Limits...
Reconciling medical expenditure estimates from the MEPS and NHEA, 2002.

Sing M, Banthin JS, Selden TM, Cowan CA, Keehan SP - Health Care Financ Rev (2006)

Bottom Line: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) are often used for health care policy analysis and simulations because they contain comprehensive estimates of national health care expenditures.This article compares MEPS and NHEA expenditure estimates for 2002 and discusses the differences.When MEPS and the NHEA are adjusted to be on a consistent basis, their expenditure estimates differ by 13.8 percent.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. merrile.sing@ahrq.hhs.gov

ABSTRACT
The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) are often used for health care policy analysis and simulations because they contain comprehensive estimates of national health care expenditures. The NHEA are primarily based on aggregate provider revenue data, while MEPS is based on person-level data on health care expenditures. This article compares MEPS and NHEA expenditure estimates for 2002 and discusses the differences. When MEPS and the NHEA are adjusted to be on a consistent basis, their expenditure estimates differ by 13.8 percent.

Show MeSH
Annual Nominal Growth Rates in Partially-Adjusted National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)1: 1996-20031 Based on a simplified, but consistently-applied reconciliation of out of pocket, private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid payments in NHEA and MEPS.SOURCES: Calculations based on the MEPS, NHEA, and other data sources, 1996-2003.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4194973&req=5

f1-hcfr-28-1-025: Annual Nominal Growth Rates in Partially-Adjusted National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)1: 1996-20031 Based on a simplified, but consistently-applied reconciliation of out of pocket, private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid payments in NHEA and MEPS.SOURCES: Calculations based on the MEPS, NHEA, and other data sources, 1996-2003.

Mentions: As a starting point for thinking about NHEA and MEPS over time, Figure 1 presents the results of a simplified reconciliation using methods applied consistently over time. To construct this figure, we focused on NHEA expenditures in four categories: (1) out of pocket, (2) PHI, (3) Medicare, and (4) Medicaid. We also adjusted the scope of goods and services in NHEA solely by removing nursing home facility costs, non-Federal non-community hospitals, non-prescription non-durable medical products, and other PHC. As Figure 1 shows, MEPS grew more slowly than the adjusted NHEA between 1996 and 1999, and grew more rapidly than the adjusted NHEA in the latter two periods. Over the entire 1996-2003 period, the average annual growth rate in the NHEA was 7.3 percent, compared with 7.0 percent in MEPS. These annual growth rates translate into a cumulative growth over the 1996 to 2003 period of 63.5 percent in the NHEA, compared with 60.4 percent in MEPS. The growth rates in this figure should be interpreted with caution, because they are based on only a partial reconciliation. However, the fact that growth in the adjusted NHEA outpaced MEPS by a cumulative total of only 3.1 percentage points in this analysis suggests that much of the reason for the widening gap between 1996 and 2003 stems from changes in the reconciliation methodology.


Reconciling medical expenditure estimates from the MEPS and NHEA, 2002.

Sing M, Banthin JS, Selden TM, Cowan CA, Keehan SP - Health Care Financ Rev (2006)

Annual Nominal Growth Rates in Partially-Adjusted National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)1: 1996-20031 Based on a simplified, but consistently-applied reconciliation of out of pocket, private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid payments in NHEA and MEPS.SOURCES: Calculations based on the MEPS, NHEA, and other data sources, 1996-2003.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4194973&req=5

f1-hcfr-28-1-025: Annual Nominal Growth Rates in Partially-Adjusted National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)1: 1996-20031 Based on a simplified, but consistently-applied reconciliation of out of pocket, private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid payments in NHEA and MEPS.SOURCES: Calculations based on the MEPS, NHEA, and other data sources, 1996-2003.
Mentions: As a starting point for thinking about NHEA and MEPS over time, Figure 1 presents the results of a simplified reconciliation using methods applied consistently over time. To construct this figure, we focused on NHEA expenditures in four categories: (1) out of pocket, (2) PHI, (3) Medicare, and (4) Medicaid. We also adjusted the scope of goods and services in NHEA solely by removing nursing home facility costs, non-Federal non-community hospitals, non-prescription non-durable medical products, and other PHC. As Figure 1 shows, MEPS grew more slowly than the adjusted NHEA between 1996 and 1999, and grew more rapidly than the adjusted NHEA in the latter two periods. Over the entire 1996-2003 period, the average annual growth rate in the NHEA was 7.3 percent, compared with 7.0 percent in MEPS. These annual growth rates translate into a cumulative growth over the 1996 to 2003 period of 63.5 percent in the NHEA, compared with 60.4 percent in MEPS. The growth rates in this figure should be interpreted with caution, because they are based on only a partial reconciliation. However, the fact that growth in the adjusted NHEA outpaced MEPS by a cumulative total of only 3.1 percentage points in this analysis suggests that much of the reason for the widening gap between 1996 and 2003 stems from changes in the reconciliation methodology.

Bottom Line: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) are often used for health care policy analysis and simulations because they contain comprehensive estimates of national health care expenditures.This article compares MEPS and NHEA expenditure estimates for 2002 and discusses the differences.When MEPS and the NHEA are adjusted to be on a consistent basis, their expenditure estimates differ by 13.8 percent.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. merrile.sing@ahrq.hhs.gov

ABSTRACT
The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) are often used for health care policy analysis and simulations because they contain comprehensive estimates of national health care expenditures. The NHEA are primarily based on aggregate provider revenue data, while MEPS is based on person-level data on health care expenditures. This article compares MEPS and NHEA expenditure estimates for 2002 and discusses the differences. When MEPS and the NHEA are adjusted to be on a consistent basis, their expenditure estimates differ by 13.8 percent.

Show MeSH