The MEPSIC is an annual survey that collects
information about employersponsored health insurance offerings
in the United States. Collection began with the 1996 survey year.
A nationally representative sample of employers, developed
from Census Bureau list frames for the private sector and State
and local governments, is the basis for the survey and the
posted tables of estimates.
Beginning with the 2008 survey reference year, the MEPSIC
survey’s collection year is the same as the calendar
year (current collection). Prior to 2008, collection for a
survey reference year was done in the following calendar year
(retrospective collection) – i.e., 2005 survey year data
were collected in calendar year 2006. The switch to calendar
year collection allows the survey to release private sector
estimates for a given survey year a full 12 months earlier
than was possible for the pre2008 surveys. For example, 2008
estimates were released in July 2009; without the switch, they
would have been released in July 2010. State and local governments’ estimates
are released several months after the private sector estimates for the same survey year.
(Due to the change to current collection, 2007 estimates are
not available.)
The following types of national estimates are available from
the MEPSIC privatesector tables posted on the survey’s website:
 Establishment based (for example, the percent of establishments that offer
health insurance)
 Employee based (for example, the percent
of employees that enroll in health insurance plans)
 Premiums and employee contributions
for enrollees, including averages and percentile distributions
 Deductibles and copayments for enrollees
These estimates are defined for firm size, industry, and other establishment characteristics.
Government tables have estimates similar to those for the private sector, broken out for State governments and local governments by size.
See the Glossary
for definitions of terms used in the survey questionnaires and tables of estimates.
(NOTE: Collection for the MEPSIC Household Link Sample,
a sample of employers of persons who responded to the
MEPS Household Component (MEPSHC) survey, was suspended in 2002.)
^top
In addition
to producing national estimates, the sample allocation
and design of the MEPSIC sample also supports reliable
private sector Statelevel estimates of the same type noted above.
Since 2003, there has been a sufficient MEPSIC sample
each year to support Statelevel estimates in all 50
States and the District of Columbia. (For survey purposes,
the District of Columbia is treated as a State.) When
the survey began, cost constraints prevented the fielding
of a sufficiently large sample to support State estimates
for all States every year. In 1996, estimates were made
for the 40 most populous States. From 1997 through 2002,
the MEPSIC rotated the samples in the 20 least populated
States to insure that every State received an adequate
sample size to make Statelevel estimates at least once
every four years. The 21 States that were not allocated
sufficient sample for estimates each year during the
years 1996  2002 are listed in the following table.
An "X" indicates the year(s) for which State
estimates are available for that State. A blank indicates
that estimates are not available for that State in that
year. The State rotation schedule was modified in 2001
to reflect changes in State population rankings based on the 2000 Census.
States with smaller populations for which MEPSIC estimates are not available each year 1996–2002
State 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
Alaska 

X 



X 

Arkansas 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

Delaware 


X 


X^{*} 
X 
District of Columbia 

X 



X 

Hawaii 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X^{*} 
Idaho 


X 


X 

Kansas 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
^{**} 
X 
Maine 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X^{*} 
Mississippi 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
Montana 



X 


X^{*} 
Nebraska 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
Nevada 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
New Hampshire 


