MEPS HC-038: 1999 Full Year Consolidated Data File

MEPS HC-038: 1999 Full Year Consolidated Data File
October 2002
Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
540 Gaither Road
Rockville, MD 20850
301-427-1406

Individual identifiers have been removed from the micro-data contained in the files on this CD-ROM. Nevertheless, under sections 308 (d) and 903 (c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m and 42 U.S.C. 299 a-1), data collected by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and/or the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) may not be used for any purpose other than for the purpose for which they were supplied; any effort to determine the identity of any reported cases is prohibited by law.

Therefore in accordance with the above referenced Federal Statute, it is understood that:

By using these data you signify your agreement to comply with the above stated statutorily based requirements with the knowledge that deliberately making a false statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the Federal Government violates 18 U.S.C. 1001 and is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or up to 5 years in prison.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality requests that users cite AHRQ and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey as the data source in any publications or research based upon these data.

The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) provides nationally representative estimates of health care use, expenditures, sources of payment, and insurance coverage for the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population. MEPS is cosponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

MEPS is a family of three surveys. The Household Component (HC) is the core survey and forms the basis for the Medical Provider Component (MPC) and part of the Insurance Component (IC). Together these surveys yield comprehensive data that provide national estimates of the level and distribution of health care use and expenditures, support health services research, and can be used to assess health care policy implications.

MEPS is the third in a series of national probability surveys conducted by AHRQ on the financing and use of medical care in the United States. The National Medical Care Expenditure Survey (NMCES, also known as NMES-1) was conducted in 1977 and the National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES-2) in 1987. Since 1996, MEPS continues this series with design enhancements and efficiencies that provide a more current data resource to capture the changing dynamics of the health care delivery and insurance system.

The design efficiencies incorporated into MEPS are in accordance with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Survey Integration Plan of June 1995, which focused on consolidating DHHS surveys, achieving cost efficiencies, reducing respondent burden, and enhancing analytical capacities. To advance these goals, MEPS includes linkage with the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - a survey conducted by NCHS from which the sample for the MEPS HC is drawn - and enhanced longitudinal data collection for core survey components. The MEPS HC augments NHIS by selecting a sample of NHIS respondents, collecting additional data on their health care expenditures, and linking these data with additional information collected from the respondents’ medical providers, employers, and insurance providers.

The MEPS HC, a nationally representative survey of the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population, collects medical expenditure data at both the person and household levels. The HC collects detailed data on demographic characteristics, health conditions, health status, use of medical care services, charges and payments, access to care, satisfaction with care, health insurance coverage, income, and employment.

The HC uses an overlapping panel design in which data are collected through a preliminary contact followed by a series of five rounds of interviews over a 2 ½-year period. Using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) technology, data on medical expenditures and use for 2 calendar years are collected from each household. This series of data collection rounds is launched each subsequent year on a new sample of households to provide overlapping panels of survey data and, when combined with other ongoing panels, will provide continuous and current estimates of health care expenditures.

The sampling frame for the MEPS HC is drawn from respondents to NHIS. NHIS provides a nationally representative sample of the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population, with oversampling of Hispanics and blacks.

The MEPS MPC supplements and validates information on medical care events reported in the MEPS HC by contacting medical providers and pharmacies identified by household respondents. The MPC sample includes all hospitals, hospital physicians, home health agencies, and pharmacies reported in the HC. Also included in the MPC are all office-based physicians who:

Data are collected on medical and financial characteristics of medical and pharmacy events reported by HC respondents, including:

The MPC is conducted through telephone interviews and mailed survey materials. In some instances, providers sent medical and billing records that were abstracted into the survey instruments.

The MEPS IC collects data on health insurance plans obtained through employers, unions, and other sources of private health insurance. Data obtained in the IC include the number and types of private insurance plans offered, benefits associated with these plans, premiums, contributions by employers and employees, eligibility requirements, and employer characteristics.

Establishments participating in the MEPS IC are selected through four sampling frames:

To provide an integrated picture of health insurance, data collected from the first sampling frame (employers and insurance providers) are linked back to data provided by the MEPS HC respondents. Data from the other three sampling frames are collected to provide annual national and State estimates of the supply of private health insurance available to American workers and to evaluate policy issues pertaining to health insurance.

The MEPS IC is an annual panel survey. Data are collected from the selected organizations through a prescreening telephone interview, a mailed questionnaire, and a telephone followup for nonrespondents.

MEPS data are collected under the authority of the Public Health Service Act. They are edited and published in accordance with the confidentiality provisions of this act and the Privacy Act. NCHS provides consultation and technical assistance.

As soon as data collection and editing are completed, the MEPS survey data are released to the public in staged releases of summary reports and microdata files. Summary reports are released as printed documents and/or electronic files on the MEPS web site (www.meps.ahrq.gov). All microdata files are available for download from the MEPS web site in compressed formats (zip and self-extracting executable files.) Selected data files are available on CD-ROM from the AHRQ Clearinghouse.

For printed documents and CD-ROMs that are available through the AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse, write or call:

Be sure to specify the AHRQ number of the document or CD-ROM you are requesting.

Additional information on MEPS is available from the MEPS project manager or the MEPS public use data manager at the Center for Financing , Access and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850 (301/427-1406).

This documentation describes the 1999 full-year consolidated data file from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component (MEPS HC). Released as an ASCII file (with related SAS programming statements) and a SAS transport dataset, this public use file provides information collected on a nationally representative sample of the civilian non-institutionalized population of the United States for calendar year 1999. This file consists of MEPS survey data obtained in Rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Panel 3 and Rounds 1, 2, and 3 of Panel 4 (i.e., the rounds for the MEPS panels covering calendar year 1999) and contains variables pertaining to survey administration, demographics, income, employment, health status, disability, access to care, health insurance and person-level medical care use and expenditures.

The following documentation offers a brief overview of the types and levels of data provided, the content and structure of the files, and programming information. It contains the following sections:

A codebook of all the variables included in the 1999 Full Year Use File is provided in a separate file (H38CB.PDF).

A database of all MEPS products released to date and a variable locator indicating the major MEPS HC data items on public use files that have been released to date can be found at the following link on the MEPS website: www.meps.ahrq.gov/.

This public use dataset contains variables and frequency distributions associated with 24,618 persons who participated in the MEPS Household Component of the Medical Panel Expenditure Survey in 1999. These persons received a person-level weight, a family-level weight or both (some participating persons belonged to families characterized as family-level nonrespondents while some members of participating families were not eligible for a person-level weight). These persons were part of one of the two MEPS panels for whom data was collected in 1999: Rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Panel 3 or Rounds 1, 2, and 3 of Panel 4. Of these persons, 23,565 were assigned a positive person-level weight. There were 9,345 families receiving a positive family-level weight. Both weighted and unweighted frequencies are provided for each variable on the dataset. In conjunction with the person-level weight variable (PERWT99F) provided on this file, data for persons with a positive person-level weight can be used to make estimates for the civilian non-institutionalized U. S. population for 1999.

The records on this file can be linked to all other 1999 MEPS-HC public use data sets by the sample person identifier (DUPERSID). Panel 3 cases (PANEL99=3) can be linked back to the 1998 MEPS-HC public use data files. However, the user should be aware that, at this time, no weight is provided to facilitate two-year analysis of Panel 3 data.

This codebook describes an ASCII data set and provides the following programming identifiers for each variable:

In general, variable names reflect the content of the variable, with an eight-character limitation. Edited variables end in an X, and are so noted in the variable label. The last two characters in round-specific variables denote the rounds of data collection, Round 3, 4, or 5 of Panel 3 and Round 1, 2, or 3 of Panel 4. Unless otherwise noted, variables that end in 99 represent status as of December 31, 1999.

Variables contained in this delivery were derived either from the questionnaire itself or from the CAPI. The source of each variable is identified in the section of the documentation entitled “Section D. Variable-Source Crosswalk.” Sources for each variable are indicated in one of four ways: (1) variables derived from CAPI or assigned in sampling are so indicated; (2) variables derived from complex algorithms associated with re-enumeration are labeled “RE Section”; (3) variables that are collected by one or more specific questions in the instrument have those question numbers listed in the Source column; (4) variables constructed from multiple questions using complex algorithms are labeled “Constructed.”

The survey administration variables contain information related to conducting the interview, household and family composition, and person-level and RU-level status codes. Data for the survey administration variables were derived from the sampling process, the CAPI programs, or were computed based on information provided by the respondent in the re-enumeration section of the questionnaire. Most survey administration variables on this file are asked during every round of the MEPS interview. They describe data for Rounds 3/1, 4/2, 5/3 status and status as of December 31, 1999. Variable names ending in “xy” represent variables relevant to Round “x” of Panel 3 or Round “y” of Panel 4. For example, RULETR53 is a variable relevant to Round 5 of Panel 3 or Round 3 of Panel 4, depending on the panel in which the person was included.

The December 31, 1999 variables were developed in two ways. Those used in the construction of eligibility, inscope, and the end reference date were based on an exact date. The remaining variables were constructed using data from specific rounds, if available. If data were missing from the target round, but were available in another round, data from that other round were used in the variable construction. If no valid data were available during any round of data collection, an appropriate reserved code was assigned.

Dwelling Units, Reporting Units, Families and Health Insurance Eligibility Units

The definitions of Dwelling Units (DUs) in the MEPS Household Survey are generally consistent with the definitions employed for the National Health Interview Survey. The dwelling unit ID (DUID) is a five-digit random ID number assigned after the case was sampled for MEPS. A person number (PID) uniquely identifies each person within the dwelling unit. The variable DUPERSID is the combination of the variables DUID and PID.

A Reporting Unit (RU) is a person or group of persons in the sampled dwelling unit who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, foster care or other family association. Each RU was interviewed as a single entity for MEPS. Thus, the RU serves chiefly as a family-based “survey” operations unit rather than an analytic unit. Members of each RU within the DU are identified in the first three rounds by the round-specific variables RULETR31, RULETR42 and RULETR53. End-of-year status (as of December 31, 1999 or the last round they were in the survey) is indicated by the RULETR99 variable. Regardless of the legal status of their association, two persons living together as a “family” unit were treated as a single reporting unit if they chose to be so identified. Examples of different types of reporting units are:

Unmarried college students (less than 24 years of age) who usually live in the sampled household but were living away from home and going to school at the time of the Round 3/1 MEPS interview were treated as a reporting unit separate from that of his or her parents for the purpose of data collection.

Health Insurance Eligibility Units (HIEUs) are sub-family relationship units constructed to include adults plus those family members who would typically be eligible for coverage under the adults' private health insurance family plans. To construct the HIEUIDX variable which links persons into a common HIEU, we begin with the family identification variable CPSFAMID. Working with this family ID, we define HIEUIDX using family relationships as of the end of 1999. Persons missing end of year relationship information are assigned to an HIEUIDX using relationship information from the last round in which they provided such information. HIEUs comprise adults, their spouses, and their unmarried natural/adoptive children age 18 and under. We also include children under age 24 who are full-time students. Children who do not live with their natural/adoptive adult parents are placed in an HIEUIDX as follows:

HIEUs do not, in general, comprise adult (nonmarital) partnerships, because unmarried adult partners are rarely eligible for dependent coverage under each other's insurance. The exception to this rule is that we include adult partners in the same HIEU if there is at least one (out-of-wedlock) child in the family that links to both adult partners. In cases of missing or contradictory relationship codes, HIEUs are edited by hand, with the presumption being that the adults and children form a nuclear family.

For the CPS-like families identified by CPSFAMID, two additional variables, FCSZ1231 and FCRP1231, are provided. The family size variable, FCSZ1231, represents the number of persons in a responding December 31st CPS-like family. The FCRP1231 identifies the reference person of the responding December 31st CPS-like family.

R2FLAG indicates whether or not a person is a member of an RU in which the Panel 3 Round 2 interview occurred in 1999. R2FLAG was assigned the value +1 for persons in RUs where Round 2 of Panel 3 covered a portion of calendar year 1999. Persons who are members of a Panel 3 RU that had its Round 2 interview in 1998 will have R2FLAG set to -1. Persons who are part of Panel 4 will also have R2FLAG set to -1. Typically, only Round 3 of a MEPS panel covers two calendar years, so the R2FLAG was developed to identify where data collection procedures were modified. All utilization data for calendar year 1999 for full year 1999 respondents is provided on this file regardless of the round in which it happened to be collected. Analysts need not modify any procedures to deal with this departure from the usual data collection process as the standard MEPS variables have been developed so that the process is transparent to the user.

The round-specific variables RUSIZE31, RUSIZE42, RUSIZE53 and the end-of-year status variable RUSIZE99 indicate the number of persons in each RU, treating each student as a single RU separate from their parents. Thus, students are not included in the RUSIZE count of their parents RU. However, for many analytic objectives, the student reporting units would be combined with their parents' reporting unit, treating the combined entity as a single family. Family identifier and size variables are described below and include students with their parent’s reporting unit.

PANEL99 is a constructed variable used to specify the panel number for the person. PANEL99 will indicate either Panel 3 or Panel 4 for each person on the file. Panel 3 is the panel that started in 1998, Panel 4 is the panel that started in 1999.

The round-specific variables FAMID31, FAMID42, FAMID53 and the end-of-year status variable FAMID99 identify a family (i.e., persons related to one another by blood, marriage, adoption, foster care, or self-identified as a single unit) for each round and as of December 31, 1999. The FAMID variables differ from RU only in that student reporting units are combined with their parents’ reporting unit.

Two other family identifiers, FAMIDYR and CPSFAMID, are provided on this file. The annualized family ID letter, FAMIDYR, identifies eligible members of the eligible annualized families within a DU. The CPSFAMID represents a redefinition of MEPS families into families defined by the Current Population Survey (CPS). Some of the distinctions between CPS and MEPS defined families are that MEPS families include and CPS families do not include: non-married partners, foster children, and in-laws. These persons are considered as members of separate families for CPS-like families. The reason CPS-like families are defined is so that a poverty status classification variable consistent with established definitions of poverty can be assigned to the CPS-like families and used for weight poststratification purposes. In order to identify a person’s family affiliation users must create a unique set of FAMID variables by concatenating the DU identifier and the FAMID variable. Instructions to create family estimates are described in section 3.3.

The round-specific variables FAMSZE31, FAMSZE42, FAMSZE53 and the end-of-year status variable FAMSZE99 indicate the number of persons associated with a single family unit after students are linked to their associated parent RUs for analytical purposes. Family-level analyses should use the FAMSZE variables.

Note that the variables RUSIZE31, RUSIZE42, RUSIZE53, RUSIZE99, FAMSZE31, FAMSZE42, FAMSZE53, and FAMSZE99 exclude persons who are ineligible for data collection (i.e., those where ELGRND31 ^= 1, ELGRND42 ^= 1, ELGRND53 ^= 1 or ELGRND99 ^= 1); analysts should exclude ineligible persons in a given round from all family-level analyses for that round.

The round-specific variables RURSLT31, RURSLT42, and RURSLT53 indicate the RU response status for each round. Users should note that the values for RURSLT31 differ from those for RURSLT42 and RURSLT53. The values for RURSLT31 include the following:

Standard, or primary RUs are the original RUs from NHIS. A new RU is one created when members of the household leave the primary RU and are followed according to the rules of the survey. A student RU is an unmarried college student (under 24 years of age) who is considered a usual member of the household, but was living away from home while going to school, and was treated as a Reporting Unit (RU) separate from his or her parents’ RU for the purpose of data collection. RUCLAS99 was set based on the RUCLASS values from Rounds 3/1, 4/2, and 5/3. If the person was present in the responding RU in Round 5/3, then RUCLAS99 was set to RUCLAS53. If the person was not present in a responding RU in Round 5/3, but was present in Round 4/2, then RUCLAS99 was set to RUCLAS42. If the person was not present in either Rounds 4/2 or 5/3, but was present in Round 3/1, then RUCLAS99 was set to RUCLAS31. If the person was not linked to a responding RU during any round, then RUCLAS99 was set to -9.

The reference period is the period of time for which data were collected in each round for each person. The reference period dates were determined during the interview for each person by the CAPI program. The round-specific beginning reference period dates are included for each person. These variables include BEGRFM31, BEGRFD31, BEGRFY31, BEGRFM42, BEGRFD42, BEGRFY42, BEGRFM53, BEGRFD53, and BEGRFY53. The reference period for Round 1 for most persons began on January 1, 1999 and ended on the date of the Round 1 interview. For RU members who joined later in Round 1, the beginning Round 1 reference date was the date the person entered the RU. For all subsequent rounds, the reference period for most persons began on the date of the previous round’s interview and ended on the date of the current round’s interview. Persons who joined after the previous round’s interview had their beginning reference date for the round set as the day they joined the RU.

The round-specific ending reference period dates for Rounds 3/1, 4/2, and 5/3 as well as the end-of-year reference period end date variables are also included for each person. These variables include ENDRFM31, ENDRFD31, ENDRFY31, ENDRFM42, ENDRFD42, ENDRFY42, ENDRFM53, ENDRFD53, ENDRFY53, ENDRFM99, ENDRFD99, and ENDRFY99. For most persons in the sample, the date of the round’s interview is the reference period end date. Note that the end date of the reference period for a person is prior to the date of the interview if the person was deceased during the round, left the RU, was institutionalized prior to that round’s interview, or left the RU to join the military.

The round-specific variables REFPRS31, REFPRS42 and REFPRS53 and the end-of-year status variable REFPRS99 identify the reference person for Rounds 3/1, 4/2 and 5/3, and as of December 31, 1999 (or the last round they were in the survey). In general, the reference person is defined as the household member 16 years of age or older who owns or rents the home. If more than one person meets this description, the household respondent identifies one from among them. If the respondent was unable to identify a person fitting this definition, the questionnaire asked for the head of household and this person was then considered the reference person for that RU. This information was collected in the Re-enumeration section of the CAPI questionnaire.

The respondent is the person who answered the interview questions for the reporting unit (RU). The round-specific variables RESP31, RESP42, and RESP53 and the end-of-year status variable RESP99 identify the respondent for Rounds 3/1, 4/2, and 5/3 and as of December 31, 1999 (or the last round they were in the survey). Only one respondent is identified for each RU. In instances where the interview was completed in more than one session, only the first respondent is indicated.

There are two types of respondents. The respondent can be either a RU member or a non-RU member proxy. The round-specific variables PROXY31, PROXY42, PROXY53 and the end-of-year status variable PROXY99 identify the type of respondent for Rounds 3/1, 4/2, 5/3 and as of December 31, 1999 (or the last round they were in the survey).

Language of interview (INTVLANG) was documented in the Closing section of the interview, and has the following possible values:

Although this question is round-specific, the responses were summarized to the person-level variable, INTVLANG. The hierarchy used in determining the value is as follows: 1) assign the value from the first round with a reported value recorded for each person; 2) if one is not recorded at the person level, then assign the first recorded value within the reporting unit (RU); 3) if one is not available at that level, then assign the first recorded value of the dwelling unit (DU); 4) if no value is available, then a value of –1 is assigned.

A number of variables describe the various components reflecting each person’s status for each round of data collection. These variables provide information about a person’s inscope status, keyness status, eligibility status, and disposition status. These variables include: INSCOPE, INSCOP31, INSCOP42, INSCOP53, INSCOP99, KEYNESS, ELIGIBLE, ELGRND31, ELGRND42, ELGRND53, ELGRND99, PSTATS31, PSTATS42, and PSTATS53. These variables are set based on sampling information and responses provided in the Re-enumeration section of the CAPI questionnaire.

Through the Re-enumeration section of the CAPI questionnaire, each member of a reporting unit was classified as “Key” or “Non-Key”, “inscope” or “out-of-scope”, and “eligible” or “ineligible” for MEPS data collection. To be included in the set of persons used in the derivation of MEPS person-level estimates, a person had to be a member of the civilian non-institutionalized population for at least one day during 1999. Because a person's eligibility for the survey might have changed since the NHIS interview, a sampling re-enumeration of household membership was conducted at the start of each round’s interview. Only persons who were “inscope” sometime during the year, “key”, and responded for the full period in which they were inscope were assigned positive person-level weights and thus are to be used in the derivation of person-level national estimates from the MEPS.

Note: If analysts want to subset to infants born during 1999, then newborns should be identified using AGE99X = 0 rather than PSTATSxy = 51.

A person was considered as inscope during a round if he or she was a member of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population at some time during that round. The round-specific variables INSCOP31, INSCOP42, and INSCOP53 indicate a person’s inscope status for rounds 3/1, 4/2, and 5/3. INSCOP99 indicates a person’s inscope status for the portion of round 5/3 that covers 1999. The values of these variables taken in conjunction allow one to determine inscope status over time (for example, becoming inscope in the middle of a round, as would be the case for newborns). The INSCOPE variable indicates whether a person was ever inscope during the calendar year 1999. INSCOP31, INSCOP42, INSCOP53, and INSCOP99 will contain the following values and corresponding label (for INSCOP99, “reference period” in the description below is the portion of Round 5/3 in 1999):

The term “Keyness” is related to an individual’s chance of being included in MEPS. A person is Key if that person is linked for sampling purposes to the set of NHIS sampled households designated for inclusion in MEPS. Specifically, a Key person was a member of an NHIS household at the time of the NHIS interview, or became a member of such a household after being out-of-scope at the time of the NHIS (examples of the latter situation include newborns and persons returning from military service, an institution, or living outside the United States).

A non-key person is one whose chance of selection for the NHIS (and MEPS) was associated with a household eligible but not sampled for the NHIS, and who later became a member of a MEPS reporting unit. MEPS data, (e.g., utilization and income) were collected for the period of time a non-key person was part of the sampled unit to provide information for family-level analyses. However, Non-key persons who leave a sample household unaccompanied by a key, inscope member were not followed for subsequent interviews. Non-key individuals do not receive sample person-level weights and thus do not contribute to person-level national estimates.

The variable KEYNESS indicates a person’s keyness status. This variable is not round specific. Instead, it is set at the time the person enters MEPS, and the person’s keyness status never changes. Once a person is determined to be key, that person will always be key.

It should be pointed out that a person might be key even though not part of the civilian, non-institutionalized portion of the U.S. population. For example, a person in the military may have been living with his or her civilian spouse and children in a household sampled for NHIS. The person in the military would be considered a key person for MEPS; however, such a person would not be eligible to receive a person-level sample weight if he or she was never inscope during 1999.

The eligibility of a person for MEPS pertains to whether or not data were to be collected for that person. All of the key inscope persons of a sampled RU were eligible for data collection. The only non-key persons eligible for data collection were those who happened to be living in a RU with at least one key, inscope person. Their eligibility continued only for the time that they were living with at least one such person. The only out-of-scope persons eligible for data collection were those who were living with key inscope persons, again only for the time they were living with such a person. Only military persons can meet this description (for example, a person on full time active duty military, living with a spouse who is key).

