从医疗改革后的调查问题中对医疗保险覆盖类型进行分类:当前人口调查案例

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Applied Social Science Pub Date : 2024-04-24 DOI:10.1177/19367244241245953
J. Pascale, A. Fertig, K. Call
{"title":"从医疗改革后的调查问题中对医疗保险覆盖类型进行分类:当前人口调查案例","authors":"J. Pascale, A. Fertig, K. Call","doi":"10.1177/19367244241245953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measuring health insurance in surveys has always been challenging, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced considerable ambiguities. For example, the public/private line was blurred with the introduction of marketplace coverage, which is considered private coverage even though in some cases, it is partially or fully subsidized by the government. This study uses a rigorous design where administrative records are linked to survey data. We compare alternative algorithms that employ survey data points found in several major national surveys to categorize coverage type, focusing on the very difficult challenge of separating private marketplace coverage from public coverage. This is important, given researchers’ and policymakers’ need to produce estimates of public versus private coverage from survey data. Results indicate that integrating a data point on plan name reduces a more simplistic algorithm’s overestimation of marketplace coverage and results in significant improvements in accurate categorization across public and private coverage types.","PeriodicalId":39829,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Social Science","volume":"11 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Categorization of Health Insurance Coverage Type from Survey Questions after Health Reform: The Case of the Current Population Survey\",\"authors\":\"J. Pascale, A. Fertig, K. Call\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19367244241245953\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Measuring health insurance in surveys has always been challenging, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced considerable ambiguities. For example, the public/private line was blurred with the introduction of marketplace coverage, which is considered private coverage even though in some cases, it is partially or fully subsidized by the government. This study uses a rigorous design where administrative records are linked to survey data. We compare alternative algorithms that employ survey data points found in several major national surveys to categorize coverage type, focusing on the very difficult challenge of separating private marketplace coverage from public coverage. This is important, given researchers’ and policymakers’ need to produce estimates of public versus private coverage from survey data. Results indicate that integrating a data point on plan name reduces a more simplistic algorithm’s overestimation of marketplace coverage and results in significant improvements in accurate categorization across public and private coverage types.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Social Science\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19367244241245953\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19367244241245953","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在调查中衡量医疗保险一直是个难题,而《可负担医疗法案》(ACA)则带来了相当多的模糊性。例如,随着市场保险的引入,公共/私人保险的界限变得模糊,即使在某些情况下,市场保险部分或全部由政府补贴,但仍被视为私人保险。本研究采用严格的设计,将行政记录与调查数据联系起来。我们比较了采用几项主要全国性调查中发现的调查数据点对保险类型进行分类的替代算法,重点关注将私人市场保险与公共保险区分开来这一非常困难的挑战。这一点非常重要,因为研究人员和政策制定者需要从调查数据中得出公共与私人保险的估计值。结果表明,整合计划名称的数据点可降低更简单算法对市场覆盖率的高估,并显著改善公共和私人覆盖类型的准确分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Categorization of Health Insurance Coverage Type from Survey Questions after Health Reform: The Case of the Current Population Survey
Measuring health insurance in surveys has always been challenging, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced considerable ambiguities. For example, the public/private line was blurred with the introduction of marketplace coverage, which is considered private coverage even though in some cases, it is partially or fully subsidized by the government. This study uses a rigorous design where administrative records are linked to survey data. We compare alternative algorithms that employ survey data points found in several major national surveys to categorize coverage type, focusing on the very difficult challenge of separating private marketplace coverage from public coverage. This is important, given researchers’ and policymakers’ need to produce estimates of public versus private coverage from survey data. Results indicate that integrating a data point on plan name reduces a more simplistic algorithm’s overestimation of marketplace coverage and results in significant improvements in accurate categorization across public and private coverage types.
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
Journal of Applied Social Science
Journal of Applied Social Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Social Science publishes research articles, essays, research reports, teaching notes, and book reviews on a wide range of topics of interest to the social science practitioner. Specifically, we encourage submission of manuscripts that, in a concrete way, apply social science or critically reflect on the application of social science. Authors must address how they either improved a social condition or propose to do so, based on social science research.
期刊最新文献
“Don’t Really Figure Wages . . . Just Pay Bills”: Family Home Child Care Providers as Small Business Owners Considering Contextual Influences on Fatherhood Program Participants’ Experiences Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: Creating Connection in Divisive Times Categorization of Health Insurance Coverage Type from Survey Questions after Health Reform: The Case of the Current Population Survey Peer-Led Groups in Sexual Assault Prevention Programming: Myth Adherence and Self-Defense Efficacy within Gender and Race
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1