74% for the $70 and $50 groups, respectively.

A second category of analysis examined whether data quality was affected by using higher respondent payments. Specifically, we wanted to understand whether any observed increase in response rates with the higher respondent payment amount resulted in an increase in the cooperation of less enthusiastic respondents who chose to participate in reaction to the monetary payment alone and thus might only put limited effort into responding. To assess this, we looked at item missing data rates, a couple of specific survey estimates, and levels of cooperation with a request to complete a self-administered questionnaire or authorize MEPS to contact their medical provider to collect additional data. The results indicated no negative impact on these particular data quality measures with the higher respondent payments and corresponding higher response rates. Specifically, there were no statistically significant differences in item nonresponse rates, or in either of the two survey estimates (proportion of RUs reporting at least one office-based visit, and proportion of RU’s with at least one person with health insurance on the day of the MEPS interview, restricted to households with only members younger than 65 years old). Similarly, RU members were no more or less likely to give authorization to contact their medical provider to collect additional information outside of the MEPS survey in the higher respondent payment groups. However, a higher proportion of RUs returned all of the requested SAQs in the $70 group (87.6%) as compared to the $30 group (83.4%), indicating a potential gain in quality as related to the information collected on that self-administered questionnaire.

We also assessed whether the demographic characteristics of respondents differed by the respondent payment amounts. This component of the analysis helped assess whether the higher respondent payment yields differential responses for certain groups, another indicator of data quality. Ideally, the higher respondent payment amount would result in an increase in the respondents with demographic characteristics of those who typically respond at lower levels. However, neither of the respondent payment groups resulted in any changes in the distribution of age, race, marital status, educational attainment, employment status, or self-reported health status as compared to the $30 respondent payment group. These results suggests that while significant gains in response rates occurred with the higher respondent payment amounts, those high payments tended to garner response and cooperation from respondents very similar to those that already respond at the $30 level, as measured in this analysis. Thus, we found no evidence of negative effects on data quality associated with the higher respondent payment amounts and the increased incentive payments appeared to have a similar effect across the full spectrum of the demographic groups examined. Higher respondent payments have the potential for reducing bias through added survey participation across many subgroups of analytic interest. Further evaluation of other estimates would be called for to help in the assessment of bias reduction.

As a last measure of the effect of the higher respondent payments, the analysis looked at whether the amount of time and resources required to close out the sample in each round of data collection would decrease with the higher respondent payment amounts. The data suggest that in all rounds, interviewers closed cases in fewer days on average with the higher respondent payment levels, and with fewer contacts on average. So the efficiency of survey operations was improved with both of the higher respondent payment levels.

In order to understand how these gains in efficiency effect data collection costs, we estimated the cost per case, by round, using the hours per case reported in panel 11 (prior to any changes in sample design or the CAPI instrument) and the estimated average number of contacts to close a case as observed in the experiment. Field staff did not track their hours by respondent payment group directly, so using number of contacts to complete a case allowed us to reflect the differential level of effort required between the respondent payment groups in the estimated data collection costs.

The table below shows the estimated net change in cost per case relative to the current $30 respondent payment after accounting for the higher respondent payment in round one, by the third round of data collection, and then the net change in total by the final round of data collection relative to the $30 payment. The estimates reflect the current sample allocation only.

Respondent payment After Round 1 After Round 3 After Round 5
$50 -$3 -$12 +$0.32
$70 -$2 +$5 +$28

As indicated in the table, the $20 increase in the respondent payment, or the $50 gift to respondents, ultimately (after Round 5) results in almost no estimated increase in cost per case. However, the estimated cost per case increases more dramatically with the $70 gift to respondents. Much of the increase in costs in the $70 group reflects the positive aspect of the$70 payment group – there are simply more cooperating households in the $70 group.

While the data in these analyses indicate that the greatest gains in response come with the $70 respondent payment, especially in the last three rounds of data collection, they suggest that both of the two higher respondent payment amounts elicit cooperation from respondents who are very similar to those already participating with the $30 respondent payment according to select demographic characteristics. More specifically since the respondents to the MEPS are self-selected among eligible adults based on the NHIS survey outcome, these data suggest that the higher respondent payment level does not change the demographics of who agrees to serve as the respondent to the MEPS within an RU. One potential concern with paying higher respondent payment amounts is that respondents motivated only by the monetary gift will cooperate with the survey request, but will not put forth adequate effort to provide good data. However, these results clearly indicate that the higher respondent payments did not bring in respondents who participate at only minimal levels of effort.

Return To Table Of Contents

References

Cohen, Steven B.; Trena Ezzati-Rice; W. Yu (2006) "The impact of survey attrition on health insurance coverage estimates in a national longitudinal health care survey" Health Services Outcomes Research Methods, 6; 111-125.

Dillman, Don A. (2007) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2007 Update with new Internet, Visual and Mixed Mode Guide.) John Wiley & Sons

Goldenberg, Karen L.; David McGrath, Lucilla Tan (2009) "Incentives in the Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey: One payment, lasting effects" Paper presented at the 2009 American Association of Public Opinion Research Conference, Hollywood, Florida.

Goyder, John (1994) "An experiment with cash incentives on a personal interview survey." Journal of the Marketing Research Society. 36(4)

Singer, Eleanor; John Van Hoewyk, Nancy Gebler, Trivellore Raghunathan and Katherine McGonagle "The Effect of Incentives on Response Rate in Interviewer-Mediated Surveys" Journal of Official Statistics Vol. 15, no. 2

Willimack, Diane K., Howard Schuman, Beth-Ellen Pennell and James Lepkowski (1995) "Effects of a Prepaid NonMonetary Incentive on Response Rates and Response Quality in a Face-to-Face Survey" Public Opinion Quarterly, 59.