A person may be classified as eligible for an entire round or for some part of a round. For persons who are eligible for only part of a round (for example, persons may have been institutionalized during a round), data were collected for that person only for the period of time for which that person was classified as eligible. The round-specific variables ELGRND31, ELGRND42, ELGRND53 and the end-of-year status variable ELGRND99 indicate a person’s eligibility status for Rounds 3/1, 4/2 and 5/3 and as of December 31, 1999. The ELIGIBLE variable indicates if a person was ever eligible during the calendar year 1999.

The round-specific variables PSTATS31, PSTATS42, and PSTATS53 indicate a person’s response and eligibility status for each round of interviewing. The PSTATSxy variables indicate the reasons for either continuing or terminating data collection for each person in the MEPS. Using this variable, one could identify persons who moved during the reference period, died, were born, institutionalized or who were in the military. Analysts should note that PSTATS53 provides a summary for all of Round 5/3, including transitions that occurred after 1999. For persons linked to RUs where the Panel 3 Round 2 interview occurred in 1999, the Round 3/1 PSTATS31 may not include transitions that had occurred in 1999. However, PSTATS31, PSTATS42, and PSTATS53 are still a useful guide to following transitions that occur over time in the sample for 1999.

In addition, the variable INRU1231 indicates if a person was present in the RU on December 31, 1999. Persons living in the RU as well as any person coded as “living away in grades 1-12” will have a value of “1” indicating “Yes, the person was present on December 31, 1999.”

Since the variables PSTATS31, PSTATS42, and PSTATS53 indicate the reasons for either continuing or terminating data collection for each person in MEPS, these variables can be used to explain the beginning and ending dates for each individual’s reference period of data collection, as well as which sections in the instrument each individual received. By using the information included in the following table, analysts will be able to determine for each individual which sections of the MEPS questionnaire collected data elements for that person.

Some individuals have a reference period that spans an entire round, while other individuals may have data collected only for a portion of the round. When an individual’s reference period does not coincide with the RU reference period, the individual’s start date may be a later date, or the end date may be an earlier date, or both. In addition, some individuals have reference period information coded as inapplicable (e.g., for individuals who were not actually in the household). The information in this table indicates the beginning and ending dates of reference periods for persons with various values of PSTATS31, PSTATS42, and PSTATS53. The actual dates for each individual can be found in the following variables included on this file: BEGRFM31, BEGRFM42, BEGRFM53, BEGRFD31, BEGRFD42, BEGRFD53, BEGRFY31, BEGRFY42, BEGRFY53, ENDRFM31, ENDRFM42, ENDRFM53, ENDRFD31, ENDRFD42, ENDRFD53, ENDRFY31, ENDRFY42, ENDRFY53, ENDRFM99, ENDRFD99, and ENDRFY99.

The table below also describes the section or sections of the questionnaire, which were NOT asked for each value of PSTATS31, PSTATS42, and PSTATS53. For example, the condition enumeration (CE) and alternative/preventive care (AP) sections have questions that are not asked for deceased persons. The closing section (CL) also contains some questions or question rosters (see CL06A, CL35 through CL37, CL48 through CL50, CL54, CL58, and CL64) that exclude certain persons depending on whether the person died, became institutionalized, or otherwise left the reporting unit; however, no one is considered to have skipped the entire section. Some questions or sections (e.g., health status (HE), employment (RJ, EM, EW)) are skipped if individuals are not within a certain age range. Since the PSTATS variables do not address skip patterns based on age, analysts will need to use the appropriate age variables.

Please note that the end reference date shown below for PSTATS53 reflects the Round 5/3 reference period rather than the portion of Round 5/3 that occurred during 1999.

PSTATS Value	PSTATS Description	Sections in the instrument which persons with this PSTATS value do NOT receive	Begin Reference Date	End Reference Date
-1	The person was not fielded during the round or the RU was non-response	ALL sections	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
0	Incorrectly listed in RU at NHIS - Round 3/1 only	ALL sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
11	Person in original household, not FT active military duty (Person is in the same RU as the previous round)	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Interview date
12	Person in original household, FT active military duty, out-of-scope for whole reference period.	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Interview date
13	FT student living away from home, but associated with sampled household	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Interview date
14	The person is FT active military duty during round and is inscope for part of the reference period and is in the RU at the end of the reference period	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	PSTATS31: Interview date PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: If the person is living w/ someone Key and inscope, then the interview date. If not living w/ someone who is Key and inscope, then the date the person joined the military
21	The person remains in a health care institution for the whole round - rounds 4/2 and 5/3 only	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
22	The person leaves a health care institution and rejoins the community - rounds 4/2 and 5/3 only	--	Date rejoined the community	Interview date
23	The person leaves a health care institution, goes into community and then dies - rounds 4/2 and 5/3 only	Part of CE B Condition enumeration: Skip CE1 to-CE5 HE - Health status AC - Access to care Part of AP - Alternative/Preventive care: Skip AP12 to AP22	Date rejoined the community	Date of Death
24	The person dies in a health care institution during the round (former household member) - rounds 4/2 and 5/3 only	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
31	Person from original household, dies during reference period	Part of CE - Condition enumeration: Skip CE1 to-CE5 HE - Health status AC - Access to care Part of AP - Alternative/Preventive care: Skip AP12 to AP22	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Date of Death
32	Went to healthcare institution during reference period	Access to care (AC)	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Date institutionalized
33	Went to non-healthcare institution during reference period	Access to care (AC)	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Date institutionalized
34	Moved from original household, outside US	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Date left the RU
35	Moved from original household, to a military facility while on FT active military duty	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Date left the RU
36	Went to institution (type unknown) during reference period	Access to care (AC)	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Date institutionalized
41	Moved from the original household, to new household within US (new households include RUs originally classified as a student RU but which converted to a new RU. These are individuals in an RU that has split from an RU since the previous round	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Interview date
42	The person joins household and is not full time military during round	--	The later date of January 1, 1999 and the date the person joined the RU	Interview date
43	The person’s disposition as to why the person is not in the RU is unknown or the person moves and it is unknown whether the person moved inside or outside the U.S.	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
44	The person leaves an RU and joins an existing RU and is not both in the military and coded as inscope during the round	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date of the RU the person has joined. This may not be the interview date of the RU that the person came from	Interview date
51	Newborn in reference period	Questions where age must be > 1 (see Health status (HE), Disability days (DD) Employment (RJ/EM/EW) will be skipped	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 if born prior to 1999. The date of birth if born in 1999. PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: The later of the Prior round interview date and date of birth	Interview date
61	Died prior to reference period (not eligible)--Round 3/1 only	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
62	Institutionalized prior to reference period (not eligible)--Round 3/1 only	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
63	Moved outside U.S., prior to reference period (not eligible)--Round 3/1 only	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
64	FT military, moved prior to reference period (not eligible)--Round 3/1 only	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
71	Student under 24 living away at school in grades 1 through 12 (Non-Key)	--	PSTATS31: January 1, 1999 PSTATS42 and PSTATS53: Prior round interview date	Interview date
72	Person is dropped from the RU roster as ineligible: the person is a Non-Key student living away or the person is not related to reference person or the RU is the person’s residence only during the school year	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
73	Not Key and not full-time military, moved w/o someone Key and inscope (not eligible)	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
74	Moved as full-time military but not to a military facility and w/o someone Key and inscope (not eligible)	All sections after RE	Inapplicable	Inapplicable
81	Person moved from original household, FT student living away from home, did not respond	No data was collected	Inapplicable	Inapplicable

The round-specific variables REGION31, REGION42, REGION53, and the end-of-year status variable REGION99 indicate the Census region for the RU. REGION99 indicates the region for the 1999 portion of Round 5/3. For most analyses, REGION99 should be used. The round-specific variable MSA53 and the end-of-year status variable MSA99 indicate whether or not the RU is found in a metropolitan statistical area. MSA53 indicates the MSA status at the time of the Round 5/3 interview. MSA99 indicates the MSA status for the 1999 portion of Round 5/3. For most analyses, analysts should use MSA99 rather than MSA53.

Demographic variables provide information about the demographic characteristics of each person from the MEPS-HC. The characteristics include age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, and military service. As noted below, some variables have edited and imputed values. Most demographic variables on this file are asked during every round of the MEPS interview. These variables describe data for Rounds 3, 4, and 5 of Panel 3 (1998 Panel); Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of Panel 4 (1999 Panel); and status as of December 31, 1999. Demographic variables that are round specific are identified by names including numbers “xy,” where x and y refer to Round numbers of Panels 3 and 4 respectively. Thus, for example, AGE31X represents the age data relevant to Round 3 of Panel 3 or Round 1 of Panel 4. As mentioned in Section 2.5.1 Survey Administrative Variables, the variable PANEL99 indicates the panel from which the data were derived. A value of 3 indicates Panel 3 data and a value of 4 indicates Panel 4 data. The remaining demographic variables on this file are not round specific.

The variables describing demographic status of the person as of December 31, 1999 were developed in two ways. First, the age variable (AGE99X) represents the exact age as of 12/31/99, calculated from date of birth and indicates age status as of 12/31/99. For the remaining December 31st variables [i.e., related to marital status (MARRY99X, SPOUID99, SPOUIN99), student status (FTSTUD99X) and the relationship to reference persons (RFREL99X)], the following algorithm was used: data were taken from Round 5/3 counterpart if non-missing; else, if missing, data were taken from the Round 4/2 counterpart; else from the Round 3/1 counterpart. If no valid data were available during any of these Rounds of data collection, the algorithm assigned the missing value (other than -1 (Inapplicable)) from the first round that the person was part of the study. When all three rounds were set to –1, a value of –9 (Not Ascertained) was assigned.

Date of birth and age for each RU member were asked or verified during each MEPS interview (DOBMM, DOBYY, AGE31X, AGE42X, AGE53X). If date of birth was available, age was calculated based on the difference between date of birth and date of interview. Inconsistencies between the calculated age and the age reported during the CAPI interview were reviewed and resolved. For purposes of confidentiality, the variables AGE31X, AGE42X, AGE53X and AGE99X were top coded at 90 years.

When date of birth was not provided but age was provided (either from the MEPS interviews or the 1997-1998 NHIS data), the month and year of birth were assigned randomly from among the possible valid options. For any cases still not accounted for, age was imputed using

(1) the mean age difference between MEPS participants with certain family relationships (where available) or

For example, a mother’s age is imputed as her child’s age plus 26, where 26 is the mean age difference between MEPS mothers and their children. A wife’s age is imputed as the husband’s age minus 3, where 3 is the mean age difference between MEPS wives and husbands.

Age was imputed in this way for 5 persons on this file. Age was determined for one additional person from data in a later round.

Data on the sex of each RU member (SEX) were initially determined from the 1997 NHIS for Panel 3 and from the 1998 NHIS for Panel 4. The SEX variable was verified and, if necessary, corrected during each MEPS interview. The data for new RU members (persons who were not members of the RU at the time of the NHIS interviews) were also obtained during each MEPS Round. When sex of the RU member was not available from the NHIS interviews and was not ascertained during one of the subsequent MEPS interviews, it was assigned in the following way. The person’s first name was used to assign sex if obvious (no cases were resolved in this way). If the person’s first name provided no indication of gender, then family relationships were reviewed (no cases were resolved this way). If neither of these approaches made it possible to determine the individual’s sex, sex was randomly assigned (0 cases).

Race (RACEX) and Hispanic ethnicity (HISPANX) questions were initially asked for each RU member during the Round 1 MEPS interview. If this information was not obtained in Round 1, the questions were asked in subsequent Rounds. When race and/or ethnicity was not reported in the Rounds, values for these variables were obtained based on the following priority order. When available, they were obtained from the originally collected NHIS data (1997 or 1998, depending on the Panel). If not ascertained, the race, and/or ethnicity were assigned based on relationship to other members of the RU using a priority ordering that gave precedence to blood relatives in the immediate family. This approach was used in the resolution of a residual group of 3 cases, all of which were missing both race and ethnicity. The variable RACETHNX indicating both race and ethnicity (e.g., with categories such as “Hispanic” and “black but not Hispanic”) reflects the imputations done for RACEX and HISPANX. The specific Hispanic ethnicity group is given in the unedited variable HISPCAT.

Current marital status was collected and/or updated during every Round of the MEPS interview. This information was obtained in RE13 and RE97 and is reported as MARRY31X, MARRY42X, MARRY53X and MARRY99X. Persons under the age of 16 were coded as 6 (under 16 – inapplicable). If marital status of a specified round differed from that of the previous Round, then the marital status of the specified Round was edited to reflect a change during the Round (e.g., married in Round, divorced in Round, separated in Round, or widowed in Round).

In instances where there were discrepancies between the marital status of two individuals within a family, other person-level variables were reviewed to determine the edited marital status for each individual. Thus, when one spouse was reported as married and the other spouse reported as widowed, the data were reviewed to determine if one partner should be coded as 8 (widowed in Round).

Four edits were performed to ensure minimal consistency across rounds. First, a person could not be coded as “Never Married” after previously being coded as any other marital status (e.g. “Widowed”). Second, a person could not be coded as “Under 16 – Inapplicable” after being previously coded as any other marital status. Third, a person could not be coded as “Married in Round” after being coded as “Married” in the Round immediately preceding. Fourth, a person could not be coded as an “in Round” code (e.g., “widowed in Round”) in two subsequent Rounds. Because no other edits were performed, and since marital status can change across Rounds, unlikely sequences for marital status across the Round-specific variables do exist.

When marital status was missing in the preceding round and provided in the current round, then the person was coded to the "in round" marital state. For example, if marital status was not available from the National Health Interview Survey, and the person's marital status was reported as married in round 1 of MEPS, then the person would be coded as "7 married in round" for round 1 of MEPS.

The person identifier for each individual’s spouse is reported in SPOUID31, SPOUID42, SPOUID53 and SPOUID99. These are the PIDs (within each family) of the person identified as the spouse during Round 3/1, Round 4/2, Round 5/3 and as of December 31, 1999, respectively. If no spouse was identified in the household, the variable was coded as 995 (No spouse in household). Those with unknown marital status are coded as 996 (Marital status unknown). Persons under the age of 16 are coded as 997 (Less than 16 years old).

The SPOUIN31, SPOUIN42, SPOUIN53 and SPOUIN99 variables indicate whether a person’s spouse was present in the RU during Round 3/1, Round 4/2, Round 5/3 and as of December 31, 1999 respectively. If the person had no spouse in the household, the value was coded as 2 (Not married/No spouse). For persons under the age of 16 the value was coded as 3 (Under 16 – Inapplicable).

The SPOUID and SPOUIN variables were obtained from RE76 and RE77, where the respondent was asked to identify how each pair of persons in the household were related. Analysts should note that this information was collected in a set of questions separate from the questions that asked about marital status. While editing was performed to ensure that SPOUID and SPOUIN are consistent within each Round, there was no consistency check between these variables and marital status in a given Round. Apparent discrepancies between marital status and spouse information may be due to any of the following causes:

The variables FTSTU31X, FTSTU42X, FTSTU53X and FTSTU99X indicate whether the person was a full-time student at the interview date (or 12/31/99 for FTSTU99X). These variables have valid values for all persons between the ages of 17 - 23 inclusive. When this question was asked during Round 1 of Panel 4, it was based on age as of the 1998 NHIS interview date.

Completed years of education are indicated in the variable EDUCYEAR. Information was obtained from questions RE 103-105. Children who are 5 years of age or older and who never attended school were coded as 0; children under the age of 5 years were coded as 1 (Inapplicable) regardless of whether or not they attended school. However, among the cases coded as inapplicable, there is no distinction between those who were under the age of five and others who were inapplicable, such as persons who may be institutionalized for an entire round. EDUCYEAR is based on the first round in which years of education was collected for a person. The user should note that EDUCYEAR is an unedited variable and minimal data cleaning was performed on this variable.

The variable HIDEGYR indicating highest degree was obtained from three questions: highest grade completed (RE103), high school diploma (RE 104) and highest degree (RE 105). Persons under 16 years of age were coded as 8 (Under 16- Inapplicable). In cases where the response to the highest degree question was “No degree” and the response to the highest grade question was 13 through 17 (1 or more years of college), the variable HIDEGYR was coded as 3 (high school diploma). If highest grade completed was “refused“ or “don’t know” for those with a “No degree” response for the highest degree question, the variable HIDEGYR was coded as 1 (no degree). HIDEGYR is based on the first round in which the highest degree was collected for a person. The user should note that HIDEGYR is an unedited variable and minimal data cleaning was performed on this variable.

Information on active duty military status was collected during each Round of the MEPS interview. Persons currently on full-time active duty status are identified in the variables ACTDTY31, ACTDTY42, and ACTDTY53. Those under 16 years of age were coded as 3 (Under 16 – Inapplicable) and those over the age of 59 were coded as 4 (Over 59 – Inapplicable).

The variable DIDSERVE is only collected during Round 1 of the MEPS interview. It indicates if the person ever served in the Armed Forces. Persons under the age of 16 were coded as 3 (Under 16 – Inapplicable). Individuals currently on active duty military service were coded as 4 (Now active duty). Those individuals entering a MEPS household after Round 1 have DIDSERVE set to –1 (Inapplicable). Like DIDSERVE, data on service in specific eras were only collected during Round 1 of the MEPS interview. Individuals who were ever in the military based on the DIDSERVE and ACTDTY question(s) of Round 1 were also asked if they served in either World War I or World War II (VETWW), the Korean War era (VETKOR), the Vietnam War era (VETVIET), the Post-Vietnam War era (VETPVIET), or another service era (VETOTH). Those under the age of 16 were coded as 3 (Under 16 –Inapplicable) and those who never served in the military were coded as 4 (Never in military). Persons entering a MEPS household after Round 1 have these variables set to –1 (Inapplicable).

Because DIDSERVE and veteran status variables are only asked during Round 1, and because the 1999 FY file only contains data from Rounds 3, 4, and 5 of Panel 3, these variables would have been missing for persons in Panel 3. Consequently, an analyst would have had to go back to the 1998 full year file (MEPS HC-021) in order to determine the military service and veteran status values for those Panel 3 persons. Therefore, to provide a better estimation of military service and veteran status for this 1999 full year file, DIDSERVE, VETWW, VETKOR, VETVIET, VETPVIET, and VETOTH from Panel 3, Round 1 (on the 1998 file) were brought forward onto the 1999 Full Year file.

The user should note that the DIDSERVE and veteran status variables were reviewed for consistency. The veteran status variables were minimally edited to ensure that all individuals under 16 years of age were coded as 3 (Under 16 – Inapplicable) for the specific veteran-era variables. However, no other age editing was performed, and, thus, it is possible for age/era inconsistencies to exist (e.g., AGE31X=17 and VETVIET=Yes).

For each reporting unit (RU), the person who owns or rents the dwelling unit is usually defined as the reference person. For student RUs, the student is defined as the reference person. (For additional information on reference persons, see the documentation on survey administration variables.) The variables RFREL31X, RFREL42X, RFREL53X and RFREL99X indicate the relationship of each individual to the reference person of the reporting unit (RU) in a given round. For the reference person, this variable has the value “self;” for all other persons in the RU, relationship to the reference person is indicated by codes representing “husband/spouse,” “wife/spouse,” “son,” “daughter,” “female partner,” “male partner,” etc. A code of 91, meaning “other related, specify,” was used to indicate rarely observed relationship descriptions such as “mother of partner.” If the relationship of an individual to the reference person was not ascertained during the Round-specific interview, relationships between other RU members were used, where possible, to assign a relationship to the reference person. If MEPS data from calendar year 1999 were not sufficient to identify the relationship of an individual to the reference person, relationship variables from the 1998 MEPS or NHIS data were used to assign a relationship. In the event that a meaningful value could not be determined or data were missing, the relationship variable was assigned a missing value code.

For 246 cases, where two individuals’ relationship indicated they were spouses, but both had marital status indicating they were not married, their relationship was changed to non-marital partners. In addition, the relationship variables were edited to insure that they did not change across rounds for RUs in which the reference person did not change, with the exception of relationships identified as partner, spouse, or foster relationships.

The variables MOPID31X, MOPID42X, MOPID53X and DAPID31X, DAPID42X DAPID53X are round specific and are used to identify the parents (biological, adopted, or step) of the person represented on that record. MOPID##X contains the person identifier (PID) for each individual’s mother if she lived in the dwelling unit in that panel/round of the survey, or a value of –1 (Inapplicable) if she did not. Similarly, DAPID##X contains the person identifier (PID) for each individual’s father if he lived in the dwelling unit in that panel/round of the survey, or a value of –1 (Inapplicable) if he did not. MOPID##X and DAPID##X were constructed based on information collected in the relationship grid of the instrument each round at questions RE76 and RE77 and include biological, adopted, and step parents. Foster parents were not included. For persons who were not present in the household during a round, MOPID##X and DAPID##X have values of –1 (Inapplicable).

Edits were performed to ensure that MOPID##X and DAPID##X were consistent with each individual’s age, sex, and other relationships within the family. For instance, the gender of the parent must be consistent with the indicated relationship; mothers are at least 12 years older than the person and no more than 55 years older than the person; fathers are at least 12 years older than the person; each person has no more than one mother and no more than one father; any values set for MOPID##X and DAPID##X were removed from any person identified as a foster child; and the PID for the person’s mother and father are valid PIDs for that person’s DU for the 1999 Full Year File.

The file provides income and tax-related variables that were constructed primarily from data collected in the Panel 3 Round 5 and Panel 4 Round 3 Income Sections. Person-level income amounts have been edited and imputed for every record on the full-year file, with detailed imputation flags provided as a guide to the method of editing. The tax-filing variables and some program participation variables are unedited, as discussed below.

Logical editing, cold-deck imputation and weighted, sequential hot-deck imputation were used to impute income amounts for missing values (both for item non-response and for persons in the full-year file who were not in the income rounds). Reported income components were generally left unedited (with the few exceptions noted below). Thus, analysts using these data may wish to apply additional checks for outlier values that would appear to stem from mis-reporting.

The editing process began with wage and salary income, WAGEP99X. Complete responses were left unedited, and this group of people was assigned WAGIMP99 = 1, where WAGIMP99 is the imputation flag for wage and salary data. The only exception was for a small number of persons who reported zero wage and salary income despite having been employed for pay during the year according to round level data (see below). Since data on tax filing and on taxable income sources were collected using an approach that encouraged respondents to provide information from their federal tax returns, logical edits were used to assign separate income amounts to married persons whose responses were based on combined income amounts on their joint tax returns.

Persons assigned WAGIMP99=2 were those providing broad income ranges rather than giving specific dollar amounts. Weighted sequential hot-decking was used to provide these individuals with specific dollar amounts. For this imputation, donors were persons who reported specific dollar amounts within the corresponding broad income ranges. All WAGEP99X hot-deck imputations used cells defined on the basis of a conventional list of person-level characteristics including age, education, employment status, race, sex, and region.

