Risk adjustment and observation time: comparison between cross-sectional and 2-year panel data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk adjustment models were used to estimate health care consumption after adjusting for individual characteristics or other factors. The results of this technique were not satisfying. One reason could be that the length of time to document consumption might be associated with the mean and variance of observed health care consumption. This study aims to use a simplified mathematical model and real-world data to explore the relationship of observation time (one or two years) and predictability. METHODS: This study used cross-sectional (one-year) and 2-year panel data sets of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1996 to 2008. Comparisons of the health care consumption (total health expenditure, emergency room (ER) and office-based visits) included ratios of means and standard errors (SEs). Risk adjustment models for one- and two-year data used generalized linear model. RESULTS: The ratios of mean health care consumption (two-year to one-year total expenditure, ER and office-based visits) seemed to be two in most age groups and the ratios of SEs varied around or above two. The R-squared of two-year models seemed to be slightly better than that of one-year models. CONCLUSIONS: We find health expenditure and ER or office-based visits observed in two consecutive years were about twice those observed in a single year for most age, similar to the ratios predicted in mathematical examples. The ratios of mean spending and visits varied across age groups. The other finding is that the predictability of two-year consumption seems better than that of one-year slightly. The reason is not clear and we will continue studying this phenomenon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".