X 

X 
^{**} 
X 
New Mexico 
X 

X 

X 

X 
North Dakota 




X 


Rhode Island 

X 

X 

X 

South Dakota 




X 
^{**} 

Utah 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
Vermont 



X 

X^{*} 

West Virginia 
X 

X 

X 

X 
Wyoming 


X 



X 
Note: An X indicates that Statelevel estimates are available for that
year; a blank indicates that there are no estimates for that year.
^{*} States received an additional sample that supported a full set of State estimates not otherwise possible.
^{**} States received an additional sample that supported estimates for smaller firms only.
Federal
agencies, State governments, and nonprofit organizations
have occasionally provided additional funding to increase
the MEPSIC samples in selected States. The two most
common reasons for funding larger State samples are
1) to improve the accuracy of the State estimates for
that year or 2) to provide sufficient sample for production
of State estimates in a year where no estimates would
have been produced otherwise. In the table below, States
that received increased samples are listed by year.
In 2001 and 2002, the increased samples resulted in
additional States for which estimates could be produced.
These additional estimates are provided on the MEPSIC
Web site to all data users.
List of States for the year with sample purchases
Year 
States with additional sample purchases 
1998 
Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington 
2000 
Arkansas, Wisconsin 
2001 
Delaware^{*},
Vermont^{*},
Kansas^{**},
New Hampshire^{**},
South Dakota^{**},
Wisconsin 
2002 
Hawaii^{*},
Maine^{*},
Montana^{*},
Maryland, Virgin Islands^{***} 
2003 
Virginia 
^{*} States received an additional sample that
supported a full set of State estimates not otherwise possible.
^{**} States received an additional sample that
supported estimates for smaller firms only.
^{***} The U.S. Virgin Islands received a special
sample to support a full set of estimates. These data are not included
in the calculation of totals for the United States.
^top
Starting with the 2002 data collection, the
sample allocation and design of the MEPSIC sample also supports
a limited set of reliable private sector metropolitanlevel estimates
of the following:
 The percent of establishments that offer health insurance
 The percent of employees that enroll in health insurance
plans, are eligible to enroll, and enroll when they are eligible
 Average premiums and employee contributions for those enrolled
in employersponsored health insurance plans
Estimates are provided for the 20 largest metro areas nationwide and for at least
one metro area within each state. The metropolitan statistical areas with a sufficient sample
size to support reliable estimates with the MEPSIC are geographically defined in the
following two tables:
^top
The MEPSIC privatesector sample is selected and collection takes place
at the establishment (unit) level. An establishment is generally a single physical
location; a firm can consist of just a single establishment or multiple establishments. The sampling unit for governments is the parent agency and any dependent agencies. In the following discussion, the term establishment is used to refer to both the privatesector and state and local government sampling unit.
For all sample units except 1) State governments, 2) very large local governments,
and 3) those in complex multiunit (those with nine or more establishments
in the sample) private sector firms, each sample unit is initially prescreened
by telephone. The purpose of this screening is to:
 Determine whether or not health insurance is offered to employees at each establishment.
 Obtain the name, title, and address of an appropriate person in each establishment
to whom a MEPSIC questionnaire will be mailed (for establishments offering health insurance).
 Identify any establishment that no longer exists, has closed, or has merged with others.
If the employer did not offer health insurance, a brief
set of questions about establishment characteristics are asked
during the screening process and the case is considered
a complete response. This provides an inexpensive method to collect the
necessary data from the large number of employers who did not
offer health insurance, while minimizing the collection burden on those generally small employers.
If the employer did offer health insurance, several short questions
are asked and the employer is later mailed a MEPSIC questionnaire
to obtain the remaining needed information. All establishments not reached during the screening
process are also mailed questionnaires. Establishments are given the option of completing the mail
questionnaire or responding online. If an establishment fails to respond to the initial
mail questionnaire, a followup mailing is sent a few weeks later.
Establishments that also fail to respond to the second mailing and do not respond online
are contacted by telephone and the survey is conducted using computerassisted telephone interviewing
(CATI) technology.
For the purpose of this survey, establishments indicating
that they offered health insurance to their employees must answer key information on their health
insurance offerings to be considered full respondents. Callbacks are made to respondents not providing
all of the key information in order to complete their questionnaires. Respondents that do not provide
this key information, but are known to offer insurance, are considered partial respondents.
Establishments that were not prescreened, did not return the mail questionnaires and did not respond
to followup phone calls are classified as nonrespondents. For this group, the availability of health
insurance for employees at the establishment is unknown.
Data for large governments and very large privatesector firms are collected using specialized
staff and forms. This is done to make the collection process simple and flexible and to reduce the
burden as much as possible for these important respondents. Sometimes multiple telephone contacts and personal
visits are needed to collect these data. For some of these collections, survey staff abstract data directly
from company records and plan brochures if the firm insists on such methods.
^top
In sample surveys like the MEPSIC, noncertainty
sample establishments represent not only themselves but also other similar
establishments in the survey population. Therefore, in order to produce
the survey estimates and standard errors presented in the MEPSIC tables,