Table 1: Composite response rate (R1-R5) by sampling domain and incentive group

  $30 Incentive
Unweighted
$30 Incentive
Weighted RR
$30 Incentive
s.e.
$50 Incentive
Unweighted
$50 Incentive
Weighted RR
$50 Incentive
s.e.
$70 Incentive
Unweighted
$70 Incentive
Weighted RR
$70 Incentive
s.e.
Asian 50.92 51.25+ 3.22 62.98 62.32 3.45 59.93 63.35@ 3.13
Low Income 72.06 71.82@ 2.01 69.72 72.55 2.23 79.06 78.88@ 2.2
Hispanic 57.82 57.14+ 2.11 65.64 65.52! 2.33 72.64 73.15! 2.35
Black 61.01 60.84+ 2.51 69.77 70.03@ 2.24 74.76 74.39@ 1.9
Other 57.01 57.11+ 1.53 65.88 65.71@ 1.55 68.89 69.97@ 1.55
All Domains 59.92 58.84+ 1.13 66.92 66.74^ 1.19 71.45 71.13^ 1.12

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 2: Round 1 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group

  Asian Low Income Hispanic Black Other All Domains
$30 Incentive, Complete 254 605 600 452 1,023 2,934
$30 Incentive, Net Sample 363 725 799 574 1,449 3,910
$30 Incentive, Unweighted RR 68.36% 82.38% 72.96% 77.44% 69.15% 73.46%
$30 Incentive, Weighted RR 68.77% 82.22% 72.37%$ 78.22% 69.05%+ 71.67%+
$30 Incentive, s.e. 2.82 1.64 1.89 1.65 1.35 1.01
$50 Incentive, Complete 180 483 511 431 928 2533
$50 Incentive, Net Sample 245 599 648 521 1,207 3,220
$50 Incentive, Unweighted RR 71.55% 79.02% 76.92% 81.78% 75.66% 77.20%
$50 Incentive, Weighted RR 70.25% 81.35%$ 76.85% 81.95% 75.36%@ 76.60%@
$50 Incentive, s.e. 3.52 1.93 2.26 1.82 1.36 1.06
$70 Incentive, Complete 209 504 451 416 964 2544
$70 Incentive, Net Sample 284 570 565 505 1,258 3,182
$70 Incentive, Unweighted RR 71.03% 87.14% 78.45% 82.11% 75.14% 78.61%
$70 Incentive, Weighted RR 73.83% 87.02%# 78.87%$ 81.14% 75.63%@ 77.60%@
$70 Incentive, s.e. 2.79 1.79 2.15 1.77 1.49 1.09

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 3: Round 2 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group

  Asian Low Income Hispanic Black Other All Domains
$30 Incentive, Complete 233 581 557 426 978 2,775
$30 Incentive, Net Sample 261 619 622 463 1,046 3,011
$30 Incentive, Unweighted RR 88.61% 93.54% 89.13% 91.80% 93.24% 91.84%
$30 Incentive, Weighted RR 86.33%+ 93.61%$ 88.95%+ 90.28%@ 93.36%>  92.33%+
$30 Incentive, s.e. 2.93 1.18 1.35 2.05 0.83 0.62
$50 Incentive, Complete 175 478 508 426 902 2489
$50 Incentive, Net Sample 183 500 530 449 944 2,604
$50 Incentive, Unweighted RR 95.57% 95.45% 95.69% 94.68% 95.47% 95.38%
$50 Incentive, Weighted RR 95.59% 96.16% 95.84%@ 94.44%" 95.53%$ 95.54%^
$50 Incentive, s.e. 1.42 0.81 0.92 1.15 0.71 0.49
$70 Incentive, Complete 201 506 454 418 964 2543
$70 Incentive, Net Sample 214 517 469 430 996 2,626
$70 Incentive, Unweighted RR 93.79% 97.22% 96.70% 97.13% 96.69% 96.63%
$70 Incentive, Weighted RR 95.04%@ 97.03%$ 97.24%@ 97.20%! 97.06%@ 96.99%^
$70 Incentive, s.e. 1.5 0.73 0.69 0.88 0.52 0.38

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 4: Round 3 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group

  Asian Low Income Hispanic Black Other All Domains
$30 Incentive, Complete 215 574 547 413 944 2,693
$30 Incentive, Net Sample 234 587 574 442 993 2,830
$30 Incentive, Unweighted RR 91.81% 97.58% 95.15% 93.23% 94.95% 95.01%
$30 Incentive, Weighted RR 93.74% 97.84% 94.92%@ 92.94%@ 94.98%@ 95.13% @
$30 Incentive, s.e. 1.36 0.6 1.06 1.52 0.74 0.53
$50 Incentive, Complete 172 462 505 416 883 2438
$50 Incentive, Net Sample 178 477 532 435 914 2,536
$50 Incentive, Unweighted RR 96.55% 96.80% 94.73% 95.52% 96.43% 96.00%
$50 Incentive, Weighted RR 96.62% 97.21% 94.42%* 95.43% 96.65% 96.37%
$50 Incentive, s.e. 1.31 0.72 1.33 1 0.7 0.5
$70 Incentive, Complete 201 498 466 424 953 2542
$70 Incentive, Net Sample 208 514 472 435 975 2,604
$70 Incentive, Unweighted RR 96.55% 96.83% 98.68% 97.39% 97.71% 97.56%
$70 Incentive, Weighted RR 96.13% 96.58% 98.45%^ 97.55%@ 97.65%@ 97.51%@
$70 Incentive, s.e. 1.41 1.34 0.59 0.67 0.54 0.4

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 5: Round 4 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group

  Asian Low Income Hispanic Black Other All Domains
$30 Incentive, Complete 204 571 533 402 921 2,631
$30 Incentive, Net Sample 214 585 557 421 958 2,735
$30 Incentive, Unweighted RR 95.31% 97.55% 95.59% 95.39% 96.06% 96.12%
$30 Incentive, Weighted RR 95.90% 97.31% 96.23%$ 95.83% 96.28%$ 96.36%@
$30 Incentive, s.e. 1.45 0.87 0.78 1.01 0.71 0.45
$50 Incentive, Complete 172 461 501 414 865 2,413
$50 Incentive, Net Sample 177 471 516 425 896 2,485
$50 Incentive, Unweighted RR 97.09% 97.84% 97.04% 97.36% 96.48% 97.05%
$50 Incentive, Weighted RR 97.40% 97.67% 96.92% 97.55% 96.55% 96.86%
$50 Incentive, s.e. 1.31 0.94 0.87 0.87 0.62 0.43
$70 Incentive, Complete 193 496 467 422 937 2,515
$70 Incentive, Net Sample 202 506 475 434 957 2,574
$70 Incentive, Unweighted RR 95.52% 97.98% 98.29% 97.18% 97.89% 97.67%
$70 Incentive, Weighted RR 96.35% 98.01% 98.31%$ 97.72% 97.95%$ 97.90%@
$70 Incentive, s.e. 1.22 0.7 0.64 0.68 0.54 0.38

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 6: Round 5 response rate by sampling domain and incentive group