Persons assigned WAGIMP99=3 were those who did not report wage and salary income and who were assigned WAGEP99X=0 based on not having been employed during the year.

Persons assigned WAGIMP99=4 were those who did not provide valid dollar amounts or dollar ranges, but for whom we had information from the employment sections of the survey concerning wages, hours, and weeks worked (in all jobs). These data were used to construct annualized wage amounts to be used in place of missing annual wage and salary data. Comparisons of reported and constructed wages and salaries using persons who provided both sorts of information yielded a high degree of confidence that employment data could be reliably used to derive values to serve in place of missing wage and salary information. To implement this approach, part-year responders were assumed to be fully-employed during the remainder of the year if they were employed during the period in which they provided data. An exception was made for those who either died or were institutionalized. These persons were assigned zero wages and salaries for the time they were not in MEPS.

Hot-deck imputation was used for the remaining persons with missing WAGEP99X. Donor pools included persons whose WAGEP99X amounts were edited in the steps described above. Whenever possible, the hot-deck imputations used data on whether or not the person had been employed at any point during the year (and, if available, the number of weeks worked). Imputations for persons deemed to have been employed were conditional in nature, using only donors with positive WAGEP99X amounts (WAGIMP99=5).

Imputations for WAGEP99X for the remaining persons were unconditional, using both workers and non-workers as donors (WAGIMP99=6). After editing WAGEP99X for all persons in the full-year file, the remaining income sources were edited in the following sequence: INTRP99X, BUSNP99X, FARMP99X, DIVDP99X, REFDP99X, ALIMP99X, SALEP99X, TRSTP99X, PENSP99X, IRASP99X, SSECP99X, UNEMP99X, WCMPP99X, VETSP99X, CASHP99X, OTHRP99X, CHLDP99X, SSIP99X, and PUBP99X. Income components were edited sequentially, in each case using information regarding income amounts that had already been edited (so as to maintain patterns of correlation across income sources whenever possible). In all cases, bracketed responses were edited first (using hot-deck imputations from donors in corresponding brackets who gave specific dollar amounts), followed by imputations for remaining missing values. The hot-deck imputations used cells defined on the basis of income amounts already edited and a conventional list of person-level characteristics such as age, education, employment status, race, sex, and region. In addition, hot-deck imputations for CHLDP99X used family-level information concerning marital status and the number of children. Hot-deck imputations for SSIP99X and PUBP99X were also assigned using, in part, simulated program eligibility indicators that integrated state-level program eligibility criteria with data on family composition and income.

As with the 1998 MEPS income variables, data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were incorporated in editing the 1999 variables. The NHIS sample is the frame for the new sample selected for MEPS collection each year, with a year’s time lag. Data from the 1997 NHIS correspond to MEPS Panel 3, while those from the 1998 NHIS correspond to MEPS Panel 4.

Because MEPS units come from the NHIS, it is possible to match individual MEPS responding units to an NHIS unit. In some hot-decks this matching ability allowed income recipiency indicators collected by NHIS to be used in imputing for missing data in certain MEPS income components interest, dividends, business income, pensions, and Social Security. (Not all MEPS income categories have an equivalent in NHIS. Also, wage data were available from NHIS, but were not used in the MEPS imputation process.)

In cases where data on a particular income category were missing for a person in MEPS, the indicator in that income category on the NHIS file was employed, assuming a non-missing value. Indicators were examined for the entire tax-filing unit (two people in the case of married couples filing jointly; one person in all other cases).

Due to the nature of the skip patterns in the MEPS income section, persons who do not file federal income tax returns were more likely to not report any data about an income item than were those persons who do file tax returns. In order to compensate for this missing information, it is critical to impute from other persons who did not file tax returns (or whose filing status was unknown), because persons not filing and filers had different income patterns. For the variables INTRP99X, DIVDP99X, PENSP99X, and SSECP99X, new cold-decks were implemented beginning with the 1999 editing process to address this issue.

These cold-decks used income amounts reported in the 1995 NHIS (the last time dollar amounts, not just recipiency data, were collected), adjusted for inflation. Donors were limited to those 1995 NHIS persons who did not file, or whose filing status was unknown, based on the MEPS Panel 1 results. The cold-decks were run prior to the hot-decks for each variable; cold-deck recipients could not be donors in the subsequent hot-decks.

A similar cold-deck imputation was introduced for certain filers (TAXFRM99) of the "short" or "EZ" 1040 form with missing data caused by the skip patterns in income collection.

Reported income amounts of less than one dollar were treated as missing amounts (to be hot-decked from donors with positive amounts of the corresponding income source). Also, a very few cases of outlier responses were edited (primarily public sources of income that exceeded possible amounts). Otherwise, reported amounts were left unchanged.

For each income component, the corresponding xxIMP99 variable contains an indicator concerning the method for editing/imputation. All the flag variables have the following formatted values:

Missing values were set to zero when there were too few recipients to warrant hot-deck imputations of positive values (as in the case of ALIMP99X received by males). “Conditional hot-decks” indicate instances where the respondent indicated receipt but not a specific dollar amount. In these cases, the donor pool was restricted to persons with nonzero amounts of the income source in question. “Unconditional hot-decks” indicate instances where the donor pool included persons receiving both zero and nonzero amounts (implemented in cases where we had little or no information about a person’s income source).

Total person-level income (TTLP99X) is the sum of all income components with the exception of REFDP99X and SALEP99X (to match as closely as possible the CPS definition of income; see Section 2.5.5.2). Some researchers may wish to define their own income measure by adding in one or both of these excluded components.

The tax variables, food stamp variables, SSI disability flag, and welfare participation flag are all completely unedited. Note that while the welfare participation flag is named AFDC99, in fact this variable reflects participation in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), with respondents having been prompted with “TANF”, “AFDC”, and “welfare.” Unedited tax variables are provided to assist researchers building tax simulation programs. No efforts have been made to eliminate inconsistencies among these program participation and tax variables and other MEPS data. All of these unedited variables should be used with great care.

All income amounts on the file, including both total income and the separate sources of income, were top coded to preserve confidentiality. For each income source, top codes were applied to the top percentile of all cases (including negative amounts that exceeded income thresholds in absolute value). In cases where fewer than one percent of all persons received a particular income source, all recipients were top-coded. Top-coded income amounts were masked using a regression-based approach. The regressions relied on many of the same variables used in the hot-deck imputations, with the dependent variable in each case being the natural logarithm of the amount that the income component was in excess of its top-code threshold. Predicted values from this regression were reconverted from logarithms to levels using a smearing correction, and these predicted amounts were then added back to the top-code thresholds. This approach preserves the component-by-component weighted means (both overall and among top-coded cases), while also preserving much of the income distribution conditional on the variables contained in the regressions. At the same time, this approach ensures that every reported amount in excess of its respective threshold is altered on the public use file. The process of top-coding income amounts in this way inevitably introduces measurement error in cases where income amounts were reported correctly by respondents. Note, however, that top-coding can also help to reduce the impact of outliers that occur due to reporting errors.

Total income is constructed as the sum of the adjusted income components. Having constructed total income in this manner, this total was then top-coded using the same regression-based procedure described above (again masking the top percentile of cases). Finally, the components of income were scaled up or down in order to make the sources of income consistent with the newly-adjusted totals.

The file includes a categorical variable for 1999 family income as a percentage of poverty (POVCAT99). The definitions of income, family, and poverty categories used were taken from the 1999 poverty statistics developed by the Current Population Survey (CPS).

Family income was derived by constructing person-level total income comprising annual earnings from wages, salaries, bonuses, tips, commissions; business and farm gains and losses; unemployment and workers’ compensation; interest and dividends; alimony, child support, and other private cash transfers; private pensions, IRA withdrawals, social security, and veterans payments; supplemental security income and cash welfare payments from public assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and related programs; gains or losses from estates, trusts, partnerships, S corporations, rent, and royalties; and a small amount of “other” income. Family income excluded tax refunds and capital gains. Person-level income totals were then summed over family members as defined by CPSFAMID to yield the family-level total. POVCAT99 was constructed by dividing family income by the applicable poverty line (based on family size and composition), with the resulting percentages grouped into 5 categories; negative or poor (less than 100%), near poor (100% to less than 125%), low income (125% to less than 200%), middle income (200% to less than 400%), and high income (greater than or equal to 400%). Persons missing CPSFAMID were treated as one-person families in constructing POVCAT99. Family income as well as the components of person level income have been subjected to internal editing patterns and derivation methods that are in accordance to specific definitions, and are not being released at this time. Researchers working with a family definition other than CPSFAMID may wish to create their own versions of total family income (and perhaps POVCAT99).

Employment questions were asked of all persons 16 years and older at the time of the interview. Employment variables consist of person-level indicators such as employment status and job-related variables such as hourly wage. All job-specific variables refer to a person’s current main job. The current main job, defined by the respondent, indicates the main source of employment.

Most employment variables pertain to the round interview date. The round dates are indicated by two numbers following the variable name; the first number representing the round for Panel 3 persons, the second number representing the round for Panel 4 persons. For example, EMPST31 refers to employment status on the Round 3 interview date for Panel 3 persons and employment status on the Round 1 interview date for Panel 4 persons.

With the exception of health insurance held or offered from a current main job, no attempt has been made to logically edit any employment variables. When missing, values were imputed for certain persons’ hourly wages; however, there was no editing performed on any values reported by the respondent. Due to confidentiality concerns, hourly wages greater than or equal to $52.88 were top-coded to –10 and the number of employees variable was top-coded at 500. With the exception of a variable indicating whether the employer has more than one location (MORE), all employer-specific variables refer to the establishment that is the location of a person’s current main job.

The MEPS employment section used dependent interviewing in Rounds 2 through 5. If employment status and certain job characteristics did not change from the previous round, the respondent was skipped through the employment section. A code of “–2” is used to indicate that the information in question was obtained in a previous round. For example, if the HRWG42X (Round 4 interview date hourly wage for Panel 3 persons/Round 2 interview date hourly wage for Panel 4 persons) is coded as "-2", refer to HRWG31X (Round 3 interview date hourly wage for Panel 3 persons/Round 1 interview date hourly wage for Panel 4 persons) for the value for HRWG42X. Note that there may be a value for the Round 3/1 hourly wage or there may be an inapplicable code. The "–2" value for HRWG42X simply indicates that the person was skipped past the question at the time of the interview. Obviously, to determine who should be skipped through various employment questions, certain information, such as employment status, had to be asked in every round and, thus, "-2" codes do not apply to employment status. Additionally, information on whether the person currently worked at more than one job or whether the person held health insurance from a current main employer was asked in every round, and, therefore, those variables also have no "–2" codes.

For Panel 3 persons who have a current main job in Round 3 that continues from Round 1 or 2, the "–2" code is not sufficient for those variables that the person was skipped past at the time of the interview. This is because the Panel 3 Round 1 and 2 data are not included on this release and therefore there are no data to which to refer. For such persons, the values for the variables for these skipped questions are copied from the Round 1 or 2 constructed variable on the 1998 Full Year Public Use Release, depending on the round in which the job first became the current main job. The accompanying variable RNDFLG31 indicates the round in which these data were collected. For example, if the person has a Round 3 current main job that continues from Round 2 and was first reported as the current main job in Round 2, HRWG31X will be a copy of the HRWG42X variable from the 1998 Full Year Public Use Release and RNDFLG31 will be "2", indicating the round in which the job was first reported as the current main job.

Employment status was asked for all persons age 16 or older. Allowable responses to the employment status questions were as follows:

These responses were mutually exclusive. A current main job was defined for persons who either reported that they were currently employed and identified a current main job or who reported and identified a job to return to. Therefore, job-specific information such as hourly wage exists for persons not presently working at the interview date but who have a job to return to as of the interview date.

For Panel 3, if a person’s Round 3 current main job (CMJ) is a continuation CMJ from Round 2 or Round 1, the value of most “31” variables will be copied forward from the variable representing the round in which the job was first reported as the CMJ. For persons in Panel 3, RNDFLG31 indicates the round in which the Round 3 CMJ was first reported as the CMJ and provides a timeframe for the reported wage information and other job details. RNDFLG31 is used with many “31” variables to indicate the round on which the reported information is based.

RNDFLG31 is set to inapplicable (–1) for persons in either panel who are under age 16 or who do not have a CMJ in Panel 3 Round 3 or Panel 4 Round 1. For persons who are part of Panel 3, RNDFLG31 is also set to inapplicable (–1) if the person is out-of-scope in the 1999 portion of Round 3. For persons who are part of Panel 4, RNDFLG31 is also set to inapplicable (–1) if the person is out-of-scope in Round 1. For persons who are part of Panel 3, other values for RNDFLG31are set as follows:

Information on whether an individual was self-employed at the current main job was obtained for all persons who reported a current main job. Certain questions, namely those regarding benefits and hourly wage, were not asked of the self-employed. These variables indicate whether the establishment reported by wage earners as the main source of employment offered the following benefits:

Those who were self-employed at their current main job were coded as inapplicable (-1) for all these variables. Additionally, information on whether the firm had more than one establishment (MORE31, MORE42, and MORE53) and whether the establishment was a private for-profit, nonprofit, or a government entity (JOBORG31, JOBORG42, and JOBORG53) was not applicable for self-employed persons. Conversely, the variables that measure whether a business was incorporated, a proprietorship, or a partnership (BSNTY31, BSNTY42, and BSBTY53) applied only to those who were self-employed at their current main job.

Hourly wage was asked of all persons who reported a current main job that was not self-employment (SELFCM). An hourly wage was imputed using a weighted sequential hot-deck procedure for those identified as having a current main job who were not self-employed and who did not know their wage or refused to report a wage. Hourly wage for persons for whom employment status was not known was coded as not ascertained (-9). Additionally, wages were imputed for wage earners reporting a wage range and not a specific value. For these persons, values were imputed from donors within the reported range. All imputed wages can be identified as such by three wage imputation flags (HRWGIM31, HRWGIM42, HRWGIM53). Note that wages were imputed only for persons with a positive person weight.

For reasons of confidentiality, the hourly wage variable was top-coded. A value of –10 indicates that the hourly wage was greater than or equal to $52.88. The hourly wage variables on this file (HRWG31X, HRWG42X, HRWG53X) should be considered along with their accompanying variables - HRHOW31, HRHOW42, and HRHOW53 - which indicate how the respective round hourly wage was constructed. Hourly wage could be derived, as applicable, from a large number of source variables. In the simplest case, hourly wage was reported directly by the respondent. For other persons, construction of the hourly wage was based upon salary, the time period on which the salary was based, and the number of hours worked per time period. If the number of hours worked per time period was not available, a value of 40 hours per week was assumed, as identified in the HRHOW variable. It should be noted that, as mentioned above, wage imputations were performed on persons with positive weights only, while HRHOW will also apply to persons with a zero person-level weight.

Health Insurance (HELD31X, HELD42X, HELD53X, OFFER31X, OFFER42X, OFFER53X, CHOIC31, CHOIC42, CHOIC53, DISVW31X, DISVW42X, DISVW53X)

There are several employment-related health insurance measures included in this release: health insurance held from a current main job (HELD31X, HELD42X, HELD53X), health insurance offered from a current main job (OFFER31X, OFFER42X, OFFER53X), and a choice of health plans available at the current main job (CHOIC31, CHOIC42, CHOIC53). The HELD and OFFER variables were logically edited using health insurance information.

Several persons indicated that they held health insurance through a current main job in the employment section and then denied this coverage later in the interview in the health insurance section. Employment section health insurance HELD variables were edited for consistency to match the health insurance measures obtained in the health insurance section. To allow for easy identification of these individuals, round-specific flag variables were constructed (DISVW31X, DISVW42X, DISVW53X).

Responses in the employment section for health insurance held were recoded to be consistent with the variables in the health insurance section of the survey. Due to questionnaire skip patterns, the responses to health insurance offered were affected by editing the HELD variable. For example, if a person responded that health insurance was held from a current main job, the question relating to whether health insurance was offered was skipped. For persons who responded in the employment section that they held health insurance coverage and then disavowed the coverage in the health insurance section, we could not ascertain whether they were offered a policy. These individuals are coded as –9 for the OFFER variables.

Within the employment section, an inconsistency can occur between the held and offered information in the file. In the first round in which a person is reported as having a specific CMJ, MEPS asks if the person holds health insurance through that job. If the person does not hold insurance, then a follow-up question is asked as to whether the person was offered insurance (but declined coverage). However, if a person does hold insurance then that person is skipped over the offered question and the offer variable (OFFER31X, OFFER42X, OFFER53X) is automatically set to “yes” (1).

In the rounds after a CMJ is initially reported, the “held” question is asked again in each interview (whether a person originally held insurance or not). This is to determine if there has been any change in coverage. However, the offer question is not updated again after the initial round, regardless of any change in the held status. After the initial round the offer variable is set to “-2” (value determined in previous round).

For persons in the second panel for a year (Rounds 1-3), this can result in a situation where the current round’s held variable (HELD31X, HELD42X, HELD53X) equals “yes” (1), but looking back to the original round in which the offered variable was set (which must be done since the current round’s value is -2), the offered value may be set to “no” (2). For persons in the first panel of a year (Rounds 3-5), the offered value is pulled forward on the file from the original round (on the prior year’s PUF) and the same discrepancy - held equal “yes”; offered equal “no” - can occur.

Finally, persons under age 16 as well as persons aged 16 and older who did not hold a current main job or who were self-employed with no employees were coded as inapplicable for the health insurance-related employment variables.

Due to confidentiality concerns, the variable indicating the number of employees at the establishment has been top coded at 500 or more employees. NUMEMP indicates the number of employees at the location of the person’s current main job. For persons who reported a categorical size, we report a median estimated size from donors within the reported range.

Information about industry and occupation types for a person’s current main job at the interview date is also contained in this release. Based on verbatim text fields collected during the interview, industry and occupation types were first coded by trained coders into the three-digit codes defined by the Bureau of the Census for the 1990 Census. For confidentiality reasons, these codes were then condensed. CIND31, CIND42, and CIND53 represent the condensed industry codes for a person’s current main job at the interview date. COCCP31, COCCP42 and COCCP53 represent the condensed occupation codes for a person’s current main job at the interview date.

Information indicating whether a person belonged to a labor union (UNION31, UNION42, and UNION53) and whether a person worked an irregular work shift (SHFTWK31, SHFTWK42, and SHFTWK53) is also contained in this release. In addition, there are three round-specific variables that show the usual daily start time of the current main job (BGNWK31, BGNWK42, and BGNWK53). There are also three measures of the usual daily end time of the current main job (ENDWK31, ENDWK42, and ENDWK53). The values for these variables are coded in 24-hour military time and reflect the hour that the respondent reported as the usual starting and ending time. There is an additional allowable value of ‘95’, indicating respondents who reported that their usual start and end times varied.

The day, month, and year that the current main job started for Rounds 3, 4, and 5 of Panel 3 and Rounds 1, 2, and 3 of Panel 4 are provided on this release (STJBDD31, STJBMM31, STJBYY31, STJBDD42, STJBMM42, STJBYY42, STJBDD53, STJBMM53, and STJBYY53).

There are two measures included in this release that relate to a person’s work history over a lifetime. One indicates whether a person ever retired from a job as of the Round 5 interview date for Panel 3 persons or the Round 3 interview date for Panel 4 persons (EVRETIRE). The other indicates whether a person ever worked for pay as of the Round 5 interview date for Panel 3 persons or the Round 3 interview date for Panel 4 persons (EVRWRK). The latter was asked of everyone who indicated that they were not working as of the round interview date. Therefore, anyone who indicated current employment or who had a job during any of the previous or current rounds was skipped past the question identifying whether the person every worked for pay. These individuals were coded as inapplicable (-1). The ever retired question was asked of all persons who ever reported a job and were 55 years or older as of the round interview date. Since both of these variables are not round specific, there are no –2 codes.

This release contains variables indicating the main reason a person did not work since the start of the reference period (NWK31, NWK42, and NWK53). If a person was not employed at all during the reference period (at the interview date or at any time during the reference period) but was employed some time prior to the reference period, the person was asked to choose from a list the main reason he or she did not work during the reference period. The inapplicable (-1) category for the NWK variables includes:

A measure of whether an individual had more than one job on the round interview date (MORJOB31, MORJOB42, and MORJOB53) is provided on this release. In addition to those under 16 and those individuals who were out of scope, the inapplicable category includes those who did not report having a current main job. Because this is not a job-specific variable, there are no –2 codes.

This release contains variables indicating if a current main job changed between the third and fourth rounds for Panel 3 persons or between the first and second rounds for Panel 4 persons (CHGJ3142) and between the fourth and fifth rounds for Panel 3 persons or between the second and third rounds for Panel 4 persons (CHGJ4253). In addition to the inapplicable, refused, don’t know, and not ascertained categories, the change job variables were coded to represent the following:

Finally, this release contains the reason given by the respondent for the job change (YCHJ3142 and YCHJ4253). The reasons for a job change were listed in the CAPI questionnaire and a respondent was asked to choose the main reason from this list. In addition to those out of scope, those under 16, and those not having a current main job, the inapplicable category for YCHJ3142 and YCHJ4253 includes workers who did not change jobs.

Constructed and edited variables are provided that indicate any coverage in each month of 1999 for the sources of health insurance coverage collected during the MEPS interviews (Panel 3, Rounds 3 through 5 and Panel 4, Rounds 1 through 3). In Rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5, insurance that was in effect at the previous round’s interview date was reviewed with the respondent. Most of the insurance variables have been logically edited to address issues that arose during such reviews in Rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5. One edit to the private insurance variables corrects for a problem concerning covered benefits that occurred when respondents reported a change in any of their private health insurance plan name. Additional edits address issues of missing data on the time period of coverage for both public and private coverage that was either reviewed or initially reported in a given round. For CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA/TRICARE coverage (CHJA99X – CHDE99X), respondents who were over age 65 had their reported CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA/TRICARE coverage overturned. Additional edits, described below, were performed on the Medicare and Medicaid variables to assign persons to coverage from these sources. Observations that contain edits assigning persons to Medicare or Medicaid coverage can be identified by comparing the edited and unedited versions of the Medicare and Medicaid variables.

Public sources include Medicare, CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA/TRICARE, Medicaid and other public hospital/physician coverage. State-specific program participation in non-comprehensive coverage (STAJA99-STADE99) was also identified but is not considered health insurance for the purpose of this survey.

Medicare (MCRJA99-MCRDE99) coverage was edited (MCRJA99X-MCRDE99X) for persons age 65 or over. Within this age group, individuals were assigned Medicare coverage if:

Medicare coverage was not edited for individuals under age 65. Users should note that in MEPS data files containing both expenditure and health insurance data, the majority of children with reported Medicare coverage reported Medicaid (rather than Medicare) as a source of payment for their health care. A minority reported Medicare as a source of payment. Users should take this information into account when deciding how to classify children reporting Medicare coverage in MEPS.