weights must be created for all responding establishments. A brief description
of this process is provided here. During the sample design and selection
process, each establishment on the frame is given a probability of selection
that is dependent on its stratum. These probabilities vary among establishments
and assure that the sample sizes in each stratum are equal to that required
by the allocation scheme. The inverse of this probability of selection
is the establishment’s base weight. The use of the base weight and
the formula
provides an unbiased estimate of a total T, if there is no nonresponse.
Because there is nonresponse, respondents’ weights are adjusted to account
for nonresponse so that these weights, when used with responding establishment
data, will reduce the bias attributable to survey nonresponse. To accomplish
this, the sample is divided into cells similar to the original sampling strata
and the weights for each respondent in a specific cell are adjusted upward
by the same percentage. The sum of the adjusted weights for respondents in
these cells is equal to the sum of the base weights for all inscope sampled establishments
in the cell. Because it is assumed that the expected value of all responding
establishments in each individual cell defined is equal to that of all the
eligible respondents, use of the adjusted weights with respondents should produce
the desired unbiased estimates of totals. Additional details on the enrollment
and expenditure estimation process are available in
MEPS
Methodology Report No. 14, June 2003.
After adjustment for nonresponse, weights are poststratified (Madow, Olkin,
and Rubin, 1983.) using the frame of establishments in business during the last
quarter of the year for which estimates would be made to produce control totals.
For detailed information concerning construction of weights, see
MEPS Methodology
Report No. 28, October 2013.
Although railroads are included in the sample, the six largest railroads are not included
in the MEPSIC tables (except in the Series IV National totals). Employment for these railroads cannot be broken
down by State so their inclusion would distort results for States in which the
headquarters of these railroads are located.
» Reliability of Estimates
For each table of estimates, a corresponding table of standard errors is provided.
Beginning with 2014 data, standard errors are computed using the Taylor series linearization method
 a widely used method of variance estimation for sample survey estimates.
For details about the Taylor series method of variance estimation see Lohr (2009);
Särndal, Swensson, and Wretman (1992); Lee, Forthoffer, and Lorimor (1989); and Wolter (1985).
The computational details of the Taylor series variance estimation method for all different types of estimates
in tables can be found in SAS Stat User's Guide (2012) or SUDAAN Technical Manual (1996).
As an example, under the Taylor series method, the variance (square of standard error) of
an estimator of total,
can be expressed as:
with
where, h represents the sampling stratum, n_{h} is the sample size after nonresponse in stratum h, x_{hi} is the
value of a survey variable for establishment i in stratum h, w_{hi} is the corresponding final nonresponseadjusted
sampling weight for the same establishment, and
is the finite population correction (FPC) factor. Initially the FPC factor was not included in the Taylor Series variance
estimation formula but starting in 2017 it was incorporated to improve estimation by accounting for sampling rates
(Chowdhury et al., 2018).
Prior to 2014, standard errors for MEPSIC estimates were produced using the method of random groups
(Wolter, 1985; Skinner, Holt and Smith, 1989). During the sample selection process, each selected establishment
was assigned a number from 09 sequentially to form 10 random groups. Considering each of these groups as a
subsample similar to the full sample and assigning subsample weights that are 10 times the weights of the full
sample, ten subsample estimates, θ_{i} , i = 1, 2, ...10 were made in addition to the full
sample estimate, θ. The variance was then calculated as
^top
The MEPSIC tables are numbered in a hierarchical structure that facilitates
locating estimates, helps clarify specifically what the estimates are measuring,
and provides a mechanism for calculating count estimates for tables where percentages
are provided. The numbering structure also serves as the framework for the MEPSnet/IC
interactive search tool, which is available on the survey website.
The first level of the table numbering system is by the following categories
and by year:
 Privatesector data by firm size and selected characteristics for the U.S.
 Privatesector data by firm size and State
 Publicsector data by government type, government size, and census division
 National totals for enrollees and cost of health insurance coverage for the private and public sectors
 Privatesector data by industry groupings and State
 Privatesector data by ownership type and age of firm and State
 Privatesector data by proportion of employees who are fulltime or lowwage and State
 Privatesector data by average wage quartiles and State
 Privatesector data by Metro areas
 Private sector data of percentile distributions of premiums, employee contributions, and employer costs and State
 Civilian data by private and state/local government sectors and census divisions
Within each of these categories (excluding Tables IV, IX, and X), tables
are subsequently grouped by:
 Establishmentlevel tables
 Employeelevel tables
 Premiums, employee contributions, and enrollment tables for single coverage plans
 Premiums, employee contributions, and enrollment tables for family coverage plans
 Premiums, employee contributions, and enrollment tables for employeeplusone coverage plans
 Deductible, copayment, and coinsurance tables
 Percentile distributions of premiums, employee contributions, and employer costs (Tables I and III only)
Tables within each of these categories are ordered based on their interrelationships.
For each of the MEPSIC tables (excluding Tables IV, IX, and X), Figure 1 below identifies the denominator table of that table.
Examples of how to use Figure 1 to calculate approximate counts from the percentage estimates in the
MEPSIC tables are provided in the next section.
Figure 1. Listing of MEPSIC table numbers and denominators for tables
Table Number 
Denominator for table 
A.1. 