  Asian Low Income Hispanic Black Other All Domains
$30 Incentive, Complete 197 562 531 388 894 2,572
$30 Incentive, Net Sample 205 572 543 402 922 2,644
$30 Incentive, Unweighted RR 96.06% 98.24% 97.75% 96.50% 96.94% 97.25%
$30 Incentive, Weighted RR 96.04% 98.00% 97.18% 96.74%$ 96.86%@ 97.00%@
$30 Incentive, s.e. 1.57 0.81 0.91 0.79 0.71 0.49
$50 Incentive, Complete 170 456 490 414 848 2,378
$50 Incentive, Net Sample 173 467 505 427 865 2,437
$50 Incentive, Unweighted RR 98.25% 97.60% 97.01% 96.89% 98.03% 97.55%
$50 Incentive, Weighted RR 98.60% 97.69% 97.22% 97.20%" 97.81%" 97.70%*
$50 Incentive, s.e. 0.82 0.73 0.79 0.70 0.64 0.43
$70 Incentive, Complete 190 491 462 422 933 2,498
$70 Incentive, Net Sample 196 499 468 426 941 2,530
$70 Incentive, Unweighted RR 96.89% 98.37% 98.72% 99.05% 99.14% 98.72%
$70 Incentive, Weighted RR 97.48% 98.69% 98.54% 98.96%# 99.22%! 99.00%^
$70 Incentive, s.e. 1.02 0.51 0.64 0.55 0.28 0.21

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 7: Response rate by NHIS outcome (partial or complete) by round, and overall

  R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 All
$30 Incentive, NHIS Completes,  Net sample, NHIS completes 2,904 2335 2211 2145 2074 3101
$30 Incentive, NHIS Completes, Weighted RR 75.40 92.86 95.82 96.30 97.17 62.78
$30 Incentive, NHIS Completes, s.e. 1.00 0.63 0.55 0.51 0.47 1.12
$30 Incentive, NHIS Partials, Net Sample, NHIS partials 1,006 676 619 590 570 1072
$30 Incentive, NHIS Partials, Weighted RR 59.34$ 90.21> 92.26+ 96.64 96.3$ 45.97$
$30 Incentive, NHIS Partials, s.e. 2.04 1.55 1.369 0.906 1.217 2.154
$50 Incentive, NHIS Completes,  Net sample, NHIS completes 2439 2063 2012 1975 1924 2618
$50 Incentive, NHIS Completes, Weighted RR 80.64 95.85 96.71 96.59 98.1 70.83
$50 Incentive, NHIS Completes, s.e. 1.13 0.53 0.54 0.48 0.35 1.28
$50 Incentive, NHIS Partials, Net Sample, NHIS partials 781 541 524 510 513 845
$50 Incentive, NHIS Partials, Weighted RR 62.17 94.21$ 94.88^ 98.02 96.02" 52.31
$50 Incentive, NHIS Partials, s.e. 2.32 1.13 1.15 0.76 1.27 2.32
$70 Incentive, NHIS Completes,  Net sample, NHIS completes 2365 2028 2019 1991 1961 2550
$70 Incentive, NHIS Completes, Weighted RR 81.27 97.18 97.37 98.35 99.05 74.93
$70 Incentive, NHIS Completes, s.e. 1.19 0.39 0.48 0.33 0.24 1.25
$70 Incentive, NHIS Partials, Net Sample, NHIS partials 817 598 585 583 569 878
$70 Incentive, NHIS Partials, Weighted RR 65.55$ 96.28@ 98.02^ 96.18 98.78# 58.78$
$70 Incentive, NHIS Partials, s.e. 2.06 0.99 0.63 1.19 0.53 1.99

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 8: Percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate in Round 1, by sampling domain and incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Asian - Percent ever refused 27.45 1.65 30.11 2.49 27.09 3.40 24.08 2.49
Asian - Final R1 Refusal Rate 21.33 1.50 24.08 2.24 20.50 3.03 18.25 2.47
Low Income - Percent ever refused 13.47 0.86 13.91 1.50 14.13 1.67 12.22 1.91
Low Income - Final R1 Refusal Rate 9.29 0.67 10.74 1.27 8.89 1.33 7.83 1.52
Hispanic - Percent ever refused 19.87 1.09 23.23> 1.80 17.80$ 1.80 17.43$ 1.79
Hispanic - Final R1 Refusal Rate 14.44 0.91 16.01 1.34 13.41 1.52 13.38 1.71
Black - Percent ever refused 18.26 1.12 20.94 1.72 16.78 1.68 16.59 1.92
Black - Final R1 Refusal Rate 12.32 0.89 14.47$ 1.47 10.80$ 1.28 11.34 1.44
Other - Percent ever refused 29.45 0.82 32.86+ 1.46 27.42@ 1.26 27.34@ 1.57
Other - Final R1 Refusal Rate 21.97 0.70 25.30+ 1.28 19.71@ 1.24 20.18@ 1.39
Across all sample domains - Percent ever refused 25.62 0.59 28.54+ 1.07 23.91@ 1.02 23.72@ 1.14
Across all sample domains - Final R1 Refusal Rate 18.92 0.50 21.70+ 0.94 17.03@ 0.97 17.36@ 1.14

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 9: In Round 2, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Asian - Percent ever refused 7.89 1.27 13.10+ 2.67 3.04@ 1.09 5.35@ 1.47
Asian - Final R2 Refusal Rate 5.83 1.23 10.78+ 2.66 2.24@ 1.00 2.54@ 1.00
Low Income - Percent ever refused 3.89 0.55 5.61> 1.13 3.22 0.84 2.47$ 0.71
Low Income - Final R2 Refusal Rate 2.09 0.41 2.89 0.87 1.64 0.55 1.57 0.54
Hispanic - Percent ever refused 6.32 0.69 11.09+ 1.51 3.64@ 0.88 3.03@ 0.82
Hispanic - Final R2 Refusal Rate 4.21 0.51 7.93> 1.15 2.13$ 0.57 1.62$ 0.57
Black - Percent ever refused 6.88 0.92 11.01+ 1.87 4.95@ 1.17 4.20@ 2.15$
Black - Final R2 Refusal Rate 4.71 0.76 8.27> 1.74 3.25$ 1.01 1.19 0.73
Other - Percent ever refused 5.84 0.49 7.23$ 0.83 5.75 0.85 4.40$ 0.66
Other - Final R2 Refusal Rate 3.91 0.38 5.59+ 0.76 3.52$ 0.58 2.46@ 0.47
Across all sample domains - Percent ever refused 5.82 0.36 8.03+ 0.64 5.03@ 0.54 4.06@ 0.49
Across all sample domains - Final R2 Refusal Rate 3.86 0.27 5.96+ 0.54 3.07@ 0.38 2.25@ 0.33

