by James Bethel, Ph.D., and Pamela Broene, M.S., Westat, Inc.,
and John Paul Sommers, Ph.D.
The target population consists of freestanding nursing homes with at least three beds staffed and set up for nursing care, as well as nursing care units consisting of a distinguishable group of three or more nursing home beds within a larger facility. Either type of facility must be:
The sample of nursing home residents was stratified by whether residents resided at the nursing home at the beginning of 1996 (current-residents sample) or were admitted during the calendar year (first-admissions sample). The target population of the current-residents sample consisted of persons who resided in nursing homes as of January 1, 1996. The target population of the first-admissions sample consisted of persons who resided in a nursing home during 1996 but were not current residents as defined above.
The sample was designed with the goal of estimating a population proportion of 0.20 with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 9.8 percent or less for facilities, 5.5 percent or less for current residents, and 6.5 percent or less for first admissions. Table 1 shows the relative standard errors for selected characteristics of current residents and first admissions obtained in the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey Institutional Population Component, a similar previous survey conducted by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ). These relative standard errors, or CVs, are based on a sample size of approximately 800 responding nursing homes.
The sampling frame for the selection of facilities in the MEPS NHC was an updated version of the 1991 National Health Provider Inventory (NHPI). The 1991 NHPI is a census of approximately 16,000 nursing homes in the United States, collected by the Bureau of the Census for the National Center for Health Statistics and AHRQ. The 1991 NHPI served as the base, and approximately 2,000 new facilities and 275 hospital-based facilities were added to this original list to create the sampling frame.
Facilities were selected as a double, or two-phase, sample. For the first phase, 1,651 facilities were sampled within strata, with probabilities proportional to size. The measure of size was the number of beds in the facility reserved for nursing home use. The first-phase sample was assigned to four strata based on expected survey travel costs, and a second-phase subsample of 1,430 facilities was selected with equal probabilities within these four cost strata.
The second-phase sample was divided into a main sample of 1,150 facilities and a reserve sample of 280 facilities, the latter being divided into four "release groups" of 70 facilities each. The release groups were intended to be sent to the field to supplement the main sample if response and eligibility rates were lower than expected. On the other hand, the main sample was randomly split into 18 recall groups of approximately 64 facilities each. If response and eligibility rates were higher than expected, sampled facilities could be randomly withdrawn from the field by canceling data collection in selected recall groups. In fact, the MEPS NHC Round 1 response and eligibility rates were higher than anticipated. Therefore, at the conclusion of Round 1, the facilities in two randomly selected recall groups were withdrawn from Rounds 2 and 3 of data collection.
In most facilities, a fixed sample of four current residents and four new admissions was selected using simple random sampling within the facility. In facilities with measures of size that were poorly correlated with the number of admissions, the first admissions sample size could be increased from two to three per round (to a total of six). The within-facility sample sizes are intended to yield approximately 3,043 eligible current-resident respondents and 2,218 eligible first-admission respondents, all with complete use and expenditure data. The target sample sizes are summarized in Table 2.
Description of the National Health Provider InventoryThe MEPS NHC sampling frame was based on the 1991 NHPI. The U.S. Bureau of the Census collects the NHPI for the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and AHRQ. In 1991, it contained approximately 16,000 nursing homes and 31,000 board-and-care homes. The MEPS NHC sampling frame was created by updating a subset of the 1991 NHPI provided by NCHS to AHRQ. This subset contained 15,811 facilities on the 1991 NHPI that NCHS defined as nursing homes, as well as 1,691 potential new nursing homes that were identified through State lists and directories of nursing homes (National Center for Health Statistics, 1995).
A nursing home, according to the NCHS definition, is a facility having at least three beds and identifying itself on the NHPI questionnaire as one of the following:
Among the 17,502 facilities on the basic frame, 205 appeared to be board-and-care homes, which do not meet this definition and were excluded. Another 275 facilities that had been excluded by NCHS-mostly Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) facilities-were added to the frame. The final updated NHPI contained 17,572 (17,502-205 + 275) facilities (Pancholi, 1995).
To be eligible for the MEPS NHC, facilities must have at least three beds and be either Medicare- and/or Medicaid-certified or licensed as nursing homes. Final eligibility for the MEPS NHC was determined during Round 1 of facility data collection; however, the initial sampling frame included all facilities on the updated NHPI that were likely to meet these criteria.