A.1.a. 
A.1. 
A.2. 
A.1. 
A.2.a 
A.2. 
A.2.b. 
A.2. 
A.2.b.(1). 
A.2. 
A.2.b.(2). 
A.2. 
A.2.b.(3). 
A.2. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
A.2.c. 
A.2. 
A.2.c.(1). 
A.2. 
A.2.c.(2). 
A.2. 
A.2.c.(3). 
A.2. 
A.2.d. 
A.2. 
A.2.e. 
A.2. 
A.2.f. 
A.2. 
A.2.g. 

A.2.h. 
A.2. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
B.1. 

B.1.a. 
B.1. 
B.2. 
B.1. 
B.2.a 
B.2. 
B.2.a.(1). 
B.2.a 
B.2.b. 
B.2. 
B.2.b.(1). 
B.2.b 
B.2.c. 
B.2. 
B.3. 

B.3.a. 
B.3. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
B.3.b. 
B.3. 
B.3.b.(1). 
B.3.b. 
B.3.b.(1).(a). 
B.3.b.(1). 
B.3.b.(2). 
B.3.b. 
B.4. 

B.4.a. 
B.4. 
B.4.b. 
B.4. 
B.4.b.(1). 
B.4.b. 
B.4.b.(1).a. 
B.4.b.(1). 
B.4.b.(2). 
B.4.b. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
C.1. 

C.1.a. 

C.1.b. 

C.1.c. 

C.2. 

C.2.a. 

C.2.b. 


Table Number 
Denominator for table 
C.2.c. 

C.3. 
C.1. 
C.3.a. 
C.1.a. 
C.3.b. 
C.1.b. 
C.3.c. 
C.1.c. 
C.4. 
B.2.b. 
C.4.a. 
C.4. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
D.1. 

D.1.a. 

D.1.b. 

D.1.c. 

D.2. 

D.2.a. 

D.2.b. 


Table Number 
Denominator for table 
D.2.c. 

D.3. 
D.1. 
D.3.a. 
D.1.a. 
D.3.b. 
D.1.b. 
D.3.c. 
D.1.c. 
D.4. 
B.2.b. 
D.4.a. 
D.4. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
E.1. 

E.2. 

E.3. 
E.1. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
E.4. 
B.2.b. 
E.4.a. 
E.4. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
F.1. 
B.2.b. 
F.2. 
C.4. 
F.3. 
D.4. 
F.4. 
B.2.b. 
F.5. 
F.4. 
F.6. 
F.7. 
F.7. 
B.2.b. 
F.8. 
C.4. 
F.9. 
D.4. 
F.10. 