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 10: In Round 3, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Asian - Percent ever refused 5.48 0.91 6.95 1.78 4.93 1.60 4.28 1.45
Asian - Final R3 Refusal Rate 3.57 0.76 3.83 1.24 2.98 1.29 3.78 1.44
Low Income - Percent ever refused 2.04 0.39 1.65 0.57 2.58 0.67 1.96 0.70
Low Income - Final R3 Refusal Rate 0.74 0.26 0.56 0.38 0.83 0.44 0.85 0.44
Hispanic - Percent ever refused 3.52 0.46 4.75$ 1.02 3.30 0.74 2.28$ 0.74
Hispanic - Final R3 Refusal Rate 2.43 0.40 3.68@ 0.90 2.38 0.66 0.97@ 0.56
Black - Percent ever refused 4.38 0.60 4.21 0.99 5.37 1.15 3.56 0.88
Black - Final R3 Refusal Rate 2.59 0.42 2.42 0.63 3.12 0.93 2.23 0.61
Other - Percent ever refused 4.79 0.42 6.90> 0.91 4.54$ 0.73 2.81@ 0.54
Other - Final R3 Refusal Rate 2.94 0.33 4.33+ 0.70 2.79 0.53 1.63@ 0.40
Across all sample domains - Percent ever refused 4.30 0.29 5.74@ 0.60 4.26" 0.51 2.78! 0.38
Across all sample domains - Final R3 Refusal Rate 2.60 0.23 3.56+ 0.48 2.54 0.37 1.62@ 0.29

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 11: In Round 4, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Asian - Percent ever refused 3.56 0.82 5.50 1.64 2.12 1.01 2.70 1.12
Asian - Final R4 Refusal Rate 2.53 0.75 4.09$ 1.46 1.15$ 0.80 2.04 0.94
Low Income - Percent ever refused 2.44 0.46 3.89$ 0.92 1.30$ 0.58 1.80 0.70
Low Income - Final R4 Refusal Rate 1.19 0.31 1.88 0.59 0.77 0.49 0.77 0.44
Hispanic - Percent ever refused 2.79 0.46 3.63 0.82 2.70 0.83 1.88 0.69
Hispanic - Final R4 Refusal Rate 1.52 0.32 2.05 0.54 1.13 0.52 1.33 0.59
Black - Percent ever refused 3.20 0.50 4.89$ 1.17 2.63 0.77 2.05$ 0.69
Black - Final R4 Refusal Rate 1.73 0.38 2.77 0.87 0.98 0.49 1.43 0.56
Other - Percent ever refused 3.96 0.43 4.36$ 0.69 5.09* 0.80 2.48: 0.58
Other - Final R4 Refusal Rate 2.44 0.35 3.00$ 0.60 2.74 0.55 1.58$ 0.49
Across all sample domains - Percent ever refused 3.56 0.29 4.32@ 0.45 4.02* 0.53 2.31^ 0.41
Across all sample domains - Final R4 Refusal Rate 2.13 0.22 2.78@ 0.37 2.10 0.37 1.46@ 0.34

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 12: In Round 5, percent of RU's that ever refused, and the final refusal rate, by sampling domain and incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Asian - Percent ever refused 1.89 0.59 2.27 1.17 1.24 0.68 2.04 0.92
Asian - Final R5 Refusal Rate 1.16 0.40 1.21 0.68 0.84 0.61 1.38 0.80
Low Income - Percent ever refused 1.20 0.33 1.28 0.54 1.42 0.58 0.88 0.48
Low Income - Final R5 Refusal Rate 0.69 0.23 1.11 0.53 0.80 0.36 0.10 0.10
Hispanic - Percent ever refused 1.47 0.35 1.95 0.66 1.49 0.67 0.89 0.49
Hispanic - Final R5 Refusal Rate 1.00 0.31 1.17 0.55 1.17 0.57 0.62 0.45
Black - Percent ever refused 1.49 0.34 3.40+ 0.88 0.97@ 0.45 0.14@ 0.14
Black - Final R5 Refusal Rate 0.95 0.26 1.90@ 0.62 0.97" 0.45 0.00! 0.00
Other - Percent ever refused 1.98 0.31 2.85@ 0.66 2.11 0.58 0.98@ 0.33
Other - Final R5 Refusal Rate 1.27 0.24 1.88@ 0.52 1.47 0.51 0.49@ 0.22
Across all sample domains - Percent ever refused 1.78 0.20 2.56@ 0.41 1.81" 0.37 0.92! 0.23
Across all sample domains - Final R5 Refusal Rate 1.14 0.15 1.67@ 0.33 1.28" 0.32 0.44! 0.15

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 13: Cooperation with request to sign the Authorization Form by incentive group, for Rounds 1, 2, and 3

Of RU's w/ 1 or more AF's requested Across
Incentive
Groups
count
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
count
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
count
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
count
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - Some, but not all returned 48 2.38 0.48 22 2.64 0.70 11 1.96 0.69 15 2.47 1.03
Round 1 - None Returned 516 30.37 1.64 200 32.19 2.75 174 31.16 2.90 142 26.95 2.36
Round 1 - All returned 1182 67.25 1.62 454 65.17 2.64 376 66.87 2.93 352 70.58 2.37
Round 2 - Some, but not all returned 993 14.99 0.59 365 14.44 0.90 304 14.75 0.97 324 15.83 0.99
Round 2 - None Returned 1143 17.68 0.77 409 17.75 1.27 383 18.96 1.35 351 16.36 1.03
Round 2 - All returned 4433 67.33 1.04 1565 67.81 1.53 1408 66.29 1.59 1460 67.81 1.48
Round 3 -Some, but not all returned 813 12.66 0.55 288 12.88 0.93 249 12.10 0.89 276 12.97 0.85
Round 3 -None Returned 1280 20.70 0.91 469 20.95 1.34 419 21.72 1.41 392 19.47 1.39
Round 3 -All returned 4024 66.64 1.01 1398 66.17 1.47 1268 66.18 1.58 1358 67.56 1.62

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 14: Cooperation with request to complete and return the SAQ by incentive group, in Round 2

Of RU's with 1 or more SAQ requested Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Some , but not all completed 596 6.94 0.36 228 7.94 $ 0.67 178 6.60 0.54 190 6.19$ 0.54
None completed 609 7.45 0.39 256 8.64@ 0.71 189 7.35 0.79 164 6.26@ 0.57
All completed 6595 85.61 0.50 2289 83.42@ 0.93 2120 86.05 0.88 2186 87.55@ 0.74

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 15: For each round, the avg. number of days between the start of data collection and the first contact, and the avg. number of days between the first contact and final case resolution