Editing the MEPS NHC FrameThe number of beds reported by the facility on the NHPI questionnaire was edited for hospital-based facilities using information in the AHA Guide (American Hospital Association, 1993). As part of the editing, the number of beds was compared with the number of residents. A large ratio of residents to beds could indicate an inconsistency in reporting, unless the questionnaire shows the presence of a long-term care unit within a larger facility for the elderly. As a result, the number of beds was edited for 209 hospital-based facilities.
Missing values for variables on the NHPI that were needed for sampling were obtained from external sources when possible. Information on license/certification status, type of ownership, and the number of beds was obtained for all but a small percentage of the new facilities. Certification status was not available for the 275 VA facilities and was imputed for an additional 69 facilities. The facility ownership type (profit, nonprofit, government) was unknown for 216 facilities but was not imputed. Missing telephone numbers were supplied for over 1,700 facilities, but 132 still remained missing on the frame at the time of sampling. A Beale code (also known as the Human Resource Profile Code) was placed on the file to indicate the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) status of each facility. These codes were collapsed for use in sampling. The collapsed values were 0 = large metropolitan core, 1 = large metropolitan fringe, 2 = medium metropolitan area, 3 = lesser metropolitan area, 4 = adjacent to an MSA, and 5 = not adjacent to an MSA.
Measure of SizeIn the initial survey planning, the number of residents was proposed as the most appropriate measure of size. A careful review of the data fields on the NHPI, however, indicated that the number of "eligible beds" would be preferable. The question on the NHPI concerning the number of residents is somewhat general ("How many residents stayed in this home last night?"). In contrast, the question concerning the number of beds defines certain types of beds that should be excluded (e.g., beds for day care only and hospital or retirement center beds not associated with the nursing home). Also, the number of residents might be construed to include persons in a board-and-care wing. Therefore, the number of beds as reported on the NHPI questionnaire was used directly as the measure of size except for the 209 cases where the number of beds was edited using the 1993 American Hospital Association Guide (American Hospital Association, 1993).
SummaryFacilities were selected in two phases. In the first phase, a stratified sample of 1,651 facilities was selected with probability proportional to size. Six of the seven strata were created by crossing three types of Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement with an indicator of whether the facility was hospital based or not. The seventh stratum contained the 20 largest facilities, of which 11 had been chosen by NCHS for inclusion in the NCHS National Nursing Home Survey (NNHS) and the remaining 9 were designated for the MEPS NHC. These nine facilities were then drawn with certainty in the first phase of the MEPS NHC. The stratum sample sizes in the remaining six strata were determined using proportional allocation. The original measure of size was the number of beds, but to minimize overlap with the NCHS NNHS, a Keyfitz procedure was employed to compute new conditional probabilities of selection.
Cost stratification was then performed on the 1,651 facilities in the first-phase sample, with the actual strata being defined in terms of distance from the nearest of the 50 largest U.S. cities and the expected effect on survey travel costs. Next, the optimal sampling rates were determined for these four cost strata. Using the sampling rates, a cost-stratified subsample of 1,430 facilities was selected from the 1,651 facilities in the main sample. Within each cost stratum, the second-phase sample of facilities not drawn with certainty (noncertainty facilities) was subsampled at a rate of .803, yielding a reserve sample of 280 facilities and a remaining main sample of 1,150 facilities. The four release groups were assigned by sorting the reserve sample by order of selection and consecutively numbering from 1 to 4, repeating until all 280 facilities were assigned. This resulted in four release groups of 70 facilities each. The main sample was randomly divided into 18 subsamples of approximately 64 facilities each by sorting the noncertainty sample facilities in the order of selection and consecutively numbering from 1 to 18, repeating until all 1,139 noncertainty facilities were assigned.
Initial StratificationThe facility sample was a two-phase stratified sample. In the first phase, the 17,572 facilities in the frame were stratified into seven strata. Facilities were selected with probabilities proportional to size (i.e., the number of eligible beds) in each stratum in the first phase. This initial sample was grouped into the four cost strata described above. In the second phase, noncertainty facilities were subsampled with equal probabilities within each cost stratum.
The first-phase strata were formed by grouping facilities according to three types of Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement and whether the facility was hospital based or not. The 20 largest facilities were placed in a separate stratum. Eleven of these had been selected previously for the NNHS, conducted by the NCHS. The remaining nine were designated for the MEPS NHC.