F.11. 

F.12 
C.4. 
F.12.a 
F.12 
F.13. 
C.4 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
F.14. 
C.4. 
F.15 
D.4. 
F.15.a 
F.15. 
F.16. 
D.4. 
F.17. 
D.4. 
F.18. 
B.2.b. 
F.19. 

F.20. 
F.21. 
F.21. 
B.2.b. 
F.22. 
B.2.b. 
F.23. 
B.2.b. 
F.24. 

F.25. 

F.26. 
F.27. 
F.27. 
B.2.b. 

Table Number 
Denominator for table 
G.1. 

G.2. 

G.3. 


Table Number 
Denominator for table 
G.4. 

G.5. 


Note: Denominators are available only for tables that provide percentage estimates
of counts. No “G” tables have percentage estimates
of counts. Also, the “X” series of percentile distributions has
no percentage estimates of counts.
^top
Many of the MEPSIC tables contain percent estimates instead
of count estimates. For instance, Table I.B.2 gives the percent of employees
who work in establishments that offer health insurance. Table I.B.2.a gives
the percent of employees who work at establishments that offer health insurance
and who are eligible for health insurance. For most tables of percents, a count
of the number of employees or establishments in any cell in the table can be
calculated using data, for that cell, from the current table and one or more
tables containing the denominator(s) for that cell.
To produce count estimates, multiply the cell values from the
selected table and all of the denominators for that cell. For example,
to estimate the total number of establishments that offer health insurance, use the percentage of these establishments in Table I.A.2 and determine
from Figure 1 above that Table I.A.1 contains the value in the
denominator of this percentage.
Thus, the estimated total number of establishments that offer health insurance
in 2013 is:
.499(percents must be converted to decimals) x 7,009,707 = 3,497,844.
The first number (.499) is from Table I.A.2 and the second (7,009,707) is from
Table I.A.
An approximate standard error for this count estimate can be computed using
this formula:
where Est(1) and Est(2) are the estimates from the two tables and Err(1) and Err(2) are the standard errors for those estimates.
For some tables, a hierarchical structure exists so more
than two tables are needed to derive an approximate count. For example, look
at Table I.B.2.a, the percent of employees eligible for health insurance. Table
I.B.2 is listed as its denominator for Table I.B.2.a and Table I.B.1 is the
denominator for Table I.B.2. The values from all three tables, I.B.1, I.B.2,
and I.B.2.a must be used to derive an estimate of the count. Thus, the estimated
total number of employees eligible for health insurance in 2013 is .778 x .849
x 113,947,523 = 75,264,846, with the three values coming from Tables I.B.2.a,
I.B.2, and I.B.1 respectively. Basically, one must multiply by a series of
denominators until one reaches a table with numbers instead of percents (the
shaded areas of the Table 1 on the previous page). The standard error for this
count estimate (674,645) can be computed by using a logical expansion of the
standard error formula provided above.
^top
Each year the MEPSIC survey undergoes a number of changes in an effort to
improve the existing survey while maintaining continuity from one year to the
next. Listed below are the most significant changes that occurred in each year.
In addition to the changes listed here, there were also changes to the wording
and question order based on feedback from survey respondents.
Survey year 
Major changes 
1996 

1997 
Establishment Form
 Dropped questions on retiree health insurance at the establishmentlevel and revised for collection at the companylevel.
Company Form
 Added companylevel forms (15 and 15S) for cases where data collection at the establishmentlevel was not feasible.
Methodology
 A rotation schedule to produce estimates for smaller States was introduced.
 Dropped sample of Self Employed with No Employees sample.
Tables
 Added a significant number of tables, introduced a new tablenumbering system, and revised 1996 tables (using improved imputation and weighting methods) were reissued. The 1996 tables posted on the MEPSIC Web site reflect these changes.

1998 
Establishment Form
 Added followup questionnaire 10M for interviews of multiestablishment respondents where the Computer Assisted Telephone Instrument was not functioning.
Plan Form
 Removed the "first" planlevel questionnaire from the establishment and government questionnaires.
 Added followup questionnaire 10MS for interviews of multiestablishment respondents.
MEPSnet/IC
 MEPSnet/IC – an interactive search mechanism that produces trend output for all available years was introduced.

