医疗保险受益人基于疾病的医疗支出指标的计算:方法与数据选择的比较

A. Hall, A. Hall, Tina Highfill
{"title":"医疗保险受益人基于疾病的医疗支出指标的计算:方法与数据选择的比较","authors":"A. Hall, A. Hall, Tina Highfill","doi":"10.7208/chicago/9780226530994.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disease‐based medical care expenditure indexes are currently of interest to measurement economists and have been the subject of several recent papers. These papers, however, produced widely different results for medical care inflation and also varied in the datasets and methods used, making comparison difficult. In this paper, using two data sources and two different methods for calculating expenditure indexes for the Medicare population, we compare the indexes produced and establish some results that will help guide policymakers in choosing indexes for this population. We compare two methods: the primary diagnosis method and a regression‐based method. The former is preferable because of its transparency but makes stringent demands of the data. We find that when the methods are applied to the same datasets, the primary diagnosis method produces higher average annual aggregate growth rates. The difference implies that the regression‐based method should therefore be employed with caution and only when necessary. We also compare medical care expenditure indexes produced from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The MEPS is the only dataset with diagnoses attached to drug events, which significantly affects the resulting indexes. On balance, however, the MCBS is probably the preferable dataset for Medicare beneficiaries because of its greater sample size and its inclusion of nursing home residents. The optimal index may be a hybrid of the primary diagnosis method applied to Medicare claims and a regression‐based index for pharmaceutical spending. We discuss further avenues for research, such as comparing our results with indexes created with commercial groupers, and what data to use for Medicare private plan enrollees.","PeriodicalId":115451,"journal":{"name":"Kauffman: Large Research Projects - NBER (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calculating Disease-Based Medical Care Expenditure Indexes for Medicare Beneficiaries: A Comparison of Method and Data Choices\",\"authors\":\"A. Hall, A. Hall, Tina Highfill\",\"doi\":\"10.7208/chicago/9780226530994.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Disease‐based medical care expenditure indexes are currently of interest to measurement economists and have been the subject of several recent papers. These papers, however, produced widely different results for medical care inflation and also varied in the datasets and methods used, making comparison difficult. In this paper, using two data sources and two different methods for calculating expenditure indexes for the Medicare population, we compare the indexes produced and establish some results that will help guide policymakers in choosing indexes for this population. We compare two methods: the primary diagnosis method and a regression‐based method. The former is preferable because of its transparency but makes stringent demands of the data. We find that when the methods are applied to the same datasets, the primary diagnosis method produces higher average annual aggregate growth rates. The difference implies that the regression‐based method should therefore be employed with caution and only when necessary. We also compare medical care expenditure indexes produced from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The MEPS is the only dataset with diagnoses attached to drug events, which significantly affects the resulting indexes. On balance, however, the MCBS is probably the preferable dataset for Medicare beneficiaries because of its greater sample size and its inclusion of nursing home residents. The optimal index may be a hybrid of the primary diagnosis method applied to Medicare claims and a regression‐based index for pharmaceutical spending. We discuss further avenues for research, such as comparing our results with indexes created with commercial groupers, and what data to use for Medicare private plan enrollees.\",\"PeriodicalId\":115451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kauffman: Large Research Projects - NBER (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kauffman: Large Research Projects - NBER (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226530994.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kauffman: Large Research Projects - NBER (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226530994.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

基于疾病的医疗保健支出指数目前是测量经济学家感兴趣的,并且已经成为最近几篇论文的主题。然而,这些论文对医疗膨胀得出了截然不同的结果,使用的数据集和方法也各不相同,这使得比较变得困难。本文采用两种不同的数据来源和两种不同的方法计算医保人群的支出指标,对所产生的指标进行了比较,并建立了一些结果,有助于指导决策者选择针对医保人群的指标。我们比较了两种方法:初步诊断方法和基于回归的方法。前者因其透明度而更可取,但对数据提出了严格的要求。我们发现,当这些方法应用于相同的数据集时,初级诊断方法产生更高的平均年总增长率。这种差异意味着基于回归的方法应该谨慎使用,并且只在必要时使用。我们还比较了医疗保险现行受益人调查和医疗支出小组调查得出的医疗保健支出指数。MEPS是唯一一个与药物事件相关的诊断数据集,这对结果索引有显著影响。然而,总的来说,MCBS可能是更适合医疗保险受益人的数据集,因为它的样本量更大,而且包含了养老院的居民。最优指数可能是应用于医疗保险索赔的初级诊断方法和基于回归的药品支出指数的混合。我们讨论了进一步的研究途径,例如将我们的结果与商业石斑鱼创建的指数进行比较,以及将哪些数据用于医疗保险私人计划的参保人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Calculating Disease-Based Medical Care Expenditure Indexes for Medicare Beneficiaries: A Comparison of Method and Data Choices
Disease‐based medical care expenditure indexes are currently of interest to measurement economists and have been the subject of several recent papers. These papers, however, produced widely different results for medical care inflation and also varied in the datasets and methods used, making comparison difficult. In this paper, using two data sources and two different methods for calculating expenditure indexes for the Medicare population, we compare the indexes produced and establish some results that will help guide policymakers in choosing indexes for this population. We compare two methods: the primary diagnosis method and a regression‐based method. The former is preferable because of its transparency but makes stringent demands of the data. We find that when the methods are applied to the same datasets, the primary diagnosis method produces higher average annual aggregate growth rates. The difference implies that the regression‐based method should therefore be employed with caution and only when necessary. We also compare medical care expenditure indexes produced from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The MEPS is the only dataset with diagnoses attached to drug events, which significantly affects the resulting indexes. On balance, however, the MCBS is probably the preferable dataset for Medicare beneficiaries because of its greater sample size and its inclusion of nursing home residents. The optimal index may be a hybrid of the primary diagnosis method applied to Medicare claims and a regression‐based index for pharmaceutical spending. We discuss further avenues for research, such as comparing our results with indexes created with commercial groupers, and what data to use for Medicare private plan enrollees.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信