Questions about other public hospital/physician coverage were asked in an attempt to identify Medicaid recipients who may not have recognized their coverage as Medicaid. These questions were asked only if a respondent did not report Medicaid directly. Respondents reporting other public hospital/physician coverage were asked follow-up questions to determine if their coverage was through a specific Medicaid HMO or if it included some other managed care characteristics. Respondents who identified managed care from either path were asked if they paid anything for the coverage and/or if a government source paid for the coverage.

The Medicaid variables (MCDJA99-MCDDE99) have been edited (MCDJA99X-MCDDE99X) to include persons who paid nothing for their other public hospital/physician insurance when such coverage was through a Medicaid HMO or reported to include some other managed care characteristics.

To assist users in further editing sources of insurance, this file contains variables constructed from the other public hospital/physician series that measure whether:

The variables OPAJA99-OPADE99 and OPBJA99-OPBDE99 are provided only to assist in editing and should not be used to make separate insurance estimates for these types of insurance categories.

The file also includes summary measures that indicate whether or not a sample person has any public insurance in a month (PUBJA99X-PUBDE99X). Persons identified as covered by public insurance are those reporting coverage under CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA/TRICARE, Medicare, Medicaid or other public hospital/physician programs. Persons covered only by state-specific programs that did not provide comprehensive coverage (STAJA99-STADE99), for example, Maryland Kidney Disease Program, were not considered to have public coverage when constructing the variables PUBJA99X-PUBDE99X.

Variables identifying private insurance in general (PRIJA99-PRIDE99) and specific private insurance sources [such as employer/union group insurance (PEGJA99-PEGDE99); non-group (PNGJA99-PNGDE99); and other group (POGJA99-POGDE99)] were constructed. Private insurance sources identify coverage in effect at any time during each month of 1999. Separate variables identify covered persons and policyholders (policyholder variables begin with the letter “H”, HPEJA99 – HPEDE99). These variables indicate coverage or policyholder status within a source and do not distinguish between persons who are covered or are policyholders on one or more than one policy within a given source. In some cases, the policyholder was unable to characterize the source of insurance (PDKJA99-PDKDE99). Covered persons (but not policyholders) are identified when the policyholder is living outside the RU (POUJA99-POUDE99). An individual was considered to have private health insurance coverage if, at a minimum, that coverage provided benefits for hospital and physician services (including Medigap coverage). Sources of insurance with missing information regarding the type of coverage were assumed to contain hospital/physician coverage. Persons without private hospital/physician insurance were not counted as privately insured.

Health insurance through a job or union (PEGJA99-PEGDE99, PRSJA99-PRSDE99) was initially asked about in the Employment Section of the interview and later confirmed in the Health Insurance Section. Respondents also had an opportunity to report employer and union group insurance (PEGJA99-PEGDE99) for the first time in the Health Insurance Section, but this insurance was not linked to a specific job.

All insurance reported to be through a job classified as self-employed with firm size of 1 (PRSJA99-PRSDE99) was initially reported in the Employment Section and verified in the Health Insurance Section. Unlike the other employment-related variables (PEGJA99-PEGDE99), self-employed-firm size 1 (PRSJA99-PRSDE99) health insurance could not be reported in the Health Insurance section for the first time. The variables PRSJA99-PRSDE99 have been constructed to allow users to determine if the insurance should be considered employment-related.

Private insurance that was not employment-related (POGJA99-POGDE99, PNGJA99-PNGDE99, PDKJA99-PDKDE99 and POUJA99-POUDE99) was reported in the Health Insurance section only.

The file also includes summary measures that indicate whether or not a person has any insurance in a month (INSJA99X-INSDE99X). Persons identified as insured are those reporting coverage under CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA/TRICARE, Medicare, Medicaid or other public hospital/physician or private hospital/physician insurance (including Medigap plans). A person is considered uninsured if not covered by one of these insurance sources.

Persons covered only by state-specific programs that provide non-comprehensive coverage (STAJA99-STADE99), for example, Maryland Kidney Disease Program, and those without hospital/physician benefits (for example, private insurance for dental or vision care only, accidents or specific diseases) were not considered to be insured when constructing the variables INSJA99X-INSDE99X.

The variables PRVEV99-UNINS99 summarize health insurance coverage for the person in 1999 for the following types of insurance: private (PRVEV99); CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA (CHPEV99); Medicaid (MCDEV99); Medicare (MCREV99); other public A (OPAEV99); other public B (OPBEV99). Each variable was constructed based on the values of the corresponding 12 month to month health insurance variables described above. A value of 1 indicates that the person was covered for at least one day of at least one month during 1999. A value of 2 indicates that the person was not covered for a given type of insurance for all of 1999. The variable UNINS99 summarizes PRVEV99-OPBEV99. Where PRVEV99-OPBEV99 are all equal to 2, then UNINS99 equals 1; person was uninsured for all of 1999. Otherwise UNINS99 is set to 2, not uninsured for some portion of 1999.

For user convenience this file contains a constructed variable INSCOV99 that summarizes health insurance coverage for the person in 1999, with the following 3 values:

Please note this variable categorizes Champus as private coverage. If an analyst wishes to consider Champus public coverage, the variable can easily be reconstructed using the PRVEV99 and CHMPEV99 variables.

Round specific variables (DENTIN31/42/53) are provided that indicates the respondent was covered by a private health insurance plan that included at least some dental coverage for each round of 1999. It should be noted that the information was elicited from a pick-list, code all that apply, question that asked what type of health insurance person obtained through an establishment. The list included: hospital and physician benefits including coverage through an HMO, Medigap coverage, vision coverage, dental, and prescription drugs. It is possible that some dental coverage provided by hospital and physician plans was not independently enumerated in this question. Users should also note that persons with missing information on dental benefits for all reported private plans and those who reported that they did not have dental coverage for one or more plans but had missing information on other plans are coded as not having private dental coverage. Respondents who reported dental coverage from at least one reported private plan were coded as having private dental coverage.

Round specific variables (PMEDIN31/42/53) are provided that indicate the respondent was covered by a private health insurance plan that included at least some prescription drug insurance coverage for each round of 1999. It should be noted that the information was elicited from a pick-list, code all that apply, question that asked what type of health insurance a person obtained through an establishment. The list included: hospital and physician benefits including coverage through an HMO, Medigap coverage, vision coverage, dental, and prescription drugs. It is possible some prescription drug coverage provided by hospital and physician plans was not independently enumerated in this question. Users should note that some insured persons have more than one private plan. In these cases, if the policyholder identified any plan as having prescription drug coverage, the prescription drug variable was set to “yes”. If a person had multiple plans and one or more were identified as not having prescription drug coverage and the other(s) had missing values for prescription drug coverage, the person level variable was set to missing. Those who reported that they did not have prescription drug coverage for all private plans are coded as not having private prescription drug coverage.

The disability days section of the core interview contains questions about time lost from work or school and days spent in bed because of a physical illness, injury, or mental or emotional problem. Data were collected on each individual in the household. These questions were repeated in each round of interviews; these files contains data from Rounds 3, 4, and 5 of the MEPS panel initiated in 1996/97/98 and Rounds 1, 2, and 3 of the MEPS panel initiated in 1997/98/99 respectively. The number at the end of the variable name (31, 42 or 53) identifies the Rounds in which the information was collected.

The reference period for these questions is the time period between the beginning of the panel or the previous interview date and the current interview date. In order to establish the length of a round, analysts are referred to the variables that indicate the beginning date and ending date of each Round (BEGREFD, BEGREFM, BEGREFY, ENDREFD, ENDREFM, ENDREFY). Analysts should be aware that Round 3 was conducted across years. Some data from Round 3 thus pertains to the following year. The number of disability days in Round 3 that occurred in each calendar year was not ascertained. If analysts want to create an indicator of disability days for a given calendar year, some adjustment must be made to the Round 3 data. Analysts who want to estimate disability days for a given calendar year will need to develop an algorithm for deciding what portion of reported disability days occurred in the year of interest and what portion occurred in the following year.

The variables DDNWRK31, DDNWRK42 and DDNWRK53 represent the number of times the respondent lost a half-day or more from work because of illness, injury or mental or emotional problems during Rounds 31, 42, and 53, respectively. A response of "no work days lost" was coded zero; if the respondent did not work, these variables were coded -1 (inapplicable), and for some analyses these values may have to be recoded to zero. Respondents who were less than 16 years old were not asked about lost workdays, and these variables are coded -1 (inapplicable) for them.

WKINBD31, WKINBD42 and WKINBD53 represent the number of work-loss days during each round in which the respondent spent at least half of the day in bed. These questions were asked only of persons aged 16 and over. Persons aged 15 or younger received a code of -1 (inapplicable). If a respondent answered the preceding work-loss question with "zero days" or "does not work", then the corresponding WKINBD question was coded as -1 (inapplicable).

DDNSCL31, DDNSCL42 and DDNSCL53 indicate the number of times that a respondent missed a half-day or more of school during Rounds 31, 42, or 53, respectively. These questions were asked of persons aged 3 to 22; respondents aged less than 3 or older than 22 did not receive these questions and are coded as -1 on these variables (in a small number of cases this was not done for the 1996 data, the analyst will need to make this edit when doing longitudinal analyses). A code of -1 also indicates that the person does not attend school. The analyst should be aware that there was no attempt to reconcile school loss days with the time of year (e.g., summer vacation). In order to establish time of year, analysts are referred to the variables that indicate the beginning date and ending date of each Round (BEGREFD, BEGREFM, BEGREFY, ENDREFD, ENDREFM, ENDREFY).

SCLNBD31, SCLNBD42 and SCLNBD53 represent the number of school-loss days during each round in which the individual spent at least a half-day in bed. Respondents aged less than 3 or older than 22 did not receive these questions and are coded as -1 on these variables (in a small number of cases this was not done for the 1996 data, the analyst will need to make this edit when doing longitudinal analyses). If a respondent answered the preceding school-loss question with "zero days" or "does not attend school", then the corresponding SCLNBD question is coded as -1 (inapplicable).

DDBDYS31, DDBDYS42 and DDBDYS53 represent additional days, other than school or work days, in which the respondent spent at least half a day in bed, because of a physical illness or injury or a mental or emotional problem. These are the only indicators of disability days for persons who do not work or go to school. This question was not asked of children less than one year of age (coded -1).

A final set of variables indicate if an individual took a half-day or more off from work to care for the health problems of another individual in the family. OTHDYS31, OTHDYS42, and OTHDYS53 indicate if a person missed work because of someone else's illness, injury or health care needs, for example to take care of a sick child or relative. These variables each have three possible answers: yes -- missed work to care for another (coded 1); no did not miss work to care for another (coded 2); or the person does not work (coded 2), based on responses to the DDNWRK variable for the same Round. Respondents younger than 16 were not asked these questions and are coded as -1 (in a small number of cases this was not done for the 1996 data, the analyst will need to make this edit when doing longitudinal analyses).

OTHNDD31, OTHNDD42 and OTHNDD53 indicate the number of days during each round in which work was lost because of another's health problem. Respondents younger than 16, those who do not work, and those who answer "no" to OTHDYS are skipped out of OTHNDD and receive codes of -1.

For respondents with positive weights, a minimal amount of editing was done on these variables to preserve the skip patterns. No imputation was done for those with missing data.

The variables ACCELI42 through OTHRPR42 describe data from the Access to Care section of the HC questionnaire, which was administered in Panel 3 Round 4 and Panel 4 Round 2 of the MEPS HC. This supplement serves a number of purposes in the MEPS HC by gathering information on three main topic areas: whether each family member has a usual source of health care, the characteristics of usual source of health care providers for the family, and barriers the family has faced in obtaining needed health care. The variable ACCELI42 indicates whether persons were eligible to receive the Access to Care questions. Persons with ACCELI42=2 or -1 should be excluded from estimates made with the Access to Care data.

Family members' usual source of health care. For each individual family member, MEPS HC ascertains whether there is a particular doctor's office, clinic, health center, or other place that the individual usually goes to if he/she is sick or needs advice about his/her health (HAVEUS42). For those family members who do not have a usual source of health care, MEPS HC ascertains the reason(s) why (YNOUSC42 through OTHREA42). If any family members changed their usual source of health care during the 12 months prior to the interview, MEPS HC gathers information on the reason why this change was made (CHNGUS42 through YNOMOR42).

Characteristics of usual source of health care providers for the family. For each unique usual source of care provider for a given family, MEPS HC asks for information on the following characteristics of the usual source of care provider:

Family barriers. Finally, the Access to Care supplement gathers information on barriers to health care for the family. This includes one question that asks if any family members have recently gone without needed health care because the family needed money to buy food, clothing, or pay for housing (NOCARE42). In addition, the respondent is asked to rate his/her satisfaction with the ability of family members to obtain health care if needed (HCNEED42). A series of two questions is asked to directly assess whether any family members experienced difficulty in obtaining any type of health care, delayed obtaining care, or did not receive health care they thought they needed due to any of the following reasons (OBTAIN42 through OTHRPR42):

Editing consisted primarily of logical editing for consistency with skip patterns. Other editing included the construction of new variables describing the USC provider, and recoding several "other specify" text items into existing or new categorical values, which are described below.

Not all variables or categories that appear in the Access to Care section are included on the file, as some small cell sizes have been suppressed to maintain respondent confidentiality. This affects the following questions:

The variables PROVTY42, TYPEPL42, TYPEPE42 and LOCATI42 provide information on the type and location of the usual source of care provider. These variables were constructed as follows, using one or more questionnaire items which are not included on the file:

These 4 variables in combination describe the usual source of care provider. For example, a group practice or clinic with no particular person named is coded as:
PROVTY42 = 1 FACILITY, LOCATI42 = 1 OFFICE and TYPEPE42 = -1 INAPPLICABLE.

For Access to Care items AC03, AC04, AC08, AC09, AC21 and AC23, the other specify text responses were reviewed and coded as an existing or new value for the related categorical variable (for AC03, AC08, AC21 and AC23), or coded as an existing or new "yes/no" variable (for items AC04 and AC09). The following are the new codes or variables which were created from these other specify text responses.

Due to the overlapping panel design of the MEPS, Round 3 for Panel 3 overlapped with Round 1 for Panel 4. Similarly, Round 4 for Panel 3 coincided with Round 2 for Panel 4, and Round 5 for Panel 3 occurred at the same time as Round 3 for Panel 4. Data from overlapping Rounds have been combined across panels. Thus, any variable ending in “31” reflects data obtained in Round 3 of Panel 3 and Round 1 of Panel 4. Analogous comments apply to variables ending in “42” and “53”. Health Status variables whose names end in “99” indicate a full-year measurement.

This data release incorporates information from calendar year 1999. However, health status data obtained in Round 3 of both Panel 3 and Panel 4 are included in variables that have names ending in “31” and “53” respectively. For persons in Panel 3, Round 3 extended from 1998 into 1999. Therefore, for these people, some information from late 1998 is included for variables that have names ending in “31”. For persons in Panel 4, Round 3 extended from 1999 into 2000. Therefore, for these people, some information from early 2000 is included for variables that have names ending in “53”. Note that for most Panel 3 persons, the Round 5 reference period ends on December 31, 1999; however, the Round 5 interview actually occurs in 2000. Round 5 respondents receive an instruction at the start of the Health Status (HE) section of CAPI to limit information about health status and limitations to the period ending on December 31, 1999. Nevertheless, if respondents forget or ignore this reference period instruction, some information collected in this section in Round 5 (variables ending in “53”) might reflect circumstances in early 2000. Further, health status questions asked in the Condition Enumeration (CE), Preventive Care (AP), and Priority Conditions (PC) sections of CAPI in Round 5 do not contain a similar explicit instruction that the reference period ends on December 31, 1999, although this is stated at the start of the overall interview. Hence, in these sections, respondents may also be providing health status information that pertains to 2000.

Health status variables in this data release can be classified into several conceptually distinct sets:

Perceived health status and ADL and IADL limitations were measured in all Rounds. Functional and activity limitations were measured in Rounds 3 and 5 for Panel 3 and Rounds 1 and 3 for Panel 4. Vision, hearing, and children’s health status were measured only in Round 4 for Panel 3 and Round 2 for Panel 4.

In general, Health Status variables involved the construction of person-level variables based on information collected in the Condition Enumeration and Health Status sections of the questionnaire. Many Health Status questions were initially asked at the family-level to ascertain if anyone in the household had a particular problem or limitation. These were followed up with questions to determine which household member had each problem or limitation. All information ascertained at the family-level has been brought to the person-level for this file. Logical edits were performed in constructing the person-level variables to assure that family-level and person-level values were consistent. Particular attention was given to cases where missing values were reported at the family-level, to ensure that appropriate information was carried to the person-level.

Inapplicable cases occurred when a question was never asked because of a skip pattern in the survey (e.g., individuals who were 13 years of age or older were not asked some follow-up verification questions; individuals older than 17 were not asked questions pertaining to children’s health status). Inapplicable cases are coded as -1. In addition, deceased persons were coded as inapplicable and received a code of -1.

Perceived Health Status. Perceived health status (RTHLTH31, RTHLTH42, and RTHLTH53) and perceived mental health status (MNHLTH31, MNHLTH42, and MNHLTH53) were collected in the Condition Enumeration section. These questions (CE01 and CE02) asked the respondent to rate each person in the family according to the following categories: excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. The corresponding dichotomous variables RTPROX31, RTPROX42, RTPROX53, MNPROX31, MNPROX42, and MNPROX53 each indicate whether the ratings of physical and mental health were provided by oneself or by someone else.

IADL Help. The Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Help or Supervision variables (IADLHP31, IADLHP42, and IADLHP53) were each constructed from a series of three questions administered in the Health Status section of the interview. The initial question (HE01) determined if anyone in the family received help or supervision with IADLs such as using the telephone, paying bills, taking medications, preparing light meals, doing laundry, or going shopping. If the response was “yes,” a follow-up question (HE02) was asked to determine which household member(s) received this help or supervision. For persons under age 13, a final verification question (HE03) was asked to confirm that the IADL help or supervision was the result of an impairment or physical or mental health problem. If the response to the final verification question was “no,” IADLHP31, IADLHP42, and IADLHP53 were coded “no” for persons under the age of 13.

If no one in the family was identified as receiving help or supervision with IADLs, all members of the family were coded as receiving no IADL help or supervision. In cases where the response to the family-level question was “refused” (-7), “don’t know” (-8), or not ascertained (-9), all persons were coded according to the family-level response. In cases where the response to the family-level question (HE01) was “yes” but no specific individuals were identified in the follow-up question as having IADL difficulties, all persons were coded as “don’t know” (-8).

ADL Help. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Help or Supervision variables (ADLHLP31, ADLHLP42, and ADLHLP53) were each constructed in the same manner as the IADL help variables, but using questions HE04-HE06. Coding conventions for missing data were the same as for the IADL variables.

Functional Limitations. A series of questions pertained to functional limitations, defined as difficulty in performing certain specific physical actions. WLKLIM31 and WLKLIM53 were the filter questions, depending on the Round. These variables were derived from a question (HE09) that was asked at the family-level: “Does anyone in the family have difficulties walking, climbing stairs, grasping objects, reaching overhead, lifting, bending or stooping, or standing for long periods of time?” If the answer was “no,” then all family members were coded as “no” (2) on WLKLIM31 or WLKLIM53. If the answer was “yes,” then the specific persons who had any of these difficulties were identified and coded as “yes” (1), and remaining family members were coded as “no”. If the response to the family-level question was “don’t know” (-8), “refused” (-7), “missing” (-9), or “inapplicable” (-1), then the corresponding missing value code was applied to each family member’s value for WLKLIM31 or WLKLIM53. If the answer to HE09 was “yes,” but no specific individual was named as experiencing such difficulties, then each family member was assigned “don’t know” (-8). Deceased persons were assigned a -1 code (“inapplicable”) for WLKLIM31 or WLKLIM53.

For Rounds 3 (Panel 3) and 1 (Panel 4), if any family member was coded “yes” to WLKLIM31, a subsequent series of questions was administered. The series of questions for which WLKLIM31 served as a filter is as follows:

The series of questions was asked separately for each person who was coded “yes” to WLKLIM31. The series of questions was not asked for other individual family members for whom WLKLIM31 was “no.” In addition, this series was not asked about family members who were less than 13 years of age, regardless of their status on WLKLIM31. Finally, these questions were not asked about deceased family members. In such cases (i.e., WLKLIM31 = 2, or age < 13, or PSTATS31 = 31), each question in the series was coded as “inapplicable” (-1). Finally, if responses to WLKLIM31 were “refused” (-7), “don’t know” (-8), “not ascertained” (-9), or otherwise inapplicable (-1), then each question in this series was coded as “inapplicable” (-1).

Analysts should note that, for WLKLIM31, there was no minimum age criterion used to determine a skip pattern. For the subsequent series of questions, however, persons less than 13 years old were skipped and coded as “inapplicable”. Therefore, it is possible for someone aged 12 or less to have a code of 1 (“yes”) on WLKLIM31, and also to have codes of “inapplicable” on the subsequent series of questions.

For Rounds 5 (Panel 3) and 3 (Panel 4), the corresponding filter question was WLKLIM53. The series of questions for which WLKLIM53 served as a filter was as follows:

Editing conventions were the same for this set of variables as they were for the corresponding set described above.

Use of Assistive Technology and Social/Recreational Limitations. The variables indicating use of assistive technology (AIDHLP31 and AIDHLP53, from question HE07) and social/recreational limitations (SOCLIM31 and SOCLIM53, from question HE22) were collected initially at the family-level. If there was a “yes” response to the family-level question, a second question identified the specific individual(s) to whom the “yes” response pertained. Each individual identified as having the difficulty was coded “yes” for the appropriate variable; all remaining family members were coded “no.” If the family-level response was “don’t know” (-7), “refused” (-8), or not ascertained (-9), all persons were coded with the family-level response. In cases where the family-level response was “yes” but no specific individual was identified as having difficulty, all family members were coded as “don’t know” (-8).

Work, Housework, and School Limitations. The variables indicating any limitation in work, housework, or school (ACTLIM31 and ACTLIM53) were constructed using questions HE19-HE20. Specifically, information was collected initially at the family-level. If there was a “yes” response to the family-level question (HE19), a second question (HE20) identified the specific individual(s) to whom the “yes” response pertained. Each individual identified as having a limitation was coded “yes” for the appropriate variable; all remaining family members were coded “no.” If the family-level response was “don’t know” (-7), “refused” (-8), or not ascertained (-9), all persons were coded with the family-level response. In cases where the family-level response was “yes” but no specific individual was identified as having difficulty, all family members were coded as “don’t know” (-8). Persons less than five years old were coded as inapplicable (-1) on ACTLIM31 and ACTLIM53.