Determining Selection PossibilitiesAn initial sample of 1,651 facilities was selected using probability proportionate to size (PPS) sampling, with the number of nursing beds as the measure of size. Using this technique, the number of facilities allocated to each of the original strata was proportional to that stratum's number of the total number of nursing beds. For the ith facility in the hth stratum, the initial selection probability was computed as:
However, before the sample was selected, these selection probabilities were modified to minimize overlap with the 1995 NNHS, which was conducted by NCHS and fielded in late 1995. Because the NNHS and MEPS NHC used similar sampling frames, it was important to prevent (if possible) any nursing homes from being included in both surveys.
A Keyfitz procedure was used to adjust the probabilities of selection to minimize this overlap. This procedure provides the desired unconditional probabilities of selection for the MEPS NHC sample while at the same time minimizing the overlap. To compute conditional probabilities of selection for the MEPS NHC, the probabilities of selection for a facility in both the MEPS NHC and the 1995 NNHS frame, as well as which nursing homes were selected in the 1995 NNHS, must be known. The following notation describes the procedure.
The unconditional probability of selection for a facility in the MEPS NHC can be written as:
Given the outcome of the 1995 NNHS sampling, it is shown below that selecting the MEPS NHC sample with these redefined probabilities preserves the original MEPS NHC probabilities of selection.
After these rules were applied in the six noncertainty strata, the facilities were selected for the MEPS NHC using the redefined selection probabilities. Selection was done using a systematic selection process. For this selection the file was sorted by Beale code and ownership to create implicit sampling strata within each of seven explicit strata. In the certainty stratum, the nine facilities not selected for the NNHS sample were sampled with certainty. The remaining 11 facilities were assigned a zero probability of selection. The outcome of using these probabilities of selection was that none of the MEPS NHC sample facilities overlapped with the NNHS sample.
Two additional certainty facilities were selected in two of the noncertainty strata. These two facilities were Case 1 situations and were not selected in the NNHS sample, so their Keyfitz probabilities were set equal to one. The remainder of the sample in the six noncertainty strata were Case 2 facilities.
Cost StratificationAfter the first-phase sample was drawn, the sampled facilities were assigned to four cost strata based on the geographic distribution of the sample. The cost strata were approximated by measuring distance in kilometers from the nearest of the 50 largest U.S. cities. Specifically, each facility was assigned to one of four cost strata:
The cost stratification process consisted of several steps. The first-phase sample of 1,651 facilities was mapped using computer mapping software. Next, each facility was mapped into the appropriate ZIP Code center point. Then, to approximate the cost strata, a map of the 50 largest U.S. cities and concentric zones around them was overlaid on the facility map. Facilities located within 100 kilometers of a city were assigned to Stratum 1; facilities 100-200 kilometers, to Stratum 2; facilities 200-300 kilometers, to Stratum 3; and facilities beyond 300 kilometers of a city, to Stratum 4.
Minimizing Overlap With the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey
The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) is an ongoing survey of Medicare beneficiaries conducted by Westat for the Health Care Financing Administration. As part of this survey, Westat field interviewers visit many nursing homes throughout the United States. As with the NNHS, it was important to minimize the number of nursing homes involved in both surveys. However, an alternative to the Keyfitz procedure was necessary because of the virtual impossibility of calculating the probabilities of selection for the MCBS facilities.
The procedure used was to flag any nursing home that MCBS respondents reported as their current residence as of September 28, 1995, and that was also in the first-phase MEPS NHC sample. There were 71 such facilities. Of these overlapping facilities, one MEPS NHC noncertainty facility was removed from the first-phase sample prior to sampling in the second phase, thus giving a zero chance of selection. An adjustment factor was applied to the weights within each cost stratum to prevent an undercoverage bias. The nine facilities that were included with certainty in the first phase of MEPS NHC sampling were designated to be selected with certainty in the second phase, regardless of whether they overlapped with the MCBS. Based on opinions of health care analysts at AHRQ, facilities excluded in this way were unlikely to differ in any systematic way from other facilities in the first-phase sample. Thus, this procedure was not expected to cause any sampling bias.
