Imputation Methodology for Emergency Room Visits Sample Clauses

Imputation Methodology for Emergency Room Visits. Facility expenditures for emergency room services were developed in a sequence of logical edits and imputations. “Household” edits were applied to sources and amounts of payment for all events reported by HC respondents. “MPC” edits were applied to provider-reported sources and amounts of payment for records matched to household-reported events. Both sets of edits were used to correct obvious errors in the reporting of expenditures. After the data from each source were edited, a decision was made as to whether household- or MPC-reported information would be used in the final editing and hot-deck imputations for missing expenditures. The general rule was that MPC data would be used where a household reported event corresponded to a MPC reported event (i.e., a matched event), since providers usually have more complete and accurate data on sources and amounts of payment than households. One of the more important edits separated flat fee events from simple events. This edit was necessary because groups of events covered by a flat fee (i.e., a flat fee bundle) were edited and imputed separately from individual events covered by a single charge (i.e., simple events). Most emergency room events were imputed as simple events because hospital facility charges are rarely bundled with other events. (See Section 2.5.5 for more details on flat fee groups). However, some emergency room visits were treated as free events because the respondent was admitted to a hospital through its emergency room. In these cases, emergency room charges are included in the charge for an inpatient hospital stay. Logical edits also were used to sort each event into a specific category for the imputations. Events with complete expenditures were flagged as potential donors for the hot-deck imputations, while events with missing expenditure data were assigned to various recipient categories. Each event was assigned to a recipient category based on its pattern of missing data. For example, an event with a known total charge but no expenditures information was assigned to one category, while an event with a known total charge and some expenditures information was assigned to a different category. Similarly, events without a known total charge were assigned to various recipient categories based on the amount of missing data. The logical edits produced eight recipient categories in which all events had a common pattern of missing data. Separate hot-deck imputations were performed on events in each...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.