ArticleMedicare & medicaid research review2014
Ever enrolled Medicare population estimates from the MCBS Access to Care files.
Article in Medicare & medicaid research review, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying neuropsychiatric disorders in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey: the benefits of combining health survey and claims data.BMC health services research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey's (MCBS) Access to Care (ATC) file is designed to provide timely access to information on the Medicare population, yet because of the survey's complex sampling design and expedited processing it is difficult to use the file to make both "always-enrolled" and "ever-enrolled" estimates on the Medicare population. In this study, we describe the ATC file and sample design, and we evaluate and review various alternatives for producing "ever-enrolled" estimates.
methodsWe created "ever enrolled" estimates for key variables in the MCBS using three separate approaches. We tested differences between the alternative approaches for statistical significance and show the relative magnitude of difference between approaches.
resultsEven when estimates derived from the different approaches were statistically different, the magnitude of the difference was often sufficiently small so as to result in little practical difference among the alternate approaches. However, when considering more than just the estimation method, there are advantages to using certain approaches over others.
conclusionThere are several plausible approaches to achieving "ever-enrolled" estimates in the MCBS ATC file; however, the most straightforward approach appears to be implementation and usage of a new set of "ever-enrolled" weights for this file.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.