1999 
Government Form
 The government questionnaire was split into front and rear parts – based on feedback from government respondents.
Methodology
 Dropped attempts to collect both current year data in addition to retrospective data.
Tables
 Expanded Statelevel estimates by providing three new sets of tables with estimates by industry groupings, ownership type, age of firm, and percent of fulltime and lowwage employees.

2000 
Establishment Form
 Expanded retiree health insurance questions and estimates.
 Changed industry categories to conform to the change from SIC codes to NAICS codes. Comparisons between 1999 and 2000 are not recommended.
 Changed definition of a lowwage employee so it would be automatically updated each year as wages increase or decrease. Comparisons by lowwage employees between 1999 and 2000 are not recommended.

2001 
Plan Form
 Added questions on employeeplusone premiums and employee contributions.
Tables
 Added Statelevel estimate tables by average wage quartiles.
 Added tables for employeeplusone premiums and employee contributions.

2002 
Methodology
 Changed postdata collection processes to reduce the time it takes to post estimates on the MEPS Web site.
 Added additional sample and produced separate estimates for the Virgin Islands.
Tables
 Added Metroarea tables with estimates for the 20 largest MSAs in the US and one or more MSAs within each State.

2003 
Plan Form
 Added more detailed questions about the Prescription Drug benefits.
Methodology

2004 
Plan Form
 Added questions on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs).

2005 
Plan Form
 Revised questions on HSA and HRA.
 Revised questions on prescription drug tiers and services covered by the plans.
Tables
 Added Tables with estimates of average deductibles (single and family), and average copayments and coinsurances. Tables were created starting with year 2002.

2006 
Plan Form
 Added questions on employer deposits to HSA accounts.
Tables
 Added Tables with percentile distributions of premiums, employee contributions, and employer costs.

2007 
Methodology
 No MEPSIC data are available for 2007 due to the transition from retrospective to current data collection.

2008 
Establishment Form
 Revised question on cost of optional insurance coverage and changed reference from annual to monthly.
Methodology
 Changed data collection from retrospective (calendar year following survey year) to current (calendar year same as survey year). Current collection makes private sector estimates for the survey year available 12 months earlier and government estimates available eight months earlier, compared to retrospective collection.

2009 
Establishment Form
 Added questions about limits on covering the spouse of an enrollee and about incentives provided to employees if they did not elect to take coverage.

2010 
Tables
 Added a new set of tables that provide comparable estimates at the Census Division level for the privatesector, State and local governments, and a combination of both.

2011 

2012 
Establishment Form
 Added question on number of employees earning above a specific hourly wage (to be updated annually).
 Added question for small employers only on whether Small Business Health Care Tax Credit will be claimed.

2013 
Establishment Form
 Added questions on health insurance offers to unmarried domestic partners.
Plan Form
 Added question on stop loss coverage amount for selfinsured plans.
 Added question on grandfathered plans under the ACA.
 Revised question on the list of services covered by the plan.
 Revised question on whether premiums vary for plan.
 Revised question on whether employee contributions vary for plan.
 Dropped question on HRAs.
 Dropped question about limits on spousal coverage.
 Dropped question on length of waiting period.
 Dropped question on number of tiers in prescription drug plan.
 Dropped question on annual maximum amount plan pays per enrollee.