  Across
Incentive
Groups
Avg. number
of days 
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
Avg. number
of days
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
Avg. number
of days
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
Avg. number
of days
$70
Incentive
s.e. 
Round 1 - Between Jan 1 and First Contact 34.36 0.60 34.42 0.86 34.71 0.89 33.91 0.79
Round 1 - Between First Contact and Final Disp. 49.10 0.97 54.54+ 1.83 47.31@ 1.27 44.59@ 1.49
Round 2 - Between July 28 and First Contact 25.19 0.52 26.12@ 0.70 25.71" 0.74 23.61! 0.74
Round 2 - Between First Contact and Final Disp. 22.34 0.44 26.85+ 0.84 20.46@ 0.79 19.03@ 0.67
Round 3 - Between Jan 1 and First Contact 35.36 0.67 36.82$ 0.85 34.33$ 1.05 34.77 1.14
Round 3 - Between First Contact and Final Disp. 24.35 0.51 28.45+ 0.91 23.55! 0.97 20.70! 0.82
Round 4 - Between June 28 and First Contact 32.37 0.51 34.68+ 0.69 31.02@ 0.77 31.21@ 0.80
Round 4 - Between First Contact and Final Disp. 27.14 0.45 29.12@ 0.72 27.29" 0.70 24.88! 0.81
Round 5 - Between Jan 1 and First Contact 39.87 0.70 40.32 0.96 40.16 0.90 39.13 0.93
Round 5 - Between First Contact and Final Disp. 26.92 0.47 30.34+ 0.85 25.64@ 0.82 24.55@ 0.73

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 16: For each round, the average number of in-person, telephone contacts and total contacts to close a case, by sampling domain and incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
Average
Num of
contacts to
close R1 case
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e. of avg.
$30
Incentive
Average
Num of
contacts to
close R1 case
$30
Incentive
s.e. of avg.
$50
Incentive
Average
Num of
contacts to
close R1 case
$50
Incentive
s.e. of avg.
$70
Incentive
Average
Num of
contacts to
close R1 case
$70
Incentive
s.e. of avg.
Round 1 - Total contacts 7.18 0.11 7.74+ 0.20 7.04! 0.18 6.62! 0.17
Round 1 - In-person contacts 4.90 0.10 5.25+ 0.17 4.85$ 0.14 4.52@ 0.13
Round 1 - Telephone contacts 2.28 0.05 2.49> 0.10 2.19$ 0.08 2.10@ 0.08
Round 2 - Total contacts 5.73 0.10 6.50+ 0.18 5.42@ 0.14 5.16@ 0.12
Round 2 - In-person contacts 2.18 0.04 2.48+ 0.08 2.05@ 0.06 1.96@ 0.06
Round 2 - Telephone contacts 3.55 0.07 4.02+ 0.12 3.36@ 0.10 3.21@ 0.10
Round 3 - Total contacts 5.16 0.07 5.60+ 0.12 5.03@ 0.12 4.81@ 0.12
Round 3 - In-person contacts 1.93 0.03 2.08> 0.06 1.90$ 0.06 1.78@ 0.05
Round 3 - Telephone contacts 3.23 0.06 3.52+ 0.10 3.13@ 0.10 3.02@ 0.09
Round 4 - Total contacts 5.18 0.08 5.54+ 0.14 5.11$ 0.13 4.86@ 0.12
Round 4 - In-person contacts 1.78 0.03 1.87@ 0.06 1.80 0.05 1.67@ 0.05
Round 4 - Telephone contacts 3.40 0.06 3.66+ 0.12 3.32$ 0.10 3.19@ 0.09
Round 5 - Total contacts 4.57 0.07 4.97+ 0.13 4.45@ 0.12 4.27@ 0.07
Round 5 - In-person contacts 1.67 0.03 1.83+ 0.07 1.66: 0.05 1.51^ 0.04
Round 5 - Telephone contacts 2.90 0.05 3.14> 0.10 2.79$ 0.10 2.76@ 0.06

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 17: Item missing data rates for select variables by incentive group, for Rounds 1, 2 and 3

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - Educational Attainment 244 2.30 0.18 75 1.97 0.30 79 2.28 0.31 90 2.71 0.32
Round 1 - Mental Health Status 129 1.34 0.15 44 1.25 0.26 47 1.64 0.28 38 1.15 0.19
Round 1 - General Heath Status 126 1.32 0.14 44 1.25 0.26 47 1.56 0.26 35 1.15 0.20
Round 1 - Employment Status 245 2.66 0.22 104 3.30@ 0.41 80 2.71 0.38 61 1.88@ 0.27
Round 2 - Educational Attainment 42 2.68 0.59 18 3.35 0.95 16 2.56 0.86 8 2.02 0.90
Round 2 - Mental Health Status 126 1.50 0.15 48 1.73 0.31 44 1.30 0.26 34 1.43 0.23
Round 2 - General Heath Status 116 1.38 0.15 44 1.59 0.29 38 1.10 0.25 34 1.43 0.23
Round 2 - Employment Status 178 3.36 0.33 72 4.11 0.55 56 2.90 0.49 50 2.95 0.56
Round 3 - Educational Attainment 30 2.08 0.45 9 2.60 1.04 9 1.49 0.55 12 2.17 0.71
Round 3 - Mental Health Status 126 1.67 0.17 44 1.96 0.35 45 1.75 0.29 37 1.30 0.21
Round 3 - General Heath Status 122 1.60 0.17 42 1.83 0.35 43 1.66 0.28 37 1.30 0.21
Round 3 - Employment Status 163 3.25 0.28 64 3.55 0.51 55 3.41 0.48 44 2.75 0.44
Last Check-Up 683 7.62 0.35 243 7.79 0.65 218 7.56 0.62 222 7.50 0.61
Last Flu Shot 606 7.06 0.38 215 7.30 0.63 201 7.66 0.69 190 6.22 0.50

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 18: Comparison of selected estimates by incentive group, for Rounds 1, 2 and 3

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - Reported at least one office-based visit 5,760 83.68 0.59 2,146 84.72 0.98 1,815 82.71 1.07 1,799 83.44 1.02
Round 1 - At least one person in RU had health insurance on the day of MEPS interview 5,296 83.99 0.60 1,974 85.17 1.03 1,673 82.90 1.07 1,649 83.71 1.05
Round 2 - Reported at least one office-based visit 5,688 84.35 0.59 2,048 84.97 1.05 1,824 84.00 0.97 1,816 84.02 0.97
Round 2 - At least one person in RU had health insurance on the day of MEPS interview 5,234 84.67 0.60 1,882 85.14 1.12 1,680 84.44 0.94 1,672 84.39 0.96
Round 3 - Reported at least one office-based visit 5,611 84.21 0.54 1,980 84.43 1.02 1,792 83.54 0.93 1,839 84.61 1.00
Round 3 - At least one person in RU had health insurance on the day of MEPS interview 5,147 84.61 0.55 1,821 84.65 1.08 1,644 84.19 0.95 1,682 84.97 1.00