Selecting the Second-Phase SampleAn equal probability subsample of the initial sample was drawn within each cost stratum using systematic sampling. The sample size for each cost stratum was determined by optimum allocation. The optimum allocation was computed using the formula
where Wh and rh represent the population proportion and sampling rate for the hth stratum. This formula neglects the variance for the analysis variables, since it is expected that they would vary little between cost strata. The MEPS NHC facilities overlapping with MCBS were not removed prior to determining the optimal allocation, since these facilities will be treated in sample weighting as nonrespondents.
The optimum allocation based on the MEPS NHC first-phase sample is shown in Table 3. The optimal subsampling rates ranged from .78 to .89. The proportions (Wh) shown in Table 3 are those obtained in the MEPS NHC sample of 1,651 facilities. The data collection cost estimates include travel costs, interviewer per diem and salary, and data processing costs.
Sampling AlgorithmsThis section describes in detail the algorithms used to select the main and reserve samples. The following notations are used in this section:
First-Phase SampleBoth phases of the facility sampling were accomplished using Westat's macro WESSAMP. Probability proportional to size (PPS) systematic sampling was used in the first phase, and equal probability systematic sampling in the second phase. In the first phase, the unconditional probability of selection for the ith facility was nhM
Mh, where M is the measure of
size for the ith facility in stratum h (h =
1,2....7), Mh is the sum of the measures of size
in the stratum, and nh is the number of
facilities sampled in the stratum. Any facility with unconditional
probability of selection greater than or equal to 1 was classified
as a certainty selection and assigned a selection probability equal
to 1. Two facilities in the six noncertainty strata met this
criterion. In the certainty stratum, there were 20 large
facilities, of which 9 were not sampled in NCHS's NNHS. These were
taken with certainty for the MEPS NHC. In the large stratum, the
remaining 11 facilities had their conditional probabilities set to
0. In the six noncertainty strata, these selection probabilities
were modified to minimize overlap with the NNHS, as described
previously. The modified probabilities of selection resulted in
two additional facilities being selected with certainty.
Thus the sampling algorithm for the first phase consisted of this step:
Step 1. Within each stratum, sort the facilities by Beale code, type of ownership, and ZIP Code. Calculate the conditional (Keyfitz) probabilities of selection. Select nh0 facilities with PPS, with the Keyfitz probability of selection as the measure of size. There will be ch0 certainties, i.e., facilities that will have . For the other facilities, the original unconditional selection probabilities will be
where Mhi is the measure of size for the ith facility in the hth stratum.
Second-Phase SampleThe first-phase sample of 1,651 facilities was mapped into four cost strata and subsampled within each cost stratum. The sample size in each cost stratum was determined using optimal allocation. Equal stratum variances were assumed for MEPS NHC variables. Within each cost stratum, the certainty facilities and noncertainty facilities identified as overlapping with MCBS were first removed. The sample was then sorted by the same order of selection used in the first-phase sample, and an equal probability systematic sample of facilities was drawn with the sample sizes shown in Table 3. The resulting second-phase sample of 1,430 facilities was again sorted within cost strata by the order of selection, and the noncertainty facilities were subsampled again at a rate of .803 to create a randomly chosen reserve sample of 280 facilities and a main sample of 1,150 facilities. The reserve sample was split into four release groups of 70 facilities each by sequentially assigning the numbers 1 through 4 to the facilities in their original sort order. Using the same procedure, the noncertainty facilities in the main sample were randomly divided into 18 recall groups consisting of approximately 64 facilities each.
Thus the sampling algorithm for the second phase consisted of these steps:
Step 2. Map the sample of n0 facilities into the four cost strata using facility ZIP Code and mapping software.
Step 3. Remove noncertainty facilities identified as overlapping with MCBS and certainty facilities from the first-phase sample.
Step 4. To select the second-phase sample of n1 facilities from the first-phase sample of n0, sort the facilities in each cost stratum in the original order of selection. Within each cost stratum, draw an equal probability systematic sample of facilities, where the sample size is determined by optimum allocation. (See Table 3.) Subtract the number of first-phase certainty facilities in each cost stratum from the designated sample size in Table 3 prior to sampling.
Step 5. To select the reserve sample of r facilities from the n1 second-phase facilities, first sort the noncertainty facilities in the second-phase sample by order of selection in each cost stratum. Within each cost stratum, select an equal probability systematic sample of facilities using the sample sizes in Table 3. Create four release groups by sorting the reserve sample in the order of selection, then consecutively numbering the reserve sample from 1 to 4, repeating until the entire reserve sample has been assigned. There will be m = n1r facilities in the main sample and r facilities in the reserve sample. The reserve sample will consist of four release groups of r/4 facilities each.