For Round 3 (Panel 3) or Round 1 (Panel 4), if ACTLIM31 was “yes” and the person was 5 years of age or older, a follow-up question (HE20A) was asked to identify the specific limitation or limitations for each person. These included working at a job (WRKLIM31), doing housework (HSELIM31), or going to school (SCHLIM31). Respondents could answer “yes” to each activity; one person could thus report limitation in multiple activities. WRKLIM31, HSELIM31, and SCHLIM31 have values of “yes” or “no” only if ACTLIM31 was “yes;” each variable was coded as inapplicable (-1) if ACTLIM31 was “no,” “refused” (-7), or not ascertained (-9). When ACTLIM31 was “don’t know” (-8), these variables were all coded as “don’t know” (-8). If a person was under 5 years old or was deceased, WRKLIM31, HSELIM31, and SCHLIM31 were each coded as “inapplicable” (-1).

A second question (UNABLE31) asked if the person was completely unable to work at a job, do housework, or go to school. This question was asked only of the same set of respondents who provided data on WRKLIM31, HSELIM31, and SCHLIM31. Therefore, those respondents who were coded “no” on ACTLIM31, were under 5 years of age, or were deceased, were coded as inapplicable (-1) on UNABLE31. UNABLE31 was asked once for whichever set of WRKLIM31, HSELIM31, and SCHLIM31 the respondent had limitations; if a respondent was limited in more than one of these three activities, UNABLE31 did not specify if the respondent was completely unable to perform all of them, or only some of them.

For Rounds 5 (Panel 3) or 3 (Panel 4) corresponding variables were ACTLIM53, WRKLIM53, HSELIM53, SCHLIM53, and UNABLE53. Editing conventions were the same as those described above.

Cognitive Limitations. The variables indicating any cognitive limitation (COGLIM31 or COGLIM53, depending on the round) were collected at the family-level as a three-part question (HE24-01 to HE24-03) indicating if any of the adults in the family (1) experience confusion or memory loss, (2) have problems making decisions, or (3) require supervision for their own safety. If a “yes” response was obtained to any item, the persons affected were identified in HE25 and COGLIM31 or COGLIM53 was coded as “yes.” Remaining family members not identified were coded as “no” for COGLIM31 or COGLIM53.

If responses to HE24-01 through HE24-03 were all “no,” or if two of three were “no” and the remaining was “don’t know,” “refused,” or not ascertained, all family members were coded as “no.” If responses to the three questions were combinations of “don’t know,” “refused,” and missing, all persons were coded as “don’t know” (-8). If the response to any of the three questions was “yes” but no individual was identified in HE25, all persons were coded as “don’t know” (-8).

The cognitive limitations variables (COGLIM31 and COGLIM53) reflect whether any of the three component questions is “yes.” Respondents with one, two, or three specific cognitive limitations cannot be distinguished. In addition, because the question asked specifically about adult family members, all persons less than 18 years of age are coded as inapplicable (-1) on this question.

A series of three questions (HE25A to HE25C) provides information on child care arrangements. These questions were asked in Round 5 (Panel 3) or Round 3 (Panel 4). These questions were asked only if the household contained children 15 years of age or less. DAYCAR99 indicates whether any children in the household required child care arrangements, other than school attendance, because the child’s parents were working. If the response to DAYCAR99 was no (2), or refused (-7) or don’t know (-8), the other two questions in this set were not asked. If DAYCAR99 was yes (1), then WHOCAR99 was asked to determine whether the child was usually cared for by a relative or a non-relative. If the respondent answered relative (1) or refused (-7) or don’t know (-8) to WHOCAR99, then the third question was not asked. However, if the respondent answered non-relative (2), WHRCAR99 was asked to determine where the care was usually provided. Possible responses to WHRCAR99 were: child's home (1); other private home (2); nursery, pre-school (3); organized (before/after) school activities (4); day care center, not at parent’s work place (5); day care center, at parent’s work place (6); parent watches child at work (7); some other arrangement (91); refused (-7); and don’t know (-8). (If multiple children in a household were under 16 years old, WHOCAR99 and WHRCAR99 were asked about the youngest child.)

To reflect skip patterns, WHOCAR99 and WHRCAR99 were coded “not applicable” (-1) if the response to DAYCAR99 was no (2), refused (-7), or don’t know (-8). Responses to WHRCAR99 were coded –1 if the response to WHOCAR99 was relative (1), refused (-7), or don’t know (-8). Responses to all three questions were coded –1 if there was no child under 16 in the household.

A series of questions (HE26 to HE32) provides information on visual impairment. These questions were asked of all household members, regardless of age. Deceased respondents were coded as inapplicable (-1).

WRGLAS42 indicates whether a person wears eyeglasses or contact lenses. This variable was based on two questions, HE26 and HE27. The initial question (HE26) determined if anyone in the family wore eyeglasses or contact lenses. If the response was “yes,” a follow-up question (HE27) was asked to determine which household member(s) wore eyeglasses or contact lenses. If the family-level response was “don’t know” (-8), “refused” (-7), or not ascertained (-9), all persons were coded with the family-level response. In cases where the family-level response was “yes” but no specific individual was identified as wearing glasses or contact lenses, all family members were coded as “don’t know” (-8).

SEEDIF42 indicates whether anyone in the family had difficulty seeing (with glasses or contacts, if used). This variable was based on two questions, HE28 and HE29. The initial question (HE28) determined if anyone in the family had difficulty seeing. If the response was "yes," a follow-up question (HE29) was asked to determine which household member(s) had a visual impairment. If the family-level response was “don’t know” (-8), “refused” (-7), or not ascertained (-9), all persons were coded with the family-level response. In cases where the family-level response was “yes” but no specific individual was identified as having difficulty seeing, all family members were coded as “don’t know” (-8).

Three subsequent questions were asked only for individuals who had difficulty seeing (i.e., SEEDIF42 = 1). Persons with no visual impairment were coded as not applicable (-1) for these questions, as were persons don’t know (-8), refused (-7), or not ascertained (-9) responses to SEEDIF42. BLIND42 determined if a person with difficulty seeing was blind. For persons who were not blind (BLIND42 = 2), READNW42 asked whether the person could see well enough to read ordinary newspaper print (with glasses or contacts, if used); persons who were blind were not asked this question and were coded as not applicable (-1). For persons who could not read ordinary newspaper print (READNW42 = 2), RECPEP42 asked if the person could see well enough to recognize familiar people standing two or three feet away. Persons who were blind or who could read newsprint were not asked this question and were coded as not applicable (-1).

VISION42 summarizes the pattern of responses to the set of visual impairment questions. Codes for VISION42 are as follows:

A series of questions (HE33 to HE39) provides information on hearing impairment. These questions were asked of all household members, regardless of age. Deceased respondents were coded as not applicable (-1).

HEARAD42 indicates whether a person wears a hearing aid. This variable was based on two questions, HE33 and HE34. The initial question (HE33) determined if anyone in the family wore a hearing aid. If the response was “yes,” a follow-up question (HE34) was asked to determine which household member(s) wore a hearing aid. If the family-level response was “don’t know” (-8), “refused” (-7), or not ascertained (-9), all persons were coded with the family-level response. In cases where the family-level response was “yes” but no specific individual was identified as wearing a hearing aid, all family members were coded as “don’t know” (-8).

HEARDI42 indicates whether a person had difficulty hearing (with a hearing aid, if used). This variable is based on two questions, HE35 and HE36. The initial question (HE35) determined if anyone in the family had difficulty hearing. If the response was “yes,” a follow-up question (HE36) was asked to determine which household member had an aural impairment. If the family-level response was “don’t know” (-8), “refused” (-7), or not ascertained (-9), all persons were coded with the family-level response. In cases where the family-level response was “yes” but no specific individual was identified as using a hearing aid, all family members were coded as “don’t know” (-8).

Three subsequent questions were asked only for individuals who had difficulty hearing (i.e., HEARDI42 = 1). Persons with no hearing impairment were coded as inapplicable (-1) for these questions, as were persons with don’t know (-8), refused (-7), or not ascertained (-9) responses to HEARDI42. DEAF42 determined if a person with difficulty hearing was deaf. For persons who were not deaf (DEAF42 = 2), HEARMO42 asked whether the person could hear well enough to hear most of the things people say (with a hearing aid, if used); persons who were deaf were not asked this question and were coded as inapplicable (-1). For persons who could not hear most things people say (HEARMO42 = 2), HEARSM42 asked if the person could hear well enough to hear some of the thing that people say. Persons who were deaf or who could hear most conversation were not asked this question and were coded as inapplicable (-1).

HEARNG42 summarizes the pattern of responses to the set of hearing impairment questions. Codes for HEARNG42 are as follows:

ANYLIM99 summarizes whether the respondent has any ADL, IADL, activity, functional, or sensory limitations in any of the pertinent rounds. This variable was derived based on data from Rounds 3, 4, and 5 (Panel 3) or Rounds 1, 2, and 3 (Panel 4). ANYLIM99 was built upon component variables IADLHP31, IADLHP42, IADLHP53, ADLHLP31, ADLHLP42, ADLHLP53, WLKLIM31, WLKLIM42, WLKLIM53, ACTLIM31, ACTLIM53, SEEDIF42, and HEARDI42. (The latter two variables, discussed above, indicate any visual or hearing impairment, respectively.) If any of these components was coded “yes”, then ANYLIM99 was coded “yes” (1). If all components equaled “no”, then ANYLIM99 equaled “no” (2). If all the components had missing value codes (i.e., -7, -8, -9, or –1), then ANYLIM99 was coded as not ascertained (-9). If some components were “no” and others had missing value codes, ANYLIM99 was coded as not ascertained (-9). The exception to this latter rule was for children less than five years old, who did not receive the ACTLIM31 or ACTLIM53 questions; for these respondents, if all other components were “no”, then ANYLIM99 was coded as “no” (2). The variable label for ANYLIM99 departs slightly from conventions. Typically, variables that end in “99” refer only to 1999. However, some of the variables used to construct ANYLIM99 were assessed in 2000, so some information from early 2000 is incorporated into this variable.

Play Limitations (Children age 4 and under). The variable LIMACT42, indicating limitation in activities for children ages 0 through 4, was constructed using questions HE40 and HE41. The initial question (HE40) determined if any child aged 4 or under in the family was limited in any way, including play activity, because of an impairment or physical or mental health problem. If the response was “yes,” the follow-up question determined which child should be coded “yes.” If there were other children aged 4 or under in the family who were not identified as having limitations, they were coded “no.” If the answer to LIMACT42 was “no,” all children aged four or under in the family were coded “no.” If there was an indication that a child had a limitation, but no child was identified, all children within the age category were coded “don’t know” (-8). In cases where the response to the family-level question was “don’t know” (-8), refused (-7), or not ascertained (-9), all children ages 4 and under were coded according to the family-level response. If a person's age (as measured by the Panel 3 Round 4/Panel 4 Round 2 age variable) was greater than 4, LIMACT42 was coded -1.

Other variables indicate if children aged 0 to 4 were limited in the kind or amount of play activities (PLYLIM42), were unable to play (CANTPL42), or participated in special programs or early interventions (SPCPRO42). If a person aged 4 or under had no activity limitations (i.e.,LIMACT42=2), PLYLIM42, CANTPL42, and SPCPRO42 were incorrectly coded 2 (No). To use these variables, data users must recode them to -1(Inapplicable). If a person's age (as measured by the Panel 2 Round 4/Panel 3 Round 2 age variable) was greater than 4, PLYLIM42, CANTPL42, and SPCPRO42 were coded -1.

Immunization Variables (Children ages 0 through 6). Immunization information was collected at the person-level for children ages 0 through 6 by questions HE45 to HE49A. If the age of the child, as measured by the Panel 3 Round 4/Panel 4 Round 2 age variable, was greater than 6, all immunization variables were coded -1. For questions about diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus (DPT) or polio immunization (DPTSHT42, POLSHT42), there were follow up questions that asked about the frequency of the immunization shots or drops (NUMDPT42, NUMPOL42). If the answer to DPTSHT42 or POLSHT42 was “no,” “don’t know,” or “refused,” the respective follow-up variables NUMDPT42 and NUMPOL42 were coded -1. For questions about immunization for measles/mumps/rubella (MMRSHT42) and for hepatitis (HEPSHT42), there were no follow-up questions.

Behavioral Problem Variables (Children ages 5 to 17) The series of questions HE50_01 to HE50_13 inquired about possible child behavioral problems. Variables in this set include:

If the age of the child (as measured by the Panel 3 Round 4/Panel 4 Round 2 age variable) was less than 5 or greater than 17, the variables MOMPRO42 to TRBLE42 were coded -1.

Certain questions in this series could be inapplicable for a specific child. For example, if a child’s mother was deceased, a question about how a child gets along with his/her mother is inapplicable. Similarly, the question about problems getting along with siblings would be inapplicable for only children. In such instances, the relevant variable was coded “99” to indicate that it was inapplicable.

Special Education and Special Services (Children ages 5-17). A series of questions asked about participation in special education programs or receipt of therapy or special services. If the respondent was not in the age range of 5-17 years of age (as measured by the Panel 3 Round 4/Panel 4 Round 2 age variable), or if the respondent was deceased, these questions were coded as inapplicable (-1).

SPCSCH42 is based on question HE51, which asked whether the child had an impairment or a physical or mental health problem that limited school attendance or required a special school program. This question served as a filter for subsequent questions. If the response “no” (2), “refused” (-7), or “don’t know” (-8), then SPECED42 through CANTSC42 were coded as inapplicable (-1).

If the response to SPCSCH42 was “yes” (1) then question HE52 (SPECED42) was asked. SPECED42 asked whether the child was enrolled in any type of special education or received related services. Possible responses to this question were “yes, enrolled in special education” (1), “yes, enrolled in related services,” (2), “yes, both special education and special services,” (3), “no” (4), and “other” (91).

If responses to SPECED42 were coded as 2 or 3, then respondents were presented with a list of other related services and asked to indicate which one(s) the child had received. Respondents could indicate more than one type of service. These questions constitute variables SPCHTH42 to OTHSVC42.

Responses to these questions were coded as inapplicable (-1) if the response to SPECED42 was “enrolled in special education only” (1), or “refused (-7), or “don’t know” (-8).

If the response to “need special program” (SPCSCH42) was “yes” (1), then question HE53 (CANTSC42) was asked. This question asked whether the child was limited in attendance or unable to attend school due to an impairment or a physical or mental health problem. Responses of “limited in attendance” were coded 1, “unable to attend” as 2, and “neither” as 3.

Question HE54 (LMOACT42) was asked of all children ages 5-17. This question ascertained whether the child was limited in any way in activities other than school because of an impairment or a physical or mental health problem.

Several questions were asked about all children ages 0 through 17. Respondents who were older than 17 or who were deceased were coded as not applicable (-1) for these variables. Three questions asked for ratings of the child’s health on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from “ definitely false” (1) to “definitely true” (4). These questions were:

In addition, information was provided on each child’s height in feet (HGTFT42) and inches (HGTIN42), as well as each child’s weight in pounds (WGTLB42) and in ounces (WGTOZ42). For purposes of confidentiality, the variables HGTFT42 and HGTIN42 were top-coded at 6 feet 2 inches and the variables WGTLB42 and WGTOZ42 were top-coded at 250 pounds 0 ounces.

Finally, CHLIM42 was constructed to reflect each child’s inability to perform age-appropriate social roles. For children aged 0 to 4, this variable was based on responses to LIMACT42, PLYLIM42 and CANTPL42; for children aged 5-17, it was based on responses to SPCSCH42, CANTSC42 and LMOACT42. If any one of these variables had a “yes” response (i.e., codes of 1 for LIMACT42, PLYLIM42, CANTPL42, SPCSCH42, or LMOACT42, or codes of 1 or 2 for CANTSC42), then CHLIM42 was coded as “yes” (1). If the relevant variables were all “no”, then CHLIM42 was coded as “no” (2). CHLIM42 was coded as “not ascertained” (-9) if the relevant variables were combinations of “refused” (-7), “don’t know” (-8), or not ascertained (-9).

The MEPS Household Component (HC) collects data in each round on use and expenditures for office and hospital-based care, home health care, dental services, vision aids, and prescribed medicines. Data were collected for each sample person at the event level (e.g. doctor visit, hospital stay) and summed across rounds 3-5 for Panel 2 and rounds 1-3 for Panel 3 (excluding 1997 events covered in Panel 2 Round 3 and excluding 1999 events covered in Panel 3 rounds 2 and 3) to produce the annual utilization and expenditure data for 1999 in this file. In addition, the MEPS Medical Provider Component (MPC) is a follow-back survey that collected data from a sample of medical providers and pharmacies that were used by sample persons in 1999. Expenditure data collected in the MPC are generally regarded as more accurate than information collected in the HC and were used to improve the overall quality of MEPS expenditure data in this file (see below for description of methodology used to develop expenditure data).

This file contains utilization and expenditure variables for several categories of health care services. In general, there is one utilization variable (based on HC responses only), 13 expenditure variables (derived from both HC and MPC responses), and 1 charge variable for each category of health care service. The utilization variable is typically a count of the number of medical events reported for the category. The 13 expenditure variables consist of an aggregate total payments variable, 10 main component source of payment category variables, and 2 additional source of payment category variables (see below for description of source of payment categories). Expenditure variables for all categories of health care combined are also provided.

The table in Appendix 1 provides an overview of the utilization and expenditure variables included in this file. For each health service category, the table lists the corresponding utilization variable(s) and provides a general key to the expenditure variable names (13 per service category). The first 3 characters of the expenditure variable names reflect the service category (except only 2 characters for prescription medicines) while the subsequent 3 characters (*** in table) reflect the naming convention for the source of payment categories described below (except only 2 characters for Veterans Administration). The last 2 positions of all utilization and expenditure variable names reflect the survey year (i.e., 99). More details are provided on the utilization and expenditure variables in sections 2.5.9.1 and 2.5.9.2 below.

Expenditures on this file refer to what is paid for health care services. More specifically, expenditures in MEPS are defined as the sum of direct payments for care provided during the year, including out-of-pocket payments and payments by private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and other sources. Payments for over the counter drugs and for alternative care services are not included in MEPS total expenditures. Indirect payments not related to specific medical events, such as Medicaid Disproportionate Share and Medicare Direct Medical Education subsidies, are also not included.

The definition of expenditures used in MEPS is somewhat different from the 1987 NMES and 1987 NMCES surveys where charges rather than sum of payments were used to measure expenditures. This change was adopted because charges became a less appropriate proxy for medical expenditures during the 1990s due to the increasingly common practice of discounting charges. Another change from the two prior surveys is that charges associated with uncollected liability, bad debt, and charitable care (unless provided by a public clinic or hospital) are not counted as expenditures because there are no payments associated with those classifications.

While the concept of expenditures in MEPS has been operationalized as payments for health care services, variables reflecting charges for services received are also provided on the file (see below). Analysts should use caution when working with the charge variables because they do not typically represent actual dollars exchanged for services or the resource costs of those services.

The expenditure data included on this file were derived from the MEPS Household and Medical Provider Components. Only HC data were collected for nonphysician visits, dental and vision services, other medical equipment and services, and home health care not provided by an agency while data on expenditures for care provided by home health agencies were only collected in the MPC. In addition to HC data, MPC data were collected for some office-based visits to physicians (or medical providers supervised by physicians), hospital-based events (e.g., inpatient stays, emergency room visits, and outpatient department visits), and prescribed medicines. For these types of events, MPC data were used if complete; otherwise HC data were used if complete. Missing data for events where HC data were not complete and MPC data were not collected or complete were derived through an imputation process (see below).

A series of logical edits were applied to both the HC and MPC data to correct for several problems including, but not limited to, outliers, copayments or charges reported as total payments, and reimbursed amounts that were reported as out of pocket payments. In addition, edits were implemented to correct for misclassifications between Medicare and Medicaid and between Medicare HMOs and private HMOs as payment sources. Data were not edited to insure complete consistency between the health insurance and source of payment variables on the file.

Expenditure data were imputed to 1) replace missing data, 2) provide estimates for care delivered under capitated reimbursement arrangements, and 3) to adjust household reported insurance payments because respondents were often unaware that their insurer paid a discounted amount to the provider. This section contains a general description of the approaches used for these three situations. A more detailed description of the editing and imputation procedures is provided in the documentation for the MEPS event level files.

Missing data on expenditures were imputed using a weighted sequential hot-deck procedure for most medical visits and services. In general, this procedure imputes data from events with complete information to events with missing information but similar characteristics. For each event type, selected predictor variables with known values (e.g., total charge, demographic characteristics, region, provider type, and characteristics of the event of care, such as whether it involved surgery) were used to form groups of donor events with known data on expenditures, as well as identical groups of recipient events with missing data. Within such groups, data were assigned from donors to recipients, taking into account the weights associated with the MEPS complex survey design. Only MPC data were used as donors for hospital-based events while data from both the HC and MPC were used as donors for office-based physician visits. The general approach that was used to impute missing expenditure data on prescribed medicines is described in section 2.5.11.2 below.

Because payments for medical care provided under capitated reimbursement arrangements and through public clinics and Veterans’ Hospitals are not tied to particular medical events, expenditures for events covered under those types of arrangements and settings were also imputed. Events covered under capitated arrangements were imputed from events covered under managed care arrangements that were paid based on a discounted fee-for-service method, while imputations for visits to public clinics and Veterans’ Hospitals were based on similar events that were paid on a fee-for-service basis. As for other events, selected predictor variables were used to form groups of donor and recipient events for the imputations.

An adjustment was also applied to some HC reported expenditure data because an evaluation of matched HC/MPC data showed that respondents who reported that charges and payments were equal were often unaware that insurance payments for the care had been based on a discounted charge. To compensate for this systematic reporting error, a weighted sequential hot-deck imputation procedure was implemented to determine an adjustment factor for HC reported insurance payments when charges and payments were reported to be equal. As for the other imputations, selected predictor variables were used to form groups of donor and recipient events for the imputation process.

Most of the expenditures for medical care reported by MEPS participants are associated with single medical events. However, in some situations there is one charge that covers multiple contacts between a medical provider and patient (e.g. obstetrician services, orthodontia). In these situations (generally called flat or global fees), total payments for the flat or global fee were included if the initial service was provided in 1999. For example, all payments for an orthodontist's fee that covered multiple visits over three years were included if the initial visit occurred in 1999. However, if a visit in 1999 to an orthodontist was part of a flat fee in which the initial visit occurred in 1998, then none of the payments for the flat fee were included.

The approach used to count expenditures for flat fees may create what appear to be inconsistencies between utilization and expenditure variables. For example, if several visits under a flat fee arrangement occurred in 1999 but the first visit occurred in 1998, then none of the expenditures were included, resulting in low expenditures relative to utilization for that person. Conversely, the flat fee methodology may result in high expenditures for some persons relative to their utilization. For example, all of the expenditures for an expensive flat fee were included even if only the first visit covered by the fee had occurred in 1999. On average, the methodology used for flat fees should result in a balance between overestimation and underestimation of expenditures in a particular year.

