Valerie A Lewis1,2, Karen Joynt Maddox3, Andrea M Austin1, Daniel J Gottlieb1, Julie P W Bynum1,4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. 3. Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis MO. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a measure that estimates individual level poverty in Medicare administrative data that can be used in studies of Medicare claims. DATA SOURCES: A 2008 to 2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey linked to 2008 to 2013 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary summary file and census data. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey to define individual level poverty status and linked to Medicare administrative data (N=38,053). We partitioned data into a measure derivation dataset and a validation dataset. In the derivation data, we used a logistic model to regress poverty status on measures of dual eligible status, part D low-income subsidy, and demographic and administrative data, and modeled with and without linked census and nursing home data. Each beneficiary receives a predicted poverty score from the model. Performance was evaluated in derivation and validation data and compared with other measures used in the literature. We present a measure for income-only poverty as well as one for income and asset poverty. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A score (predicted probability of income poverty) >0.5 yielded 58% sensitivity, 94% specificity, and 84% positive predictive value in the derivation data; our score yielded very similar results in the validation data. The model's c-statistic was 0.84. Our poverty score performed better than Medicaid enrollment, high zip code poverty, and zip code median income. The income and asset version performed similarly well. CONCLUSIONS: A poverty score can be calculated using Medicare administrative data for use as a continuous or binary measure. This measure can improve researchers' ability to identify poverty in Medicare administrative data.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a measure that estimates individual level poverty in Medicare administrative data that can be used in studies of Medicare claims. DATA SOURCES: A 2008 to 2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey linked to 2008 to 2013 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary summary file and census data. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey to define individual level poverty status and linked to Medicare administrative data (N=38,053). We partitioned data into a measure derivation dataset and a validation dataset. In the derivation data, we used a logistic model to regress poverty status on measures of dual eligible status, part D low-income subsidy, and demographic and administrative data, and modeled with and without linked census and nursing home data. Each beneficiary receives a predicted poverty score from the model. Performance was evaluated in derivation and validation data and compared with other measures used in the literature. We present a measure for income-only poverty as well as one for income and asset poverty. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A score (predicted probability of income poverty) >0.5 yielded 58% sensitivity, 94% specificity, and 84% positive predictive value in the derivation data; our score yielded very similar results in the validation data. The model's c-statistic was 0.84. Our poverty score performed better than Medicaid enrollment, high zip code poverty, and zip code median income. The income and asset version performed similarly well. CONCLUSIONS: A poverty score can be calculated using Medicare administrative data for use as a continuous or binary measure. This measure can improve researchers' ability to identify poverty in Medicare administrative data.
Authors: John Hsu; Mary Price; Jie Huang; Richard Brand; Vicki Fung; Rita Hui; Bruce Fireman; Joseph P Newhouse; Joseph V Selby Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roy C Martin; Edward Faught; Jerzy P Szaflarski; Joshua Richman; Ellen Funkhouser; Kendra Piper; Lucia Juarez; Chen Dai; Maria Pisu Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Maria Pisu; Joshua Richman; Kendra Piper; Roy Martin; Ellen Funkhouser; Chen Dai; Lucia Juarez; Jerzy P Szaflarski; Edward Faught Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lena M Chen; Arnold M Epstein; E John Orav; Clara E Filice; Lok Wong Samson; Karen E Joynt Maddox Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Therese A Stukel; Andrea E Siewers; Philip P Goodney; David E Wennberg; F Lee Lucas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carrie H Colla; Valerie A Lewis; Lee-Sien Kao; A James O'Malley; Chiang-Hua Chang; Elliott S Fisher Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Anders Chen; Arnab Ghosh; Kendrick B Gwynn; Celeste Newby; Tracey L Henry; Jackson Pearce; Marshall Fleurant; Stacie Schmidt; Jennifer Bracey; Elizabeth A Jacobs Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 6.473