2014 
Establishment Form
 Added question for small businesses on whether insurance was obtained through a SHOP exchange under the ACA.
 Added question on number of employees who worked less than 30 hours per week.
 Added question on whether employees' spouses were eligible for health insurance coverage.
 Added question on whether organization offered health insurance in prior year.
 Revised question on whether organization offers health insurance.
 Dropped question on the last year the organization offered health insurance.
 Dropped question on whether organization offered health insurance to temporary or seasonal employees.
Plan Form
 Added question on metal level or tier of plan for small employers.
 Added question on actuarial value of plan for large employers.
 Added question on whether premium varied by employees' ages.
 Added question on whether total premium for family coverage varied by the number of family members.
 Revised question on whether employee contribution varied by participation in health programs or by employee age.
 Added question on how employee contributions varied by age.
 Revised question on how much and/or what percentage did enrollee pay outofpocket for prescription drug covered (Generic, Preferred Brand Name, Nonpreferred Brand Name).
 Dropped question on preexisting medical or health conditions.
 Dropped question on requiring a waiting period before covering preexisting conditions.
Methodology

2015 
Establishment Form
 Added question about the use of a private exchange for large firms (greater than 50 employees).
 Revised response categories for question "Were employees' SPOUSES eligible for health insurance coverage through your organization?"
 Combined questions on coverage for unmarried domestic partners into a single question.
 Dropped questions on prescription drug coverage for retirees under 65 years of age and retirees 65 years of age or older.
Plan Form
 Added question about Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), this question is being reinstated after being deleted in 2013.
 Added a specialty drug tier to the existing question on prescription drug copayments and coinsurance.
 Dropped the response category "Older employees pay more" for question "Did the amount individual EMPLOYEES contributed toward their SINGLE
coverage premium vary by any of these characteristics?"

2016 
Establishment Form
 Added question about using a third party, such as an insurance broker or agent, to help purchase insurance plan(s).
 Revised definition of a small business from 50 or fewer to 100 or fewer employees and definition of a large business from more than 50 to more than 100 employees.
Plan Form
 Combined metal level question and actuarial value question; the respondent is asked to report either actuarial value or metal level.
 Deleted the question "Why did older employees contribute more toward their single coverage premium."
 Deleted the option to report separate deductibles for physician care and hospital care.
 Revised the question wording for employer contributions to a health savings account (HSA).
 Revised the question wording for a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA).
 Added question about outofpocket copayment or coinsurance for specialist physician office visits after any annual deductible was met.
 Added a question to determine if the plan has a separate annual deductible that applies only to prescription drugs.
 Added a question for the annual deductible (in dollars) for prescription drugs for single coverage.

2017 
Establishment Form
 Renumbered questions on the form.
 Added question about the use of a private exchange for small employers.
 Revised question about financial compensation or incentives to employees.
 Revised question labels for retirees age 65 years or older.
 Added respondent's email address fillin box.
Plan Form
 Removed HSA instruction under Plan Premium.
 Revised question on outofpocket payment for prescription drugs.
Methodology
 Included FPC factor in sampling error methodology.

^top
Chowdhury, S., Kashihara, D., and Thompson, M. (2018). Incorporating a Finite Population Correction into the Variance
Estimation of a National Business Survey. Proceedings of the Federal Committee on Statistical Methods (FCSM), 2018 Annual Conference.
Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, Third Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fuller, W.A. (1975), Regression Analysis for Sample Survey, Sankhya, 37 (3), Series C, 117–132.
Lee, E. S., Forthoffer, R. N., and Lorimor, R. J. (1989), Analyzing Complex Survey Data, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social
Sciences, series no. 07071, Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lohr, S. L. (2009), Sampling: Design and Analysis, Second Edition, Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
Madow, W.G., Olkin, I., Rubin D.B. Incomplete data in sample
surveys, Volume 2: Theory and bibliographies. New York: Academic Press; 1983.
Sarndal, C.E., Swenson, B., and Wretman, J. (1992), Model Assisted Survey Sampling, New York: SpringerVerlag Inc.
Skinner, C. J., Holt, D. and Smith, T. M. F. eds. (1989), Analysis of Complex Surveys. Chichester: Wiley.
Wolter, K. M. (1985), Introduction to Variance Estimation, New York: SpringerVerlag Inc.
Woodruff, R.S. (1971), A Simple Method for Approximating the Variance of a Complicated Estimate, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(334), 411–414.
^top
Suggested
Citation:
MEPS Insurance Component: Technical Notes and Survey Documentation.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/survey_comp/ic_technical_notes.shtml