There are some medical events reported by respondents where the payments were zero. This could occur for several reasons including (1) free care was provided, (2) bad debt was incurred, (3) care was covered under a flat fee arrangement beginning in an earlier year, or (4) follow-up visits were provided without a separate charge (e.g. after a surgical procedure). In summary, these types of events have no impact on the person level expenditure variables contained in this file.

In addition to total expenditures, variables are provided which itemize expenditures according to the major source of payment categories. These categories are:

Two additional source of payment variables were created to classify payments for particular persons that appear inconsistent due to differences between the survey questions on health insurance coverage and sources of payment for medical events. These variables include:

Though relatively small in magnitude, users should exercise caution when interpreting the expenditures associated with the OPR and OPU categories. While these payments stem from apparent inconsistent responses to the health insurance and source of payment questions in the survey, some of these inconsistencies may have logical explanations. For example, private insurance coverage in MEPS is defined as having a major medical plan covering hospital and physician services. If a MEPS sample person did not have such coverage but had a single service type insurance plan (e.g. dental insurance) that paid for a particular episode of care, those payments may be classified as other private. Some of the other public payments may stem from confusion between Medicaid and other state and local programs or may be for persons who were not enrolled in Medicaid, but were presumed eligible by a provider who ultimately received payments from the program.

Please note, unlike the other events, the prescribed medicine events do have some remaining inconsistent responses between the insurance section of the HC and sources of payment from the PC (more specifically, discrepancies between Medicare only Household insurance responses and Medicaid sources of payment provided by pharmacy providers). These inconsistencies remain unedited because there was strong evidence from the PC that these were indeed Medicaid payments. All of these types of HC events were exact matches to events in the PC, and in addition, all of these types of events were purchases by persons with positive weights.

The naming conventions used for the source of payment expenditure variables are shown in parentheses in the list of categories above and in the key to the attached table in Appendix 1. In addition, total expenditure variables (EXP in key) based on the sum of the 12 source of payment variables above are provided.

In addition to the expenditure variables described above, a variable reflecting total charges is provided for each type of service category (except prescribed medicines). This variable represents the sum of all fully established charges for care received and usually does not reflect actual payments made for services, which can be substantially lower due to factors such as negotiated discounts, bad debt, and free care (see above). The naming convention used for the charge variables (TCH) is also included in the key to the attached table in Appendix 1. The total charge variable across services (TOTTCH99) excludes prescribed medicines.

The following sections summarize definitional, conceptual and analytic considerations when using the utilization and expenditure variables in this file. Separate discussions are provided for each MEPS medical service category.

Medical provider visits consist of encounters that took place primarily in office-based settings and clinics. Care provided in other settings such as a hospital, nursing home, or a person’s home are not included in this category.

The total number of office based visits reported for 1999 (OBTOTV99) as well as the number of such visits to physicians (OBDRV99) and nonphysician providers (OBOTHV99) are contained in this file. For a small proportion of sample persons, the sum of the physician and nonphysician visit variables (OBDRV99+OBOTHV99) is less than the total number of office-based visits variable (OBTOTV99) because OBTOTV99 contains reported visits where the respondent did not know the type of provider.

Non-physician visits (OBOTHV99) include visits to the following types of providers: chiropractors, midwives, nurses and nurse practitioners, optometrists, podiatrists, physician’s assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, technicians, receptionists/clerks/secretaries, or other medical providers. Separate utilization variables are included for selected types of more commonly seen non-physician providers including chiropractors (OBCHIR99), nurses/nurse practitioners (OBNURS99), optometrists (OBOPTO99), physician assistants (OBASST99), and physical or occupational therapists (OBTHER99).

Expenditure variables associated with all medical provider visits, physician visits, and non-physician visits in office-based settings can be identified using the attached table in Appendix 1. As for the corresponding utilization variables, the sum of the physician and non-physician visit expenditure variables (e.g. OBDEXP99+OBOEXP99) is less than the total office-based expenditure variable (OBVEXP99) for a small proportion of sample persons. This can occur because OBVEXP99 includes visits where the respondent did not know the type of provider seen.

Separate utilization variables for hospital care are provided for each type of setting (inpatient, outpatient department, and emergency room) along with two expense variables per setting; one for basic hospital facility expenses and another for payments to physicians who billed separately for services provided at the hospital. These payments are referred to as “separately billing doctor” or SBD expenses.

Hospital facility expenses include all expenses for direct hospital care, including room and board, diagnostic and laboratory work, x-rays, and similar charges, as well as any physician services included in the hospital charge. Separately billing doctor (SBD) expenses typically cover services provided to patients in hospital settings by providers like radiologists, anesthesiologists, and pathologists, whose charges are often not included in hospital bills.

Variables for the total number of reported visits to hospital outpatient departments in 1999 (OPTOTV99) as well as the number of outpatient department visits to physicians (OPDRV99) and non-physician providers (OPOTHV99) are contained in this file. For a small proportion of sample persons, the sum of the physician and non-physician visit variables (OPDRV99+OPOTHV99) is less than the total number of outpatient visits variable (OPTOTV99) because OPTOTV99 contains reported visits where the respondent did not provide information on the type of provider seen.

Expenditure variables (both facility and SBD) associated with all medical provider visits, physician visits, and non-physician visits in outpatient departments can be identified using the attached table in Appendix 1. As for the corresponding utilization variables, the sum of the physician and non-physician expenditure variables (e.g. OPVEXP99+OPOEXP99 for facility expenses) is less than the variable for total outpatient department expenditures (OPFEXP99) for a small proportion of sample persons. This can occur because OPFEXP99 includes visits where the respondent did not know the type of provider seen. No expenditure variables are provided for health care consultations that occurred over the telephone.

The variable ERTOT99 represents a count of all emergency room visits reported for the survey year. Expenditure variables associated with ERTOT99 are identified in the attached table in Appendix 1. It should be noted that hospitals usually include expenses associated with emergency room visits that immediately result in an inpatient stay with the charges and payments for the inpatient stay. Therefore, to avoid the potential for double counting when imputing missing expenses, separately reported facility expenditures for emergency room visits that were identified in the MPC as directly linked to an inpatient stay were included as part of the inpatient stay only (see below). This strategy to avoid double counting resulted in $0 facility expenditures for these emergency room visits. However, these $0 emergency room visits are still counted as separate visits in the utilization variable ERTOT99.

Two measures of total inpatient utilization are provided on the file: (1) total number of hospital discharges (IPDIS99) and (2) the total number of nights associated with these discharges (IPNGTD99). IPDIS99 includes hospital stays where the dates of admission and discharge were reported as identical. These “zero night stays” can be included or excluded from inpatient analyses at the user’s discretion (see last paragraph of this section). If the number of nights in the hospital could not be computed for any reported stay for a person, then IPNGTD99 was assigned a missing value.

Expenditure variables associated with hospital inpatient stays are identified in the attached table in Appendix 1. To the extent possible, payments associated with emergency room visits that immediately preceded an inpatient stay are included with the inpatient expenditures (see above) and payments associated with healthy newborns are included with expenditures for the mother (see next paragraph for more detail).

Data used to construct the inpatient utilization and expenditure variables for newborns were edited to exclude stays where the newborn left the hospital on the same day as the mother. This edit was applied because discharges for infants without complications after birth were not consistently reported in the survey and charges for newborns without complications are typically included in the mother’s hospital bill. However, if the newborn was discharged at a later date than the mother was discharged, then the discharge was considered a separate stay for the newborn when constructing the utilization and expenditure variables.

Some analysts may prefer to exclude zero night stays from inpatient analyses and/or count these stays as ambulatory visits. Therefore, a separate use variable is provided which contains a count of the number of inpatient events where the reported dates of admission and discharge were the same (IPZERO99). This variable can be subtracted from IPDIS99 to exclude zero night stays from inpatient utilization estimates. In addition, separate expenditure variables are provided for “zero night” facility expenses (ZIFEXP99) and for separately billing doctor expenses (ZIDEXP99). Analysts who choose to exclude zero-night stays from inpatient expenditure analyses need to subtract the zero-night expenditure variable from the corresponding expenditure variable for total inpatient stays (e.g. IPFEXP99-ZIFEXP99 for facility expenses, IPDEXP99-ZIDEXP99 for separately billing doctor expenses).

The total number of dental visits variable (DVTOT99) includes those to any person(s) for dental care including general dentists, dental hygienists, dental technicians, dental surgeons, orthodontists, endodontists, and periodontists. Additional variables are provided for the numbers of dental visits to general dentists (DVGEN99) and to orthodontists (DVORTH99). For a small proportion of sample persons, the sum of the general dentist and orthodontist visit variables (DVGEN99+DVORTH99) is greater than the total number of dental visits (DVTOT99). This result can only occur for persons who were reported to have seen both a general dentist and orthodontist in the same visit(s). When this occurred, expenditures for the visit were included as orthodontist expenses but not as general dentist expenses. Expenditure variables for all three categories of dental providers can be identified using the attached table in Appendix 1.

In contrast to other types of medical events where data were collected on a per visit basis, information on home health care utilization is collected in MEPS on a per month basis. Variables are provided which indicate the total number of days in 1999 where home health care was received by the following: from any type of paid or unpaid caregiver (HHTOTD99), from agencies, hospitals, or nursing homes (HHAGD99), from self-employed persons (HHINDD99), and from unpaid informal caregivers not living with the sample person (HHINFD99). The number of provider days represents the sum across months of the number of days on which home health care was received, with days summed across all providers seen. For example, if a person received care in one month from one provider on 2 different days, then the number of provider days would equal 2. The number of provider days would also equal 2 if a person received care from 2 different providers on the same day. However, if a person received care from 1 provider 2 times in the same day, then the provider days would equal 1. These variables were assigned missing values if the number of provider days could not be computed for any month in which the specific type of home health care was received.

Separate expenditure variables are provided for agency-sponsored home health care (includes care provided by home health agencies, hospitals, and nursing homes) and care provided by self-employed persons. The attached table in Appendix 1 identifies the home health care utilization and expenditure variables contained in the file.

Please note: Unlike 1998, home health duplicate events in 1999 have been deleted from this file and information from the duplicate event records were placed on the record for the main event.

Expenditure variables for the purchase of glasses and/or contact lenses are identified in the attached table in Appendix 1. Due to the data collection methodology, it was not possible to determine whether vision items that were reported in round 3 had been purchased in 1998 or 1999. Therefore, expenses reported in round 3 were only included if more than half of the person’s reference period for the round was in 1999.

This category includes expenditures for ambulance services, orthopedic items, hearing devices, prostheses, bathroom aids, medical equipment, disposable supplies, alterations/modifications, and other miscellaneous items or services that were obtained, purchased or rented during the year. Respondents were only asked once (in round 3) about their total annual expenditures and were not asked about their frequency of use of these services. Expenditure variables representing the combined expenses for these supplies and services are identified in the Appendix 1 table.

There is one total utilization variable (RXTOT99) and 13 expenditure variables included on the 1999 full-year file relating to prescribed medicines. These 13 expenditure variables include an annual total expenditure variable (RXEXP99) and 12 corresponding annual source of payment variables (RXSLF99, RXMCR99, RXMCD99, RXPRV99, RXVA99, RXCHM99, RXOFD99, RXSTL99, RXWCP99, RXOSR99, RXOPR99, and RXOPU99). As previously stated, unlike the other event types, the prescribed medicine events have some remaining inconsistencies in the data when comparing information from the insurance section of the Household Component and source of payment information from the Pharmacy Component (more specifically, discrepancies between Medicare only household insurance responses and Medicaid source of payment provided by pharmacy providers). These inconsistencies remain unedited because there was strong evidence from the Pharmacy Component that these were indeed Medicaid payments. All of these types of Household Component events were either exact matches to events in the Pharmacy Component or refills of exact matches, and in addition, all of these types of events were purchases by persons with positive weights. The total utilization variable is a count of all prescribed medications initially purchased or otherwise obtained during 1999, as well as any additional acquisitions of the medication. The total expenditure variable sums all amounts paid out-of-pocket and by third party payers for each prescription purchased in 1999. No variables reflecting charges for prescription medicines are included because a large proportion of respondents to the pharmacy component survey did not provide charge data (see below).

Data regarding prescription drugs were obtained through the household questionnaire and a pharmacy component survey. During each round of the MEPS HC, all respondents were asked to supply the name of any prescribed medication they or their family members purchased or otherwise obtained during that round. For each medication and in each round, the following information was collected: whether any free samples of the medication were received; the name(s) of any health problems the medication was prescribed for; the number of times the prescription drug was obtained or purchased; the year, month, and day on which the person first used the medication; and a list of the names, addresses, and types of pharmacies that filled the household’s prescriptions. Also, during the Household Component, respondents were asked if they send in claim forms for their prescriptions (self-filers) or if their pharmacy providers do this automatically for them at the point of purchase (non-self-filers). For non-self-filers, charge and payment information was collected in the pharmacy component survey. However, charge and payment information was collected for self-filers in the household questionnaire, because payments by private third party payers for self-filers’ purchases would not be available from the pharmacy component.

Pharmacy providers identified by the household were contacted by mail for the pharmacy component if permission was obtained in writing from the person with the prescription to release their pharmacy records. The signed permission forms were provided to the various establishments prior to making any requests for information. Each establishment was informed of all persons participating in the survey that had prescriptions filled there in 1999 and a computerized printout containing information about these prescriptions was sought. For each medication listed, the following information was requested: date filled; national drug code (NDC); medication name; strength of medicine (amount and unit); quantity (package size and amount dispensed); total charge; and payments by source.

When diabetic supplies, such as syringes and insulin, were reported in the other medical supply section of the MEPS HC questionnaire as having been obtained during the round, the interviewer was directed to collect information on these items in the prescription drug section of MEPS. Data on expenses for these items were collected in and imputed from the pharmacy component.

The general approach to preparing the household prescription data for this file was to utilize the pharmacy component prescription data to assign expenditure values to the household drug mentions. For self-filers, information on payment sources was retained to the extent that these data were reported by the household in the charge and payment section of the household questionnaire. A matching program was adopted to link pharmacy component drugs and the corresponding drug information to household drug mentions. To improve the quality of these matches, all drugs on the household and pharmacy files were coded based on the medication names provided by the household and pharmacy, and when available, the national drug code (NDC) provided in the pharmacy survey. Considerable editing was done prior to the matching to correct data inconsistencies in both data sets and fill in missing data and correct outliers on the pharmacy file.

Drug price per unit outliers were analyzed on the pharmacy file by first identifying the average wholesale unit price (AWUP) of the drug by linkage through the NDC to a proprietary data base. In general, prescription drug unit prices were deemed to be outliers by comparing unit prices reported in the pharmacy data base to the AWUP and were edited, as necessary.

For those rounds that spanned two years, drugs mentioned in that round were allocated between the years based on the year the person started taking the drug, the length of the person’s round, the dates of the person’s round, and the number of drugs for that person in the round. In addition, a “folded” version of the PC on an event level, as opposed to an acquisition level, was used for these types of events to assist in determining how many acquisitions of the drug should be allocated between the years.

The MEPS is designed to produce estimates at the national and regional level over time for the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States and some subpopulations of interest. The data in this public use set pertain to calendar year 1999. The data were collected in Rounds 1, 2, and 3 for MEPS Panel 4 and Rounds 3, 4, and 5 for MEPS Panel 3. Note that Round 3 for a MEPS panel is designed to overlap two calendar years, but for Panel 3 this design was modified. For Panel 3, about 30 percent of the Round 2 RUs had reference periods extending into 1999 so that Round 3 was associated with 1999 exclusively. However, care has been taken to ensure that this will present no analytic problems. Variables convey the same information for this full year file that has been provided for the full year files associated with years 1996 – 1998 of MEPS. The only utilization data that appear on the file are those associated with health care events occurring in calendar year 1999, and all utilization data for 1999 reported by MEPS respondents regardless of round and panel have been included in this data base.

The households in this 1999 MEPS data base are related to households participating in the National Health Interview Survey in 1997 and 1998. The households (occupied dwelling units) selected for MEPS Panel 3 were a subsample of 1997 NHIS respondents while those in MEPS Panel 4 were a subsample of 1998 NHIS respondents. A household may contain one or more family units, each consisting of one or more individuals. Analysis can be undertaken using either the individual or the family as the unit of analysis.

There have been some published reports on the MEPS sample design. For detailed information on the MEPS sample design for Panel 1, see Cohen, S. Sample Design of the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1997. MEPS Methodology Report, No. 2. AHCPR Pub. No. 97-0027. For detailed information on the MEPS sample design for Panel 2, see Cohen, S., Sample Design of the 1997 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000. MEPS Methodology Report, No. 11. AHRQ Pub No. 01-0001.

There were 5,166 households (occupied dwelling units) selected for inclusion in MEPS Panel 3. They were selected as a nationally representative subsample of the households responding to the 1997 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). A subsample of 6,900 households was selected for MEPS Panel 4 from among households responding to the 1998 NHIS.

The NHIS sample design has three stages of sample selection: an area sample of PSUs; a sample of segments (single or groups of blocks or block equivalents) within sampled PSUs; and a sample of housing units within segments. Among initially sampled households, those containing Hispanics and blacks were oversampled at rates of approximately 2 and 1.5 times the rate of remaining households. These same rates of oversampling are reflected in the MEPS sample of households. The only major difference in eligibility status for housing units between NHIS and MEPS is that college dorms represent ineligible housing units for MEPS. College aged students living away from home during the school year were interviewed at their place of residence for the NHIS but were identified by and linked to their parents’ household for MEPS.

In the data base “MEPS HC-038: 1999 Full Year Population Characteristics,” weight variables are provided for estimation purposes. Procedures and considerations associated with the construction and interpretation of person and family-level estimates using these and other variables are discussed below.

In order to produce annual health care estimates for calendar year 1999 based on the full MEPS sample, data are pooled across the third and fourth MEPS national samples. More specifically, full calendar year 1999 data collected in Rounds 3 through 5 for the MEPS Panel 3 sample are pooled with data from the first three rounds of data collection for the MEPS Panel 4 sample (the general approach is illustrated below). Overall, the full 1999 MEPS household sample consists of 9,345 reporting units (where student RUs are linked to parent RUs for this count) which include 23,565 responding individuals that completed the full series of MEPS interviews for their entire period of eligibility, providing the necessary information to produce national use estimates for calendar year 1999. (Note that some of the 23,565 responding individuals belong to nonresponding families, since a family is deemed to have responded to MEPS only if all of its key, inscope members over the course of the year responded to the MEPS. For example, if a parent RU responded to MEPS but an associated student RU, such as a son away at college, failed to respond in any round of data collection, the family would be considered nonrespondent for this full year data base. However, all key, inscope members of the parent RU would receive person-level weights.)

The overall response rate through MEPS Round 3 (reflecting response to the 1997 NHIS and Rounds 1-3 for MEPS Panel 3) was 67.57 percent. There were 10,693 key and inscope individuals eligible for data collection in 1999 from MEPS Panel 3. There were 9,979 key and inscope persons who provided data for their entire period of eligibility and thus received sample weights for the 1999 Full Year PUF. The ratio of 9,979 to 10,693 can be used to represent the conditional Panel 3 person level response rate over the course of 1999, resulting in a response rate of 93.32 percent. After factoring in the impact of previous survey attrition, the overall Panel 3 MEPS person-level response rate is 63.06 percent (.6757 x. 9332 x 100). Of the Panel 3 full year MEPS respondents with person-level weights for calendar year 1999, 9,881 were inscope on December 31, 1999.

The overall response rate through MEPS Round 1 (reflecting response to the 1998 NHIS and Round 1 of MEPS Panel 4) was 73.00 percent. There were 15,149 key and inscope individuals from Panel 4 who received weights for the 1999 Point-in-Time file including Panel 4, Round 1 participants. There were 13,586 key and inscope persons who provided data for their entire period of eligibility and thus received sample weights for the 1999 Full Year PUF. The ratio of 13,586 to 15,149 can be used to represent the conditional Panel 4 person level response rate over the course of 1999, resulting in a response rate of 89.68 percent. After factoring in the impact of previous survey attrition, the overall Panel 4 MEPS person-level response rate is 65.47 percent (.7300 x .8968 x 100). Of the Panel 4 full year MEPS respondents with person-level weights for calendar year 1999, 13,437 were inscope on December 31, 1999.

A pooled response rate for the survey respondents in this data set can be obtained by taking an average of the panel-specific response rates. This pooled response rate for the combined panels is 64.26 percent, consisting of a total of 23,565 person-level survey participants.

There is a single person-level weight variable called PERWT99F. However, care should be taken in its application as it permits both “point-in-time” and “range of time” estimates, depending on the variables used to define the set of persons of interest for analysis. A person-level weight was assigned to each key, inscope person who responded to MEPS for the full period of time that he or she was inscope during the MEPS. For Panel 4 this requirement pertained only to 1999, but for Panel 3 it pertained to both 1998 and 1999. (Recall that a person is inscope whenever he or she is a member of the civilian, noninstitutionalized portion of the U.S. population.)

The data in this file can be used to develop estimates on persons in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population on December 31, 1999 and for the slightly larger population of persons in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population at any time during 1999. To obtain a cross-sectional (point-in-time) estimate for all inscope persons living in the country on December 31, 1999, include cases with both PERWT99F>0 (a positive person-level weight) and INSC1231=1 (the person is inscope on December 31, 1999). To obtain an estimate for all persons who were inscope at some time in 1999, include all cases with PERWT99F>0. After selecting the appropriate cases, apply the weight variable PERWT99F to the analytic variable(s) of interest to obtain national estimates. The following table contains a summary of cases to include and sample sizes for these two populations.

The person-level weight PERWT99F was developed in three stages. A person-level weight for Panel 4 was created, including both an adjustment for nonresponse over time and poststratification, controlling to Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates based on five different variables. Poverty status was not included since income data for assigning persons to a poverty status was yet to be established. Then a person-level weight for Panel 3 was created, again including an adjustment for nonresponse over time and poststratification, controlling to CPS population estimates based on the same five variables. A 1999 average annual weight was formed from the Panel 3 and Panel 4 weights by multiplying the Panel weights by .5. Then a final poststratification was done on this composite weight variable, again based on the same five poststratification variables used previously.

The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 3 was developed using the 1998 full year weight for an individual as a “base” weight for survey participants present in 1998. For key, inscope respondents who joined an RU some time in 1999 after being out-of-scope in 1998, the “base” weight was taken to be the 1998 family weight associated with the family the person joined. The weighting process included an adjustment for nonresponse over Rounds 4 and 5 as well as poststratification to population control totals from the CPS for December, 1999. These control totals were derived by scaling back the population distribution obtained from the March 1999 CPS to reflect the December, 1999 CPS estimated population distribution, employing age and sex data available from the December, 1999 CPS. Variables used in the establishment of person-level poststratification control figures included: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic, black but non-Hispanic, and other); sex, and age. Key responding persons not inscope on December 31, 1999 but inscope earlier in the year retained, as their final Panel 3 weight, the weight after the nonresponse adjustment.