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 19: Age distribution of respondents in rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 7950 100 0 2915 100 0 2512 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 1 - 24 or younger 803 9.30 0.42 268 8.19 0.74 279 10.60 0.82 256 9.29 0.77
Round 1 - 25 - 34 1616 18.62 0.67 597 19.10 1.14 523 19.15 1.15 496 17.55 1.01
Round 1 - 35 - 44 1624 18.59 0.50 629 19.47 0.93 503 18.44 0.87 492 17.72 0.87
Round 1 - 45 - 54 1566 19.97 0.53 594 20.49 1.01 452 18.24 0.87 520 21.09 0.88
Round 1 - 55 - 64 1133 15.60 0.57 384 14.79 0.91 382 15.87 1.01 367 16.28 0.96
Round 1 - 65 or older 1208 17.91 0.67 443 17.96 0.95 373 17.71 1.16 392 18.06 1.19
Round 2 - All 7738 100 0 2754 100 0 2461 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 2 - 24 or younger 805 9.75 0.41 264 8.78 0.74 268 10.39 0.82 273 10.20 0.71
Round 2 - 25 - 34 1535 18.34 0.70 545 18.71 1.13 502 18.61 1.17 488 17.68 1.04
Round 2 - 35 - 44 1580 18.28 0.48 590 19.12 0.98 501 18.38 0.90 489 17.27 0.87
Round 2 - 45 - 54 1516 19.89 0.53 562 20.45 0.96 450 18.73 0.84 504 20.41 0.89
Round 2 - 55 - 64 1108 15.52 0.59 373 14.92 0.95 361 15.42 0.95 374 16.27 0.95
Round 2 - 65 or older 1194 18.22 0.70 420 18.03 0.92 379 18.47 1.21 395 18.17 1.23
Round 3 - All 7605 100 0 2673 100 0 2414 100 0 2518 100 0
Round 3 - 24 or younger 792 9.64 0.42 253 8.62 0.74 261 10.12 0.85 278 10.27 0.74
Round 3 - 25 - 34 1502 18.50 0.72 514 18.58 1.19 501 19.14 1.20 487 17.80 1.03
Round 3 - 35 - 44 1549 18.14 0.49 578 18.97 1.01 475 17.86 0.92 496 17.51 0.84
Round 3 - 45 - 54 1475 19.72 0.52 535 20.07 0.97 441 18.65 0.82 499 20.38 0.86
Round 3 - 55 - 64 1113 15.81 0.60 382 15.68 0.98 362 15.69 0.95 369 16.06 0.94
Round 3 - 65 or older 1174 18.19 0.70 411 18.08 0.94 374 18.54 1.26 389 17.98 1.20

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 20: Race distribution of respondents in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 7950 100 0 2915 100 0 2512 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 1 - Hispanic 1944 11.67 0.67 745 12.10 0.94 621 11.82 1.05 578 11.03 1.01
Round 1 - Black, Non-Hisp 1707 11.93 0.69 610 11.98 0.95 547 12.04 0.97 550 11.77 1.06
Round 1 - Asian, Non-Hisp 513 3.57 0.34 202 3.89 0.49 143 3.15 0.47 168 3.62 0.45
Round 1 - Other, Non-Hisp 3786 72.83 0.89 1358 72.04 1.38 1201 72.99 1.54 1227 73.59 1.48
Round 2 - All 7738 100 0 2754 100 0 2461 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 2 - Hispanic 1897 11.71 0.67 706 12.11 0.99 619 12.19 1.08 572 10.80 0.99
Round 2 - Black, Non-Hisp 1672 11.94 0.72 574 11.79 0.97 540 12.19 0.99 558 11.86 1.10
Round 2 - Asian, Non-Hisp 485 3.41 0.34 185 3.58 0.48 139 3.12 0.47 161 3.53 0.45
Round 2 - Other, Non-Hisp 3684 72.94 0.90 1289 72.52 1.47 1163 72.50 1.53 1232 73.82 1.49
Round 3 - All 7605 100 0 2673 100 0 2414 100 0 2518 100 0
Round 3 - Hispanic 1885 11.88 0.70 701 12.40 1.07 604 12.09 1.11 580 11.11 0.98
Round 3 - Black, Non-Hisp 1651 12.03 0.73 559 11.83 0.99 529 12.16 1.00 563 12.11 1.10
Round 3 - Asian, Non-Hisp 466 3.35 0.34 167 3.42 0.44 137 3.11 0.49 162 3.51 0.46
Round 3 - Other, Non-Hisp 3603 72.74 0.92 1246 72.35 1.51 1144 72.64 1.57 1213 73.27 1.49

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 21: Distribution of educational attainment for respondents in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 7928 100 0 2908 100 0 2504 100 0 2516 100 0
Round 1 - No degree 1587 13.22 0.47 610 14.10 0.74 485 13.07 0.88 492 12.37 0.84
Round 1 - High school degree, no college 2521 32.46 0.71 909 31.90 1.12 787 32.13 1.30 825 33.43 1.27
Round 1 - Some college, associate degree 1922 25.76 0.65 693 25.81 1.04 626 25.88 1.19 603 25.59 0.96
Round 1 - Bachelors degree 1236 18.44 0.63 462 18.68 0.96 405 19.64 1.12 369 16.99 1.03
Round 1 - Graduate degree 662 10.11 0.52 234 9.51 0.77 201 9.28 0.81 227 11.62 0.91
Round 2 - All 7708 100 0 2744 100 0 2453 100 0 2511 100 0
Round 2 - No degree 1544 13.61 0.48 572 14.17 0.83 483 13.74 0.91 489 12.87 0.84
Round 2 - High school degree, no college 2472 32.50 0.72 873 32.43 1.16 771 31.88 1.33 828 33.19 1.27
Round 2 - Some college, associate degree 1894 26.09 0.67 669 26.53 1.12 615 25.84 1.21 610 25.85 1.01
Round 2 - Bachelors degree 1178 17.98 0.63 416 17.55 0.97 396 19.67 1.20 366 16.82 1.00
Round 2 - Graduate degree 620 9.82 0.50 214 9.33 0.74 188 8.88 0.77 218 11.27 0.87
Round 3 - All 7568 100 0 2657 100 0 2404 100 0 2507 100 0
Round 3 - No degree 1547 13.93 0.46 570 14.57 0.78 483 14.14 0.94 494 13.06 0.81
Round 3 - High school degree, no college 2431 32.69 0.70 849 32.98 1.18 764 32.32 1.32 818 32.72 1.23
Round 3 - Some college, associate degree 1875 26.29 0.68 647 26.28 1.15 598 25.72 1.27 630 26.85 1.02
Round 3 - Bachelors degree 1134 17.54 0.62 394 17.13 0.97 379 18.92 1.19 361 16.66 1.01
Round 3 - Graduate degree 581 9.55 0.52 197 9.04 0.73 180 8.90 0.78 204 10.71 0.91