Step 6. To create the 18 recall groups from the main sample, sort the noncertainty facilities in the main sample in the order of selection, then consecutively number facilities from 1 to 18, repeating until all noncertainty main sample facilities have been assigned. Each recall group thus will represent a random subsample of the main sample.
For a two-phase sampling process like this, the sampling probabilities for the ith facility in the hth stratum can be written as:
For the "initial certainty/final certainty" facilities--facilities that were selected with certainty in both the first and second phases of sampling--the overall selection probability is 1.00. For the "initial noncertainty/final noncertainty" facilities, the final selection probability would be:
where mh' is the main sample size in cost stratum h' and nh'00 is the number of first-phase sample facilities in cost stratum h'. If release groups are used, the numerator in the first factor is increased by the extra number of facilities released. If no release groups are used but some recall groups are withdrawn, the numerator is decreased by the number of facilities being withdrawn in cost stratum h'.
Initial Screening of FacilitiesAn initial screening was carried out by telephone. Only facilities meeting the following requirements were retained in the sample:
As a result of the screening, 14 facilities were identified as being out of business and 1 facility was determined to be ineligible.
Round 1 Facility Response RatesGiven the response rate assumptions specified in Table 4, the initial sample sizes were intended to result in a final sample of approximately 787 cooperating facilities, with control over the final sample size to be obtained through the use of release and recall groups. At the end of Round 1, 1,124 of the 1,150 facilities fielded for data collection were determined to be eligible. Of these, 951 completed the Facility Questionnaire and sampling of current residents, 158 refused, and 14 broke off the interview. Twelve facilities were ineligible and 15 had gone out of business. The Round 1 response rate to the Facility Questionnaire was 85 percent and the eligibility rate was 98 percent, both exceeding expectations. Based on these data, AHRQ made a decision to recall two groups of facilities, totaling 127 facilities, from Rounds 2 and 3 of data collection. Of these, 108 had cooperated in Round 1.
Nursing Homes Associated With Other FacilitiesSampled facilities belonging to nursing home chains were identified before screening to assist both the recruiters and Round 1 interviewers. Facilities that were affiliated with hospitals or retirement centers and facilities with board-and-care wings were also given special attention during the training of field staff. During Round 1 facility data collection, if the facility respondent identified the facility or unit as a hospital-based skilled nursing facility, the hospital name was added to the place roster in the Facility Questionnaire and a flag was set to indicate that the hospital has a skilled nursing facility unit. Interviewers were instructed to carefully identify and list residents only of those parts of the facility that were eligible for the MEPS NHC.
Facilities That Moved or Combined With Other FacilitiesDuring screening it was discovered that some facilities were no longer located at the address given for them in the NHPI. Facilities that had moved were retained in the sample and followed to the new location. If the new location was not learned until fieldwork was underway, the facility was assigned to a new interviewer if necessary to complete data collection.
A sampled facility that combined with another facility was retained in the sample as long as the other facility was not listed in the NHPI. If both of the original facilities were listed separately in the NHPI, the combined facility had an increased chance of selection because it could have been selected through either one of the original facilities. Either this increased chance of selection had to be accounted for in the facility weight or, alternatively, one of the listings had to be considered out of scope. When the combined facilities could be treated as multiple units of one nursing home, the latter approach was used. Otherwise, weighting adjustments were made.
Facilities With Multiple UnitsWhen the Facility Questionnaire was administered, the sampled facility was sometimes discovered to correspond to more than two eligible facilities or to a facility with more than one unit containing eligible nursing home beds. If any of the facilities (or units of one facility) associated with the sampled facility were listed separately in the NHPI frame, they were considered out of scope because they had already had a chance to be selected. Thus, each facility had only one chance of selection, thereby avoiding the need to make an adjustment to the facility base weight for multiple chances of selection. If none of the nursing homes associated with the sampled facility were listed in the frame, the interviewer was instructed to collect data from all of them if time and travel distance permitted. If this was not practical, the plan was to subsample in facilities that contained three or more eligible units or locations where there were too many units to permit data collection from all of them. However, during Round 1 it was not necessary to do this. An alternative plan was to assign some of the units to another interviewer. The rules for deciding which units were eligible are given in Table 5.
Survey DatabaseA database of the sampled facilities was created and loaded into each computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) machine for the field staff to use in the sampling of residents. Each record contained the following data:
Checking Facility Data Against Frame DataThe following procedure was implemented by the field interviewers during their visits to the sample institutions in Round 1. During the first visit to the facility, the interviewer made a list of eligible current residents. The interviewer entered the number of current residents on the list into the CAPI system. The computer compared the number of residents listed with the measure of size derived from the NHPI and displayed the message "Call Home Office" if any of the following were true for r1, the number of eligible beds listed in the NHPI, or r2, the number of current residents listed at the facility:
If the nursing home facility existed within a long-term care facility, the interviewer verified that the number of residents listed corresponded to the eligible portion of the facility. The interviewer also verified that no eligible portions of the facility were overlooked.
Current-Residents SampleThe interviewer compiled a list of current residents as of January 1, 1996, in each sampled facility. Within each facility, a systematic random sample of four current residents was drawn within the CAPI system. The within-facility sampling fraction was assigned to be 4/CRhi, where CRhi is the number of current residents listed at the ith facility in the hth stratum, so that the overall probabilities of selection of current residents within strata were as close to equal as possible. The probabilities of selection were not exactly equal because the measure of size used to select facilities was the number of beds; however, to the extent that the number of current residents was correlated with the number of beds at the facility, the selection probabilities were approximately equal. In facilities with fewer than four residents, the sampling fraction was set to one and all residents were included.
The interviewer entered the size of the list of current residents in the CAPI system, which then determined the random start, the skip interval, and the sample of line numbers. The selected line numbers were displayed on the computer screen and stored in memory for later validation. The order of selection for the sampled current residents was stored for inclusion in the final database. At the end of Round 1, the response rates shown in Table 6 were obtained for current residents.
The overall response rate for the current-residents sample is 98.8 percent. Sampled residents needed to have 75 percent of their baseline health status items complete and age, sex, and race reported in order to be considered respondents. Forty-four eligible current residents did not meet this requirement. Of these, four met the baseline health status criteria but were missing at least one of the demographic variables. In addition, 17 sampled persons were ineligible.
First-Admissions Sample SizeLists of residents were obtained from the sampled facilities and screened to determine who had been newly admitted since the last round of data collection. Listing, sampling, and data collection for first admissions took place in Rounds 2 and 3. The reference period for Round 2 was from January 1 to June 30, 1996, and the reference period for Round 3 was from July 1 to December 31, 1996. The first admissions were systematically sampled in the same manner as the current-residents sample, except that the sample size was determined in the CAPI program. The order of selection for each sampled first admission was stored within the program. If the measure of size differed substantially from the number of current residents listed, then the first-admissions sample probabilities of selection would have led to excessive variability in the first-admissions sampling weights if not corrected.
Thus, the sample size for the first-admissions sample at a given facility may be revised based on the relationship between the current residents and the number of first admissions listed. The revised sample size was based on the selection probability:
Thus, the first-admissions sample sizes were adjusted upward or downward according to whether more or fewer were listed, based on the measure of size adjusted by the factor (rho) to reflect the average number of first admissions to residents. However, the within-facility first-admissions sample size was not permitted to exceed three per round, and was less than two only when there were fewer than two first admissions in the facility for the round. Although (rho) is unknown, it can be approximated using 1987 NMES data on the ratio of nursing home admissions to residents. The value of (rho) using 1987 NMES data turns out to be 718,670/1,523,540 = .472 (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1990).
Eligibility DeterminationSince residents could be admitted to a facility more than once during the course of the reference period, more than one record may have existed for some persons on the facility's list. Interviewers deleted duplicates so that no individual appeared on the list more than once. The interviewer then selected two or three first admissions per facility per round of data collection, using the CAPI software in the same manner as for current residents.
An eligible first admission is defined as a person with no admissions or stays on or after January 1, 1996, in MEPS NHC-eligible facilities prior to the admission for which the person was sampled at the primary sampled facility. Information about where the person lived from January 1, 1996, until the date of admission to the sampled facility, referred to as the pre-stay period, was collected from facility respondents. Using CAPI, data were collected on the beginning and ending dates for each separate period of residence during the pre-stay period, the name and type of each place where the sampled person stayed, and whether the person stayed at that place the whole time between the beginning and ending dates. Place types include the sampled facility, community residence, acute care or long-term care hospitals, and other long-term facilities. All places of residence provisionally identified as long-term care facilities were searched on the NHPI file for a determination of nursing home eligibility status. Since this would include hospitals with long-term care skilled nursing units, the AHA file also was searched during residence history data collection to determine first-admission eligibility.
As an aid in determining eligibility, the NHPI and AHA list (American Hospital Assocation, 1993) were loaded into the interviewers' laptop computers and incorporated into their CAPI software. A search software program allowed the field interviewers to search for an identified long-term care facility on the NHPI or AHA files in different ways, including name, address, State, and telephone number. Interviewers were able to conduct searches based on portions of the information to maximize the likelihood of finding matches. At the conclusion of the pre-stay residence history data collection, the CAPI system automatically brought the interviewer to the NHPI and AHA search functions to search for matches to reported long-term care facilities. Interviewers were trained to search for the facility name and, if that failed, to use the facility address and telephone number. Statisticians could verify NHPI and AHA searches at any time in the home office.
Based on information collected from the facility about prior admissions to other facilities, the sampled admissions were classified as eligible (with no prior stay in an eligible facility during the reference period), ineligible (with one or more prior stays identified), or indeterminate (with some period of time within the reference period for which the facility could not report whether the resident was in an eligible facility). Figure 1 shows the data collection process and the flowchart for determining eligibility. There were four possible outcomes, each having a different protocol for data collection:
Note: EF=eligible first admission. IF=ineligible first admission. NHPI=National Health Provider Inventory. PF=provisionally eligible first admission.
Source: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Nursing Home Component.
For persons who were eligible or indeterminate, interviewers attempted to complete a community residence history for the pre-stay period by telephoning a knowledgeable community respondent (usually a relative). Information from the community residence history questionnaires was consulted to make an eligibility determination for persons in the indeterminate group. Persons found to be ineligible on the basis of either the facility data or the community data were dropped from further data collection.
The process to determine eligibility was the same for both the facility and the community pre-stay data. Figure 2 shows the rules used to make a final eligibility determination. This process was implemented if determinations of eligibility were made using data from both the facility and community respondent. Table 2 shows the number of sampled first admissions expected to be eligible and the expected final first-admissions sample sizes.
Source: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Nursing Home Component.
Resolution of Sampling ErrorsA number of types of sampling errors can occur. In most cases, the interviewer should have notified the home office of the situation, continuing data collection until a contact with the home office resulted in instructions to proceed otherwise. These sampling errors and their resolution were, for the most part, handled in the CAPI software. Some errors that might occur, and their resolution, are listed below. The first three types could be resolved in the CAPI software.
These resolutions are not perfect. While they were intended to preserve the rule of a single chance of selection, they do not preserve the clear stratification of the current-residents versus first-admissions samples. In each case, the sampled person being dropped could instead be retained if proper adjustments were made to the sampling weights. It should be noted, however, that this latter resolution would not preserve the stratification of the two samples either.
American Hospital Association. American Hospital Association guide to the health field. Chicago; 1993.
National Center for Health Statistics. Sampling frame for the 1995 National Nursing Home Survey (facility file) [microdata tape documentation]. Hyattsville, MD; 1995.
Pancholi, M. Message to P. Broene in electronic mail system, 1995 Oct 18; Pancholi, M. Unpublished memo to P. Broene, "The Updated Health Provider Inventory," 1995 July 17.
Source: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Nursing Home Component.
1 At least 1/3 of data completed.
2 All data provided.
Note: FQ =Facility Questionnaire. IUED = institutional use and expenditure data. RH = residence history.
Note: The stratum proportions are based on the MEPS Nursing Home Component sample. Costs are based on the data collection budget for the MEPS Nursing Home Component and include travel costs, interviewer per diem and salary, and data processing costs. Based on proximity to large U.S. cities, the strata were defined as follows: Stratum 1—Full workload in a single geographic area, such as a city. Stratum 2–Partial workload only in a single area, requiring considerable travel. Stratum 3–Single facility requiring considerable travel but within the range of other facilities. Stratum 4–Single facility at a distance requiring air travel.
1 Either revise computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) to subsample or review in home office for weighting corrections.