The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 4 was developed using the MEPS Round 1 person-level weight as a “base” weight. For key, inscope respondents who joined an RU after Round 1, the Round 1 family weight served as a “base” weight. The weighting process included an adjustment for nonresponse over the remaining data collection rounds in 1999 as well as poststratification to the same population control figures for December 1999 used for the MEPS Panel 3 weights. The same five variables employed for Panel 3 poststratification (census region, MSA status, race/ethnicity, sex, and age) were used for Panel 4 poststratification. As with Panel 3, Panel 4 key, responding persons not inscope on December 31, 1999 but inscope earlier in the year retained the weight after the nonresponse adjustment as their final Panel 4 weight.

Note that the MEPS Round 1 weights for both panels incorporated the following components: the original household probability of selection for the NHIS; ratio-adjustment to NHIS-based national population estimates at the household (occupied dwelling unit) level; adjustment for nonresponse at the dwelling unit level for Round 1; and poststratification to figures at the family and person level obtained from the March 1999 CPS data base.

Variables used in the establishment of person-level poststratification to control totals derived from CPS data included: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic, black but non-Hispanic, and other); sex, and age. Persons included in this poststratification were those inscope on December 31, 1999. In addition, the weights of some persons out-of-scope on December 31, 1999 were also poststratified. Specifically, the weights of persons out-of-scope on December 31, 1999 who were inscope some time during the year and also entered a nursing home during the year were poststratified to a corresponding control total obtained from the 1996 MEPS Nursing Home Component. The weights of persons who died while inscope during 1999 were poststratified to corresponding estimates derived using data obtained from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) and Vital Statistics information provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Separate control totals were developed for the “65 and older” and “under 65” civilian, noninstitutionalized populations.

Overall, the weighted population estimate for the civilian, noninstitutionalized population for December 31, 1999 is 273,003,778 (PERWT99F>0 and INSC1231=1). The inclusion of key, inscope persons who were not inscope on December 31, 1999 brings the estimated total number of persons represented by the MEPS respondents over the course of the year to 276,410,767 (PERWT99F>0).

The target population associated with this MEPS data base is the 1999 U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population. However, the MEPS sampled households are a subsample of the NHIS households interviewed in 1997 (Panel 3) and 1998 (Panel 4). New households created after the NHIS interviews for the respective Panels and consisting exclusively of persons who entered the target population after 1997 (Panel 3) or after 1998 (Panel 4) are not covered by MEPS. Neither are previously out of scope persons who join an existing household but are unrelated to the current household residents. Persons not covered by a given MEPS panel thus include some members of the following groups: immigrants; persons leaving the military; U.S. citizens returning from residence in another country; and persons leaving institutions. The set of uncovered persons constitutes only a small proportion of the MEPS target population.

There is a single family weight variable called FAMWT99F provided in this release. FAMWT99F can be used to make estimates for the cross-section of families in the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population on December 31, 1999 where families are identified based on the MEPS definition of a family unit. Estimates can include MEPS families that existed at some time during 1999 but whose members became out-of-scope prior to the end of the year (e.g., all family members moved out of the country, died, etc.) as well as MEPS families in existence on December 31, 1999.

A family is defined in MEPS as two or more persons living together in the same household who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption, as well as foster children. (Foster children are not included as members under the CPS definition of a family.) Other MEPS families include unmarried persons living together who consider themselves a family unit (these are not families under the CPS definition.) Single persons living with neither a relative nor a person identified as a “significant other” have also been assigned a family ID value and a family-level weight, and thus can be included or excluded from estimates, as desired. Relatives identified as usual residents of the household who were not present at the time of the interview, such as college students living away from their parents’ home during the school year, were considered as members of the family that identified them.

To make estimates at the family-level, it is necessary to prepare a family-level file containing one record per family (see instructions below), family-level summary characteristics, and the family-level weight variable (FAMWT99F). Each MEPS family unit is uniquely identified by the combination of the variables DUID and FAMIDYR. The number of persons in a MEPS sample family ranges from 1 to 18 (the positive values for the variable FAMSZEYR). Only persons with positive nonzero family weight values (FAMWT99F>0) are candidates for inclusion in family estimates.

Two sets of families for whom estimates can be obtained are defined in the table below (along with respective sample sizes). Persons with FMRS1231=1 were inscope for the survey on 12/31/99 and therefore part of a MEPS family on 12/31/99. The more expansive definition of families (second row in table) includes families and members of families who were not inscope at the end of the year. While MEPS includes individual persons as family units (about one-third of all units) to cover the entire civilian, noninstitutionalized population, analysts may restrict their analyses to families with two or more members using the family size variables shown in the table (for example, to limit consideration to the cross-section of families with two or more members in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population on December 31, 1999, consider only families where FAMS1231 is at least 2.)

The following is a summary of the steps and the variables to be used for family-level estimation based on the MEPS type definition of families.

To develop the family-level weight (FAMWT99F), the person-level weight (PERWT99F) of the family reference person (FAMRFPYR=1) was used as the “base” weight for all responding full year families. Then, for responding families eligible for weighting and in existence at the end of 1999, these “base” weights were poststratified to population control figures from the Current Population Survey (CPS) for December 1999 (these figures were derived by scaling the population totals obtained from the March 1999 CPS to reflect family estimates as of December, 1999). The family-level poststratification incorporated the following variables: census region; MSA status; race/ethnicity of reference person (Hispanic, black but non Hispanic, and other); family type (reference person married, living with spouse; male reference person, unmarried or spouse not present; female reference person, unmarried or spouse not present); age of reference person; and family size as of December 31, 1999.

Overall, the weighted population estimate for the 9,275 MEPS family units containing at least one member of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population on December 31, 1999 (those families whose members have FAMWT99F>0 and FMRS1231=1) is 116,235,797. The inclusion of families whose members left the inscope population prior to December 31, 1999 brought the estimated total number of families represented by the 9,345 MEPS responding families (those families whose members have FAMWT99F>0) to 117,505,603.

To construct a weight for use in analysis using Health Insurance Eligibility Units, as identified by the variable HIEUIDX:

To obtain estimates of variability (such as the standard error of sample estimates or corresponding confidence intervals) for estimates based on MEPS survey data, the complex sample design of MEPS for both person and family-level analyses must be taken into account. Various approaches can be used to develop such estimates of variance including use of the Taylor series or replication methodologies. Replicate weights have not been developed for the MEPS 1999 data.

Using a Taylor Series approach, variance estimation strata and the variance estimation PSUs within these strata must be specified. The corresponding variables on the 1999 MEPS full year utilization data base are VARSTR99 and VARPSU99, respectively. Specifying a “with replacement” design in a computer software package, such as SUDAAN, should provide standard errors appropriate for assessing the variability of MEPS survey estimates. It should be noted that the number of degrees of freedom associated with estimates of variability indicated by such a package may not appropriately reflect the actual number available. For MEPS sample estimates for characteristics generally distributed throughout the country (and thus the sample PSUs), there are over 100 degrees of freedom for the 1999 full year data associated with the corresponding estimates of variance.

VARIABLE	DESCRIPTION	SOURCE
DUID	Dwelling Unit ID	Assigned in Sampling
PID	Person Number	Assigned in Sampling or by CAPI
DUPERSID	Person ID (DUID+PN)	Assigned in Sampling
PANEL99	Panel Number	Constructed
FAMID31	Family ID (Student Merged In) – R3/1	CAPI Derived
FAMID42	Family ID (Student Merged In) – R4/2	CAPI Derived
FAMID53	Family ID (Student Merged In) – R5/3	CAPI Derived
FAMID99	Fam ID (Student Merged In)-12/31/99	CAPI Derived
FAMIDYR	Annual Family Identifier	Constructed
CPSFAMID	CPS-Like Family Identifier	Constructed
HIEUIDX	Health Insurance Eligibility Unit Identifier	Constructed
FCSZ1231	Family Size Responding 12/31 CPS Family	Constructed
FCRP1231	Ref Person of 12/31 CPS Family	Constructed
RULETR31	RU Letter – R3/1	CAPI Derived
RULETR42	RU Letter – R4/2	CAPI Derived
RULETR53	RU Letter – R5/3	CAPI Derived
RULETR99	RU Letter As of 12/31/99	CAPI Derived
RUSIZE31	RU Size – R3/1	CAPI Derived
RUSIZE42	RU Size – R4/2	CAPI Derived
RUSIZE53	RU Size – R5/3	CAPI Derived
RUSIZE99	RU Size As of 12/31/99	CAPI Derived
RUCLAS31	RU fielded as: Standard/New/Student – R3/1	CAPI Derived
RUCLAS42	RU fielded as: Standard/New/Student – R4/2	CAPI Derived
RUCLAS53	RU fielded as: Standard/New/Student – R5/3	CAPI Derived
RUCLAS99	RU fielded as: Standard/New/Stud-12/31/99	CAPI Derived
FAMSZE31	RU Size Including Students – R3/1	CAPI Derived
FAMSZE42	RU Size Including Students – R4/2	CAPI Derived
FAMSZE53	RU Size Including Students – R5/3	CAPI Derived
FAMSZE99	RU Size Including Students As of 12/31/99	CAPI Derived
FMRS1231	Member of Responding 12/31 Family	Constructed
FAMS1231	Family Size of Responding 12/31 Family	Constructed
FAMSZEYR	Size of Responding Annualized Family	Constructed
FAMRFPYR	Reference Person of Annualized Family	Constructed
FYFAMTYP	CPS –Full Year Family Type	Constructed
INRU1231	Person Was In RU On 12/31/99	Constructed
REGION31	Census Region – R3/1	Assigned in Sampling
REGION42	Census Region – R4/2	Assigned in Sampling
REGION53	Census Region – R5/3	Assigned in Sampling
REGION99	Census Region As Of 12/31/99	Assigned in Sampling
MSA53	MSA Status – R5/3	Assigned in Sampling
MSA99	MSA Status As Of 12/31/99	Assigned in Sampling
REFPRS31	Reference Person At - R3/1	RE 42-45
REFPRS42	Reference Person At - R4/2	RE 42-45
REFPRS53	Reference Person At - R5/3	RE 42-45
REFPRS99	Reference Person As Of 12/31/99	RE 42-45
RESP31	1st Respondent Indicator For R3/1	RE 6, 8
RESP42	1st Respondent Indicator For R4/2	RE 6, 8
RESP53	1st Respondent Indicator For R5/3	RE 6, 8
RESP99	1st Respondent Indicator As Of 12/31/99	RE 6, 8
PROXY31	Was Respondent A Proxy In R3/1	RE 2
PROXY42	Was Respondent A Proxy In R4/2	RE 2
PROXY53	Was Respondent A Proxy In R5/3	RE 2
PROXY99	Was Respondent A Proxy As Of 12/31/99	RE 2
INTVLANG	Language in which Interview was Completed	Constructed
BEGRFD31	R3/1 Reference Period Begin Date: Day	CAPI Derived
BEGRFM31	R3/1 Reference Period Begin Date: Month	CAPI Derived
BEGRFY31	R3/1 Reference Period Begin Date: Year	CAPI Derived
ENDRFD31	R3/1 Reference Period End Date: Day	CAPI Derived
ENDRFM31	R3/1 Reference Period End Date: Month	CAPI Derived
ENDRFY31	R3/1 Reference Period End Date: Year	CAPI Derived
BEGRFD42	R4/2 Reference Period Begin Date: Day	CAPI Derived
BEGRFM42	R4/2 Reference Period Begin Date: Month	CAPI Derived
BEGRFY42	R4/2 Reference Period Begin Date: Year	CAPI Derived
ENDRFD42	R4/2 Reference Period End Date: Day	CAPI Derived
ENDRFM42	R4/2 Reference Period End Date: Month	CAPI Derived
ENDRFY42	R4/2 Reference Period End Date: Year	CAPI Derived
BEGRFD53	R5/3 Reference Period Begin Date: Day	CAPI Derived
BEGRFM53	R5/3 Reference Period Begin Date: Month	CAPI Derived
BEGRFY53	R5/3 Reference Period Begin Date: Year	CAPI Derived
ENDRFD53	R5/3 Reference Period End Date: Day	CAPI Derived
ENDRFM53	R5/3 Reference Period End Date: Month	CAPI Derived
ENDRFY53	R5/3 Reference Period End Date: Year	CAPI Derived
ENDRFD99	1999 Reference Period End Date: Day	RE Section
ENDRFM99	1999 Reference Period End Date: Month	RE Section
ENDRFY99	1999 Reference Period End Date: Year	RE Section
KEYNESS	Person Key Status	RE Section
INSCOP31	Inscope – R3/1	RE Section
INSCOP42	Inscope – R4/2	RE Section
INSCOP53	Inscope – R5/3	RE Section
INSCOP99	Inscope – R5/3 Start Through 12/31/99	RE Section
INSC1231	Inscope Status on 12/31/99	Constructed
INSCOPE	Was Person Ever Inscope In 1999	RE Section
ELGRND31	Eligibility – R3/1	RE Section
ELGRND42	Eligibility – R4/2	RE Section
ELGRND53	Eligibility – R5/3	RE Section
ELGRND99	Eligibility Status as of 12/31/99	RE Section
ELIGIBLE	Was Person Ever Eligible In 1999	RE Section
PSTATS31	Person Disposition Status – R3/1	RE Section
PSTATS42	Person Disposition Status – R4/2	RE Section
PSTATS53	Person Disposition Status – R5/3	RE Section
RURSLT31	RU Result – R3/1	Assigned by CAPI
RURSLT42	RU Result – R4/2	Assigned by CAPI
RURSLT53	RU Result – R5/3	Assigned by CAPI
R2FLAG	Flag:Person is in P3R2 RU w/Intv in 1999.	Constructed

VARIABLE	DESCRIPTION	SOURCE
AGE31X	Age – R3/1 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 12, 57-66
AGE42X	Age – R4/2 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 12, 57-66
AGE53X	Age – R5/3 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 12, 57-66
AGE99X	Age as of 12/31/99 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 12, 57-66
DOBMM	Date of Birth: Month	RE 12, 57-66
DOBYY	Date of Birth: Year	RE 12, 57-66
SEX	Sex	RE 12, 57, 61
RACEX	Race (Edited/Imputed)	RE 101, 102
RACETHNX	Race/Ethnicity (Edited/Imputed)	RE 98-102
HISPANX	Hispanic Ethnicity (Edited/Imputed)	RE 98-100
HISPCAT	Specific Hispanic Ethnicity Group	RE 98-100
MARRY31X	Marital Status – R3/1 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 13, 97
MARRY42X	Marital Status – R4/2 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 13, 97
MARRY53X	Marital Status – R5/3 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 13, 97
MARRY99X	Marital Status–12/31/99 (Edited/Imputed)	RE 13, 97
SPOUID31	Spouse ID – R3/1	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
SPOUID42	Spouse ID – R4/2	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
SPOUID53	Spouse ID – R5/3	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
SPOUID99	Spouse ID – 12/31/99	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
SPOUIN31	Marital Status W/ Spouse Present – R3/1	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
SPOUIN42	Marital Status W/ Spouse Present – R4/2	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
SPOUIN53	Marital Status W/ Spouse Present – R5/3	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
SPOUIN99	Marital Status W/Spouse Present–12/31/99	RE 13, 76, 77, 97
EDUCYEAR	Completed Years of Education	RE 103-105
HIDEGYR	Highest Degree Earned	RE 103-105
FTSTU31X	Student Status If Ages 17-23 R3/1	RE 11A, 106-108
FTSTU42X	Student Status If Ages 17-23 R4/2	RE 11A, 106-108
FTSTU53X	Student Status If Ages 17-23 R5/3	RE 11A, 106-108
FTSTU99X	Student Status If Ages 17-23 – 12/31/99	RE 11A, 106-108
ACTDTY31	Military Full-Time Active Duty – R3/1	RE14, 96A
ACTDTY42	Military Full-Time Active Duty – R4/2	RE 14, 96B1
ACTDTY53	Military Full-Time Active Duty – R5/3	RE 14, 96B1
DIDSERVE	Ever Served In Armed Forces	RE 18, 95
VETPVIET	Served In Post-Vietnam Era	RE 35, 94, 94A, 95, 96
VETVIET	Served In Vietnam War Era	RE 35, 94, 94A, 95, 96
VETKOR	Served In Korean War Era	RE 35, 94, 94A, 95, 96
VETWW	Served In WWI Or WW2 Era	RE 35, 94, 94A, 95, 96
VETOTH	Served In Other Period	RE 35, 94, 94A, 95, 96
RFREL31X	Relation To Ref Pers R3/1 (Edit/Imp)	RE 76-77
RFREL42X	Relation To Ref Pers R4/2 (Edit/Imp)	RE 76-77
RFREL53X	Relation To Ref Pers R5/3 (Edit/Imp)	RE 76-77
RFREL99X	Relation To Ref Pers 12/31/99 (Edit/Imp)	RE 76-77
MOPID31X	PID Of Person's Mom (Edited/Imputed)	RE 76-77
MOPID42X	PID Of Person's Mom (Edited/Imputed)	RE 76-77
MOPID53X	PID Of Person's Mom (Edited/Imputed)	RE 76-77
DAPID31X	PID Of Person's Dad (Edited/Imputed)	RE 76-77
DAPID42X	PID Of Person's Dad (Edited/Imputed)	RE 76-77
DAPID53X	PID Of Person's Dad (Edited/Imputed)	RE 76-77

VARIABLE	DESCRIPTION	SOURCE
SSIDIS99	SSI RECEIPT DUE TO DISABILITY	IN 39
AFDC99	DID PERSON’S CHECK INCLUDE TANF	IN 44
FILEDR99	HAS PERSON FILED A FED INCOME TAX RETURN	IN 02
WILFIL99	WILL PERSON FILE FED INCOME TAX RETURN	IN 03
FLSTAT99	PERSON’S FILING STATUS	IN 04
FILER99	PRIMARY OR SECONDARY FILER	IN 04
JTINRU99	JOINT FILER’S MEMBERSHIP IN RU	IN 05
JNTPID99	PID OF SECONDARY FILER	IN 05
CLMDEP99	DID/WILL PERS CLAIM DEPENDENTS ON RETURN	IN 06
DEPDNT99	PERSON IS FLAGGED A DEPENDENT	IN 07
DPINRU99	DEPENDENTS IN/OUT OF RU	IN 07
DPOTSD99	HOW MANY DEPENDENTS LIVE OUTSIDE RU	IN 08
TAXFRM99	TAX FORM PERSON WILL FILE	IN 09
DEDUCT99	ITEMIZE OR STANDARD DEDUCTION	IN 10
ITMEXP99	WILL PERSON ITEMIZE MEDICAL EXPENSE	IN 11
MEXAMT99	TOTAL AMOUNT FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES	IN 12
NTMDED99	PERSON’S NET MEDICAL EXPENSE DEDUCTION	IN 13
TOTDED99	TOTAL OF ALL ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS	IN 14
CLMHIP99	DID/WILL PERS DEDUCT HEALTH INSUR PREM	IN 15
ELDISC99	DID/WILL PERS RECEIVE ELDERLY/DISAB CRED	IN 16
EICRDT99	DID/WILL PERS RECEIVE EARNED INC CREDIT	IN 17
UNEMTX99	TAXABLE PERCENTAGE OF UNEMPLOYMENT	IN 30OV
INTRTX99	TAXABLE PERCENTAGE OF INTEREST	IN 19OV
SSECTX99	TAXABLE PERCENTAGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY	IN 31OV
IRATAX99	TAXABLE PERCENTAGE OF IRA INCOME	IN 25OV
FOODST99	DID ANYONE PURCHASE FOOD STAMPS	IN 55
FOODMN99	NUMBER OF MONTHS FOOD STAMPS PURCHASED	IN 56
FOODCT99	MONTHLY AMOUNT FAMILY PAID FOR FOOD STAMPS	IN 57
FOODVL99	MONTHLY VALUE OF FOOD STAMPS	IN 58
TTLP99X	PERSON’S TOTAL INCOME	Constructed
POVCAT99	FAMILY INCOME AS PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE	Constructed
WAGEP99X	PERSON’S WAGE INCOME	Constructed
WAGIMP99	WAGE IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
BUSNP99X	PERSON’S BUSINESS INCOME	Constructed
BUSIMP99	BUSINESS INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
FARMP99X	PERSON’S FARM INCOME	Constructed
FARIMP99	FARM INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
UNEMP99X	PERSON’S UNEMPLOYMENT COMP INCOME	Constructed
UNEIMP99	UNEMPLOYMENT IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
WCMPP99X	PERSON’S WORKERS’ COMPENSATION	Constructed
WCPIMP99	WORKERS' COMP IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
INTRP99X	PERSON’S INTEREST INCOME	Constructed
INTIMP99	INTEREST IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
DIVDP99X	PERSON’S DIVIDEND INCOME	Constructed
DIVIMP99	DIVIDEND IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
SALEP99X	PERSON’S SALES INCOME	Constructed
SALIMP99	SALES INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
PENSP99X	PERSON’S PENSION INCOME	Constructed
PENIMP99	PENSION INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
SSECP99X	PERSON’S SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME	Constructed
SSCIMP99	SOCIAL SECURITY IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
TRSTP99X	PERSON’S TRUST/RENT INCOME	Constructed
TRTIMP99	TRUST INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
VETSP99X	PERSON’S VETERAN’S INCOME	Constructed
VETIMP99	VETERAN'S INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
IRASP99X	PERSON’S IRA INCOME	Constructed
IRAIMP99	IRA INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
REFDP99X	PERSON’S REFUND INCOME	Constructed
REFIMP99	REFUND INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
ALIMP99X	PERSON’S ALIMONY INCOME	Constructed
ALIIMP99	ALIMONY INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
CHLDP99X	PERSON’S CHILD SUPPORT	Constructed
CHLIMP99	CHILD SUPPORT IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
CASHP99X	PERSON’S OTHER REGULAR CASH CONTRIB	Constructed
CSHIMP99	CASH CONTRIBUTION IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
SSIP99X	PERSON’S SSI	Constructed
SSIIMP99	SSI IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
PUBP99X	PERSON’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE	Constructed
PUBIMP99	PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed
OTHRP99X	PERSON’S OTHER INCOME	Constructed
OTHIMP99	OTHER INCOME IMPUTATION FLAG	Constructed