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 22: Distribution of employment status of respondents in rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive level

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 7924 100 0 2906 100 0 2502 100 0 2516 100 0
Round 1 - Emplyed on Interview Date 4853 61.75 0.84 1782 61.43 1.20 1513 61.08 1.30 1558 62.78 1.35
Round 1 - Emplyd during rnd, not on Int. Date 53 0.52 0.09 21 0.49 0.14 16 0.63 0.19 16 0.45 0.15
Round 1 - Not emplyd this rnd, but emplyd in NHIS 175 2.22 0.22 51 1.80 0.33 61 2.68 0.41 63 2.24 0.33
Round 1 - Not emplyd this rnd and no past emplmnt 2843 35.51 0.81 1052 36.28 1.19 912 35.61 1.28 879 34.52 1.31
Round 2 - All 7728 100 0 2750 100 0 2457 100 0 2521 100 0
Round 2 - Emplyed on Interview Date 4656 60.82 0.81 1628 59.90 1.17 1480 60.82 1.28 1548 61.81 1.32
Round 2 - Emplyd during rnd, not on Int. Date 11 0.16 0.06 2 0.07 0.06 4 0.19 0.13 5 0.23 0.12
Round 2 - Not emplyd this rnd, but emplyd last rnd 407 4.73 0.25 155 4.95 0.45 127 4.72 0.49 125 4.51 0.50
Round 2 - Not emplyd this rnd and no past emplmnt 2654 34.29 0.80 965 35.08 1.08 846 34.27 1.30 843 33.44 1.41
Round 3 - All 7595 100 0 2667 100 0 2410 100 0 2518 100 0
Round 3 - Emplyed on Interview Date 4465 59.82 0.78 1547 58.70 1.09 1411 59.49 1.29 1507 61.32 1.47
Round 3 - Emplyd during rnd, not on Int. Date 19 0.29 0.07 10 0.41 0.14 1 0.03 0.03 8 0.40 0.16
Round 3 - Not emplyd this rnd, but emplyd last rnd 413 4.90 0.28 138 4.94 0.50 127 4.96 0.44 148 4.81 0.50
Round 3 - Not emplyd this rnd and no past emplmnt 2698 34.99 0.78 972 35.95 1.07 871 35.52 1.28 855 33.47 1.44

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 23: Distribution of respondent marital status for rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 7950 100 0 2915 100 0 2512 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 1 - Married 3713 48.93 0.84 1392 49.90 1.25 1145 46.98 1.42 1176 49.74 1.43
Round 1 - Widowed 635 8.63 0.46 212 7.89 0.62 221 9.55 0.81 202 8.56 0.79
Round 1 - Separated 1105 14.87 0.56 419 15.82 1.03 340 14.77 0.89 346 13.88 0.92
Round 1 - Divorced 363 3.51 0.23 142 3.75 0.45 104 3.18 0.45 117 3.57 0.47
Round 1 - Never Married 2134 24.05 0.64 750 22.63 1.13 702 25.52 1.30 682 24.24 1.04
Round 2 - All 7738 100 0 2754 100 0 2461 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 2 - Married 3540 47.95 0.78 1291 48.94 1.28 1099 46.63 1.43 1150 48.16 1.35
Round 2 - Widowed 627 8.76 0.47 209 8.17 0.61 218 9.71 0.85 200 8.48 0.77
Round 2 - Separated 1129 15.38 0.58 415 16.32 1.01 348 15.29 0.92 366 14.43 0.94
Round 2 - Divorced 337 3.45 0.24 125 3.43 0.46 110 3.42 0.46 102 3.52 0.54
Round 2 - Never Married 2105 24.45 0.65 714 23.14 1.15 686 24.95 1.30 705 25.41 1.06
Round 3 - All 7604 100 0 2672 100 0 2414 100 0 2518 100 0
Round 3 - Married 3433 47.41 0.79 1231 48.20 1.29 1072 46.49 1.54 1130 47.44 1.34
Round 3 - Widowed 616 8.74 0.45 201 8.24 0.60 211 9.48 0.81 204 8.56 0.76
Round 3 - Separated 1122 15.39 0.61 412 16.32 1.05 342 15.00 0.94 368 14.77 1.02
Round 3 - Divorced 341 3.80 0.28 130 3.83 0.48 113 3.96 0.54 98 3.62 0.54
Round 3 - Never Married 2092 24.66 0.67 698 23.40 1.17 676 25.08 1.31 718 25.61 1.13

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 24: Distribution of self-reported Health Status for respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 7936 100 0 2912 100 0 2507 100 0 2517 100 0
Round 1 - Excellent 1847 25.75 0.65 669 26.06 1.04 580 25.05 1.15 598 26.08 1.03
Round 1 - Very good 2385 31.48 0.61 834 29.49 1.03 790 33.05 1.15 761 32.22 1.22
Round 1 - Good 2217 25.88 0.60 839 26.33 1.00 681 25.72 1.02 697 25.52 1.00
Round 1 - Fair 1095 12.18 0.49 419 13.06 0.88 334 11.61 0.80 342 11.72 0.72
Round 1 - Poor 392 4.72 0.29 151 5.06 0.53 122 4.58 0.51 119 4.46 0.59
Round 2 - All 7732 100 0 2752 100 0 2459 100 0 2521 100 0
Round 2 - Excellent 1617 22.88 0.69 572 23.28 1.32 516 23.08 1.10 529 22.26 0.98
Round 2 - Very good 2483 33.76 0.74 860 31.90 1.20 814 35.19 1.23 809 34.41 1.11
Round 2 - Good 2284 28.21 0.60 822 28.94 1.16 716 27.17 1.06 746 28.42 0.91
Round 2 - Fair 1034 11.46 0.41 380 11.81 0.70 316 11.03 0.72 338 11.48 0.73
Round 2 - Poor 314 3.69 0.26 118 4.07 0.46 97 3.54 0.43 99 3.43 0.48
Round 3 - All 7601 100 0 2669 100 0 2414 100 0 2518 100 0
Round 3 - Excellent 1617 23.52 0.66 544 22.49 1.14 517 23.78 1.17 556 24.36 1.00
Round 3 - Very good 2369 33.11 0.70 809 32.23 1.26 771 33.31 1.13 789 33.86 1.16
Round 3 - Good 2310 28.37 0.64 843 29.80 1.13 724 28.11 1.01 743 27.09 1.09
Round 3 - Fair 1011 11.08 0.44 363 11.29 0.76 311 10.87 0.78 337 11.06 0.72
Round 3 - Poor 294 3.93 0.27 110 4.20 0.50 91 3.94 0.54 93 3.62 0.49

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 25: Distribution of RU size for responding RU's in Rounds 1, 2, and 3, by incentive level

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 7950 100 0 2915 100 0 2512 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 1 - 1 2200 30.40 0.73 790 29.30 1.19 705 31.91 1.29 705 30.16 1.21
Round 1 - 2 2172 30.72 0.70 783 31.27 1.12 691 29.90 1.06 698 30.90 1.22
Round 1 - 3 1320 15.24 0.45 488 14.94 0.76 432 15.81 0.85 400 15.02 0.80
Round 1 - 4 1200 13.52 0.45 443 13.64 0.74 377 13.17 0.91 380 13.73 0.77
Round 1 - 5+ 1058 10.13 0.47 411 10.86 0.71 307 9.21 0.68 340 10.19 0.74
Round 2 - All 7738 100 0 2754 100 0 2461 100 0 2523 100 0
Round 2 - 1 2196 31.12 0.68 750 29.49 1.16 703 32.32 1.37 743 31.74 1.10
Round 2 - 2 2114 30.74 0.70 766 32.17 1.22 660 29.29 1.16 688 30.59 1.19
Round 2 - 3 1228 14.52 0.48 434 13.72 0.78 414 15.60 0.82 380 14.34 0.86
Round 2 - 4 1152 13.25 0.49 412 13.40 0.81 378 13.44 0.94 362 12.91 0.71
Round 2 - 5+ 1048 10.36 0.47 392 11.22 0.75 306 9.35 0.72 350 10.41 0.75
Round 3 - All 7605 100 0 2673 100 0 2414 100 0 2518 100 0
Round 3 - 1 2197 31.77 0.69 747 30.49 1.10 694 32.54 1.46 756 32.40 1.15
Round 3 - 2 2093 30.69 0.73 744 31.70 1.26 661 29.85 1.19 688 30.42 1.21
Round 3 - 3 1185 14.36 0.47 408 13.53 0.81 395 15.43 0.87 382 14.22 0.85
Round 3 - 4 1107 12.98 0.49 404 13.64 0.83 371 13.03 0.88 332 12.23 0.73
Round 3 - 5+ 1023 10.20 0.47 370 10.65 0.70 293 9.15 0.77 360 10.73 0.77

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 26: Distribution of MSA status for responding RU's in Rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 8002 100 0 2930 100 0 2530 100 0 2542 100 0
Round 1 - MSA 6890 84.04 1.32 2488 83.95 2.12 2201 84.02 1.87 2201 84.17 2.00
Round 1 - Non-MSA 1112 15.96 1.32 442 16.05 2.12 329 15.98 1.87 341 15.83 2.00
Round 2 - All 7797 100 0 2771 100 0 2486 100 0 2540 100 0
Round 2 - MSA 6686 83.50 1.31 2339 83.18 2.17 2154 83.48 1.94 2193 83.87 1.98
Round 2 - Non-MSA 1111 16.50 1.31 432 16.82 2.17 332 16.52 1.94 347 16.13 1.98
Round 3 - All 7671 100 0 2692 100 0 2437 100 0 2542 100 0
Round 3 - MSA 6566 83.40 1.28 2264 83.13 2.24 2110 83.36 1.86 2192 83.72 1.97
Round 3 - Non-MSA 1105 16.60 1.28 428 16.87 2.24 327 16.64 1.86 350 16.28 1.97

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents

Table 27: Distribution of responding RU's by region of country for Rounds 1, 2 and 3, by incentive group

  Across
Incentive
Groups
n
Across
Incentive
Groups
(%)
Across
Incentive
Groups
s.e.
$30
Incentive
n
$30
Incentive
(%)
$30
Incentive
s.e.
$50
Incentive
n
$50
Incentive
(%)
$50
Incentive
s.e.
$70
Incentive
n
$70
Incentive
(%)
$70
Incentive
s.e.
Round 1 - All 8002 100 0 2930 100 0 2530 100 0 2542 100 0
Round 1 - Northeast 1291 16.30 0.58 475 17.03 1.24 423 16.69 1.51 393 15.06 1.53
Round 1 - Midwest 1556 24.28 0.90 568 24.61 1.90 489 24.36 2.07 499 23.83 1.89
Round 1 - South 3086 37.60 0.85 1120 37.39 1.78 959 36.60 2.07 1007 38.84 1.99
Round 1 - West 2069 21.82 0.74 767 20.97 1.29 659 22.35 1.65 643 22.27 1.51
Round 2 - All 7797 100 0 2771 100 0 2486 100 0 2540 100 0
Round 2 - Northeast 1227 15.73 0.57 438 16.45 1.26 416 16.45 1.46 373 14.26 1.45
Round 2 - Midwest 1543 24.73 0.88 552 25.28 1.93 479 24.44 2.09 512 24.42 1.92
Round 2 - South 3022 37.82 0.89 1050 37.21 1.94 953 37.04 2.10 1019 39.24 1.96
Round 2 - West 2005 21.72 0.77 731 21.07 1.32 638 22.08 1.66 636 22.08 1.49
Round 3 - All 7671 100 0 2692 100 0 2437 100 0 2542 100 0
Round 3 - Northeast 1191 15.55 0.59 414 15.96 1.23 408 16.46 1.44 369 14.24 1.46
Round 3 - Midwest 1531 25.03 0.88 544 25.76 2.03 479 24.94 2.15 508 24.35 1.91
Round 3 - South 2973 37.70 0.88 1035 37.43 2.00 919 36.38 2.16 1019 39.25 1.95
Round 3 - West 1976 21.72 0.77 699 20.84 1.36 631 22.22 1.73 646 22.17 1.47

+ Significant at the 0.01 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.01 level

$ Significant at the 0.05 level

! Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

@ Significant at the 0.01 level

^ Significant at the 0.01 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

# Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

* $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

" $50 and $70 are significantly different from one another at the 0.05 level

> Significant at the 0.05 level and both $50 and $70 are significantly different from $30 at the 0.05 level

: Significant at the 0.05 level and $50 and $70 are signficantly different from one another at the 0.01 level

Return To Table Of Contents