VARIABLE	DESCRIPTION	SOURCE
EMPST31	Employment Status Rd 3/1	EM 1-3; RJ 1, 6
EMPST42	Employment Status Rd 4/2	EM 1-3; RJ 1, 6
EMPST53	Employment Status Rd 5/3	EM 1-3; RJ 1, 6
RNDFLG31	Data Collection Round for Rd 3/1 CMJ	Constructed
MORJOB31	Has More Than One Job Rd 3/1 Int Date	EM 1-4, 51; RJ 1, 6; Constructed
MORJOB42	Has More Than One Job Rd 4/2 Int Date	EM 1-4, 51; RJ 1, 6; Constructed
MORJOB53	Has More Than One Job Rd 5/3 Int Date	EM 1-4, 51; RJ 1, 6; Constructed
EVRWRK	Ever Worked For Pay in Life as of 12/31/99	EM 1-4, 51; RJ 1, 6; Constructed
HRWG31X	Hourly Wage Rd 3/1 CMJ	EW 5, 7, 11-13, 17-18, 24; EM 104, 111
HRWG42X	Hourly Wage Rd 4/2 CMJ	EW 5, 7, 11-13, 17-18, 24; EM 104, 111
HRWG53X	Hourly Wage Rd 5/3 CMJ	EW 5, 7, 11-13, 17-18, 24; EM 104, 111
HRWGIM31	HRWG31X Imputation Flag	Constructed
HRWGIM42	HRWG42X Imputation Flag	Constructed
HRWGIM53	HRWG53X Imputation Flag	Constructed
HRHOW31	How Hourly Wage Was Calculated R3/1	EM 2-3, 51, 104, 111; EW 2-24
HRHOW42	How Hourly Wage Was Calculated R4/2	EM 2-3, 51, 104, 111; EW 2-24
HRHOW53	How Hourly Wage Was Calculated R5/3	EM 2-3, 51, 104, 111; EW 2-24
HOUR31	Hours Per Week at RD 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 104-105, 111; EW 17
HOUR42	Hours Per Week at RD 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 104-105, 111; EW 17
HOUR53	Hours Per Week at RD 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 104-105, 111; EW 17
SELFCM31	Self-Employed at RD 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51; RJ 01
SELFCM42	Self-Employed at RD 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51; RJ 01
SELFCM53	Self-Employed at RD 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51; RJ 01
DISVW31X	Disavowed Health Insurance at R3/1 CMJ	EM113, 117; RJ07, 08, 08A; HX and OE Sections
DISVW42X	Disavowed Health Insurance at R4/2 CMJ	EM113, 117; RJ07, 08, 08A; HX and OE Sections
DISVW53X	Disavowed Health Insurance at R5/3 CMJ	EM113, 117; RJ07, 08, 08A; HX and OE Sections
CHOIC31	Choice of Health Plans at Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96, 113-115, 124; RJ08
CHOIC42	Choice of Health Plans at Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96, 113-115, 124; RJ08
CHOIC53	Choice of Health Plans at Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96, 113-115, 124; RJ08
CIND31	Condensed Industry Code Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 97-100; RJ01; Constructed
CIND42	Condensed Industry Code Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 97-100; RJ01; Constructed
CIND53	Condensed Industry Code Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 97-100; RJ01; Constructed
NUMEMP31	Number of Employees at Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 91-92, 124; RJ01
NUMEMP42	Number of Employees at Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 91-92, 124; RJ01
NUMEMP53	Number of Employees at Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 91-92, 124; RJ01
MORE31	Rd 3/1 CMJ Firm Has More Than One Location	EM 1-3, 51, 94; RJ01
MORE42	Rd 4/2 CMJ Firm Has More Than One Location	EM 1-3, 51, 94; RJ01
MORE53	Rd 5/3 CMJ Firm Has More Than One Location	EM 1-3, 51, 94; RJ01
UNION31	Union Status at Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96, 116; RJ01
UNION42	Union Status at Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96, 116; RJ01
UNION53	Union Status at Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96, 116; RJ01
NWK31	Reason Not Working During Rd 3/1	EM 1-3, 101-102, 126-127, 132-133, 138-139, 141, 141.OV; RJ10
NWK42	Reason Not Working During Rd 4/2	EM 1-3, 101-102, 126-127, 132-133, 138-139, 141, 141.OV; RJ10
NWK53	Reason Not Working During Rd 5/3	EM 1-3, 101-102, 126-127, 132-133, 138-139, 141, 141.OV; RJ10
CHGJ3142	Changed Job Between Rd 3/1 and Rd 4/2	RJ01, 01A
CHGJ4253	Changed Job Between Rd 4/2 and Rd 5/3	RJ01, 01A
YCHJ3142	Why Chngd Job Between Rd 3/1 and Rd 4/2	RJ10, 10.OV
YCHJ4253	Why Chngd Job Between Rd 4/2 and Rd 5/3	RJ10, 10.OV
STJBMM31	Month Started Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBDD31	Day Started Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBYY31	Year Started Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBMM42	Month Started Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBDD42	Day Started Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBYY42	Year Started Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBMM53	Month Started Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBDD53	Day Started Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
STJBYY53	Year Started Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM10, 10.OV, 10.OV2; RJ01, 01A
EVRETIRE	Person Has Ever Retired	EM 1-3, 101-102, 126-127, 132-133, 138-139, 141, 141.OV; RJ 01, 10
COCCP31	Condensed Occupation Code Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM99-100; RJ 01, 01A; Constructed
COCCP42	Condensed Occupation Code Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM99-100; RJ 01, 01A; Constructed
COCCP53	Condensed Occupation Code Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM99-100; RJ 01, 01A; Constructed
BGNWK31	Usual Start Time of Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 105, 105A, 105OV; RJ 01, 02
BGNWK42	Usual Start Time of Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 105, 105A, 105OV; RJ 01, 02
BGNWK53	Usual Start Time of Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 105, 105A, 105OV; RJ 01, 02
ENDWK31	Usual End Time of Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 105, 105A, 105OV; RJ 01, 02
ENDWK42	Usual End Time of Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 105, 105A, 105OV; RJ 01, 02
ENDWK53	Usual End Time of Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 105, 105A, 105OV; RJ 01, 02
PAYVAC31	Paid Vacation at Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 109; RJ 01, 02
PAYVAC42	Paid Vacation at Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 109; RJ 01, 02
PAYVAC53	Paid Vacation at Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 109; RJ 01, 02
SICPAY31	Paid Sick Leave at Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 107; RJ 01, 02
SICPAY42	Paid Sick Leave at Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 107; RJ 01, 02
SICPAY53	Paid Sick Leave at Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 107; RJ 01, 02
PAYDR31	Paid Leave to Visit Dr Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 107-108; RJ 01, 02
PAYDR42	Paid Leave to Visit Dr Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 107-108; RJ 01, 02
PAYDR53	Paid Leave to Visit Dr Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 107-108; RJ 01, 02
RETPLN31	Pension Plan at Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 110; RJ 01, 02
RETPLN42	Pension Plan at Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 110; RJ 01, 02
RETPLN53	Pension Plan at Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 110; RJ 01, 02
SHFTWK31	Irregular Work Shift at Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 105; RJ 01, 02
SHFTWK42	Irregular Work Shift at Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 105; RJ 01, 02
SHFTWK53	Irregular Work Shift at Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 105; RJ 01, 02
BSNTY31	Sole Prop, Partner, Corp, Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 94-95; RJ 01, 02
BSNTY42	Sole Prop, Partner, Corp, Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 94-95; RJ 01, 02
BSNTY53	Sole Prop, Partner, Corp, Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 94-95; RJ 01, 02
JOBORG31	Priv (Profit/Nonprofit) Gov Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96; RJ 01, 02
JOBORG42	Priv (Profit/Nonprofit) Gov Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96; RJ 01, 02
JOBORG53	Priv (Profit/Nonprofit) Gov Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM 1-3, 51, 96; RJ 01, 02
HELD31X	Health Insurance Held from Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM117; HX, HP and OE Sections
HELD42X	Health Insurance Held from Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM117; HX, HP and OE Sections
HELD53X	Health Insurance Held from Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM117; HX, HP and OE Sections
OFFER31X	Health Insurance Offered by Rd 3/1 CMJ	EM113, 114, 117; RJ and HX Sections
OFFER42X	Health Insurance Offered by Rd 4/2 CMJ	EM113, 114, 117; RJ and HX Sections
OFFER53X	Health Insurance Offered by Rd 5/3 CMJ	EM113, 114, 117; RJ and HX Sections

VARIABLE	DESCRIPTION	SOURCE
CHmm99X	Covered By Champus/Champva/Tricare mm 99 (Ed), where mm = JA-DE	HX12, 13, PR19-22, HQ Section, RE14, 96A, and age at interview date
MCRmm99	Covered By Medicare In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX05-07, 27, 29, 29OV
MCRmm99X	Covered By Medicare In mm 99 (Ed), where mm = JA-DE	HX05-07, 27, 29, 29OV, see documentation, section 2.5.10 , for additional edit specifications
MCDmm99	Covered By Medicaid In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX10-11, PR07-10 and HQ Section
MCDmm99X	Covered By Medicaid In mm 99 (Ed), where mm = JA-DE	MCDmm99, HX14-16, 18-19, 41-43, 45, PR11-14, 23-32, 39-42
OPAmm99	Cov By Other Public A Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX14-15, 41-45, PR 23-32 and HQ Section
OPBmm99	Cov By Other Public B Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX14-15, 41-43, PR23-30 and HQ Section
STAmm99	Covered By Other State Prog In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX16-19, PR35-38 and HQ Section
PUBmm99X	Covr By Any Public Ins In mm 99 (Ed), where mm = JA-DE	CHmm99X, MCRmm99X, MCDmm99X, OPAmm99, OPBmm99
PEGmm99	Covered By Empl Union Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX2-4, 21-24, 48; HP, OE, HQ, EM, RJ Sections
PDKmm99	Covr By Priv Ins (Source Unknwn) mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX21-24, 48, HP, OE, and HQ Sections
PNGmm99	Covered By Nongroup Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX21-24, 48, HP, OE, and HQ Sections
POGmm99	Covered By Other Group Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX21-24, 48, HP, OE, and HQ Sections
PRSmm99	Covered By Self-Emp-1 Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX3, 4, 48, HQ, OE, RJ and EM sections
POUJmm99	Covered By Holder Outside Of Ru In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HX21-24, 48, HP, OE, and HQ Sections
PRImm99	Covered By Private Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	POGmm99, PDKmm99, PEGmm99, PRSmm99, POUmm99, PNGmm99
HPEmm99	Holder Of Empl Union Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	PEGmm99, HP9, 11
HPDmm99	Holder Of Priv Ins (Source Unknwn) mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	PDKmm99; HP11
HPNmm99	Holder Of Nongroup Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	PNGmm99; HP11
HPOmm99	Holder Of Other Group Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	POGmm99; HP11
HPSmm99	Holder Of Self-Emp-1 Ins In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	PRSmm99; HP9
HPRmm99	Holder Of Private Insurance In mm 99, where mm = JA-DE	HPEmm99, HPSmm99, HPOmm99, HPNmm99, HRDmm99
INSmm99X	Covr By Hosp/Med Ins In mm 99 (Ed) , where mm = JA-DE	PUBmm99X, PRImm99
PRVEV99	Ever have private insurance during 99	Constructed
CHPEV99	Ever have CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA during 99	Constructed
MCDEV99	Ever have Medicaid during 99	Constructed
MCREV99	Ever have Medicare during 99	Constructed
OPAEV99	Ever have other public A during 99	Constructed
OPBEV99	Ever have other public B during 99	Constructed
UNINS99	Uninsured all of 99	Constructed
INSCOV99	Health insurance coverage indicator 99	Constructed
DENTIN31	Dental insurance coverage - R3/1	HX 48, OE 10, OE 24, OE 37
DENTIN42	Dental insurance coverage - R4/2	HX 48, OE 10, OE 24, OE 37
DENTIN53	Dental insurance coverage - R5/3	HX 48, OE 10, OE 24, OE 37
PMEDIN31	Prescription drug insurance - R3/1	HX 48, OE 10, OE 24, OE 37
PMEDIN42	Prescription drug insurance - R4/2	HX 48, OE 10, OE 24, OE 37
PMEDIN53	Prescription drug insurance - R5/3	HX 48, OE 10, OE 24, OE 37

VARIABLE	DESCRIPTION	SOURCE
DDNWRK31	Health problem causes work loss (R31)	DD 02
DDNWRK42	Health problem causes work loss (R42)	DD 02
DDNWRK53	Health problem causes work loss (R53)	DD 02
WKINBD31	½ or more of workloss day spent in bed (R31)	DD 04
WKINBD42	½ or more of workloss day spent in bed (R42)	DD 04
WKINBD53	½ or more of workloss day spent in bed (R53)	DD 04
DDNSCL31	Health problem causes school loss day (R31)	DD 05
DDNSCL42	Health problem causes school loss day (R42)	DD 05
DDNSCL53	Health problem causes school loss day (R53)	DD 05
SCLNBD31	½ or more of school loss day spent in bed (R31)	Used Assistive Devices – RD 5/3	HE 7-8
WLKLIM31	Limitation In Physical Functioning – RD 3/1	HE 9-18
WLKLIM53	Limitation In Physical Functioning – RD 5/3	HE 9-18
LFTDIF31	Difficulty Lifting 10 Pounds – RD 3/1	HE 11
LFTDIF53	Difficulty Lifting 10 Pounds – RD 5/3	HE 11
STPDIF31	Difficulty Walking Up 10 Steps – RD 3/1	HE 12
STPDIF53	Difficulty Walking Up 10 Steps – RD 5/3	HE 12
WLKDIF31	Difficulty Walking 3 Blocks – RD 3/1	HE 13
WLKDIF53	Difficulty Walking 3 Blocks – RD 5/3	HE 13
MILDIF31	Difficulty Walking A Mile – RD 3/1	HE 14
MILDIF53	Difficulty Walking A Mile – RD 5/3	HE 14
STNDIF31	Difficulty Standing 20 Minutes – RD 3/1	HE 15
STNDIF53	Difficulty Standing 20 Minutes – RD 5/3	HE 15
BENDIF31	Difficulty Bending/Stooping – RD 3/1	HE 16
BENDIF53	Difficulty Bending/Stooping – RD 5/3	HE 16
RCHDIF31	Difficulty Reaching Overhead – RD 3/1	HE 17
RCHDIF53	Difficulty Reaching Overhead – RD 5/3	HE 17
FNGRDF31	Difficulty Using Fingers To Grasp – RD 3/1	HE 18
FNGRDF53	Difficulty Using Fingers To Grasp – RD 5/3	HE 18
ACTLIM31	Any Limitation Work/Housewrk/Schl – RD 3/1	HE 19-20
ACTLIM53	Any Limitation Work/Housewrk/Schl – RD 5/3	HE 19-20
WRKLIM31	Work Limitation – RD 3/1	HE 20A
WRKLIM53	Work Limitation – RD 5/3	HE 20A
HSELIM31	Housework Limitation – RD 3/1	HE 20A
HSELIM53	Housework Limitation – RD 5/3	HE 20A
SCHLIM31	School Limitation – RD 3/1	HE 20A
SCHLIM53	School Limitation – RD 5/3	HE 20A
UNABLE31	Completely Unable To Do Activity – RD 3/1	HE 21
UNABLE53	Completely Unable To Do Activity – RD 5/3	HE 21
SOCLIM31	Social Limitations – RD 3/1	HE 22-23
SOCLIM53	Social Limitations – RD 5/3	HE 22-23
COGLIM31	Cognitive Limitations – RD 3/1	HE 24-25
COGLIM53	Cognitive Limitations – RD 5/3	HE 24-25
WRGLAS42	Wears Glasses or Contact Lenses – RD 4/2	HE 26-27
SEEDIF42	Diffclty Seeing W/Glasses/Cntcts–RD 4/2	HE 28-29
BLIND42	Person Is Blind – RD 4/2	HE 30
READNW42	Can Read Newsprnt W/Glasses/Cntcts-RD4/2	HE 31
RECPEP42	Can Recgnze People W/Glasses/Cntcts-RD4/2	HE 32
VISION42	Vision Impairment (Summary) – RD 4/2	Constructed
HEARAD42	Person Wears Hearing Aid – RD 4/2	HE 33-34
HEARDI42	Any Difficlty Hearing W/Hearing Aid–RD4/2	HE 35-36
DEAF42	Person Is Deaf – RD 4/2	HE 37
HEARMO42	Can Hear Most Conversation – RD 4/2	HE 38
HEARSM42	Can Hear Some Conversation – RD 4/2	HE 39
HEARNG42	Hearing Impairment (Summary) – RD 4/2	Constructed
ANYLIM99	Any Limitation in P3R3,4,5/P4R1,2,3	Constructed
LIMACT42	Limited In Any Activities (<5 YR)-RD 4/2	HE 40-41
PLYLIM42	Limited In Play Activity (<5 YRS)-RD 4/2	HE 42
CANTPL42	Can’t Participate Usual Play (<5 YR)-R4/2	HE 43
SPCPRO42	In Special Program (<5 YRS) - RD 4/2	HE 44
DPTSHT42	Immunization For Dpt (<7 YRS) – RD 4/2	HE 45
NUMDPT42	One Or Several Dpt Shots (<7 YRS)-RD 4/2	HE 46
POLSHT42	Immunization For Polio (<7 YRS)-RD 4/2	HE 47
NUMPOL42	One Or Several Polio Shots (<7 YR)-RD4/2	HE 48
MMRSHT42	Immunization Measles/Mumps/Rubella-R4/2	HE 49
HEPSHT42	Immunization For Hepatitis (<7 YR)-RD4/2	HE 49A
MOMPRO42	Problem Getting Along W/Mom (5-17)-RD4/2	HE 50
DADPRO42	Problem Getting Along W/Dad (5-17)-RD4/2	HE 50
UNHAP42	Problem Feeling Unhappy/Sad (5-17)-RD4/2	HE 50
SCHLBH42	Problem Behavior At School (5-17)-RD 4/2	HE 50
HAVFUN42	Problem Having Fun (5-17) – RD 4/2	HE 50
ADUPRO42	Prblm Getting Along W/Adults (5-17)-R4/2	HE 50
NERVAF42	Prblm Feeling Nervous/Afraid (5-17)-R4/2	HE 50
SIBPRO42	Problem Getting Along W/Sib (5-17)-RD4/2	HE 50
KIDPRO42	Prblm Getting Along W/Kids (5-17)-RD4/2	HE 50
SPRPRO42	Problem W/Sports/Hobbies (5-17) – RD 4/2	HE 50
SCHPRO42	Problem With Schoolwork (5-17)-RD 4/2	HE 50
HOMEBH42	Problem W/Behavior At Home (5-17)-RD 4/2	HE 50
TRBLE42	Prblm Stay Out Of Trouble (5-17)-RD 4/2	HE 50
SPCSCH42	Need Special School Program (5-17)-RD4/2	HE 51
SPECED42	In Special Education (5-17) – RD 4/2	HE 52
SPCHTH42	Received Speech Therapy (5-17) – RD 4/2	HE 52B
PSYCNS42	Psychological Counseling (5-17) – RD 4/2	HE 52B
OCUPTH42	Received Occupational Thrpy (5-17)-R4/2	HE 52B
VOCSVC42	Received Vocational Services (5-17) R4/2	HE 52B
TUTOR42	Received Tutoring (5-17) – RD 4/2	HE 52B
READIN42	Use Reader Or Interpreter (5-17)-RD 4/2	HE 52B
PHYTHR42	Received Physical Therapy (5-17)-RD 4/2	HE 52B
LIFSKL42	Received Life Skills Training(5-17)-R4/2	HE 52B
FAMCNS42	Received Family Counseling (5-17)-RD 4/2	HE 52B
RECTHR42	Received Recreational Thrpy (5-17)-R4/2	HE 52B
OTHSVC42	Received Oth School Service (5-17)-RD4/2	HE 52B
CANTSC42	Lmted/Unable To Go To School (5-17)-R4/2	HE 53
LMOACT42	Lmted In Non-School Activity (5-17)-R4/2	HE 54
HLTHY42	Child Resists Illness Well (0-17)-RD 4/2	HE 55
NTHLTH42	Less Hlthy Than Same Age Kids(0-17)-R4/2	HE 55
GETSIC42	Child Catches What’s Around (0-17)-R4/2	HE 55
HGTFT42	Child’s Height – Feet (0-17) – RD 4/2	HE 56
HGTIN42	Child’s Height – Inches (0-17) – RD 4/2	HE 56
WGTLB42	Child’s Weight – Pounds (0-17) – RD 4/2	HE 57
WGTOZ42	Child’s Weight – Ounces (0-17) – RD 4/2	HE 57
CHLIM42	Child Has Any Limitation (0-17) – RD 4/2	Constructed
WHRCAR99	Where was Child Care Provided ‘99	HE25C
WHOCAR99	Who Provided Child Care ‘99	HE25B
DAYCAR99	Child Care Arrangements Required ‘99	HE25A

HEALTH SERVICE CATEGORY	UTILIZATION VARIABLE(S)	EXPENDITURE VARIABLE(S)¹
*All Health Services*	--	TOT***99

Office Based Visits
Total Office Based Visits (Physician + Non-physician + Unknown)	OBTOTV99	OBV***99
Office Based Visits to Physicians	OBDRV99	OBD***99
Office Based Visits to Non-Physicians	OBOTHV99	OBO***99
Office Based Visits to Chiropractors	OBCHIR99	OBC***99
Office Based Nurse or Nurse Practitioner Visits	OBNURS99	OBN***99
Office Based Visits to Optometrists	OBOPTO99	OBE***99
Office Based Physician Assistant Visits	OBASST99	OBA***99
Office Based Physical or Occupational Therapist Visits	OBTHER99	OBT***99

Hospital Outpatient Visits
Total Outpatient Visits (Physician + Non-physician + Unknown)	OPTOTV99	--
Facility Expense	--	OPF***99
SBD Expense	--	OPD***99

Outpatient Visits to Physicians	OPDRV99	--
Facility Expense	--	OPV***99
SBD Expense	--	OPS***99

Outpatient Visits to Non-Physicians	OPOTHV99	--
Facility Expense	--	OPO***99
SBD Expense	--	OPP***99

Emergency Room Visits
Total Emergency Room Visits	ERTOT99	--
Facility Expense	--	ERF***99
SBD Expense	--	ERD***99

Inpatient Hospital Stays (Including Zero Night Stays)
Total Inpatient Stays (Including Zero Night Stays)	IPDIS99, IPNGTD99	--
Facility Expense	--	IPF***99
SBD Expense	--	IPD***99

Zero night Hospital Stays	IPZERO99	--
Facility Expense	--	ZIF***99
SBD Expense	--	ZID***99

Dental Visits
Total Dental Visits	DVTOT99	DVT***99
General Dental Visits	DVGEN99	DVG***99
Orthodontist Visits	DVORTH99	DVO***99

Home Health Care
Total Home Health Care	HHTOTD99	--
Agency Sponsored	HHAGD99	HHA***99
Paid Independent Providers	HHINDD99	HHN***99
Informal	HHINFD99	--

Other
Vision Aids	--	VIS***99
Other Medical Supplies and Equipment	--	OTH***99
Prescription Medicines	RXTOT99	RX***99

KEY: To complete variable name, replace *** with a particular source of payment category as identified in the following table:

Connect With Us

Sign up for Email Updates

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality