Matching and Imputation Methods for Risk Adjustment in the Health Insurance Marketplaces
- 199 Downloads
New state-level health insurance markets, denoted as Marketplaces, created under the Affordable Care Act, use risk-adjusted plan payment formulas derived from a population ineligible to participate in the Marketplaces. We develop methodology to derive a sample from the target population and to assemble information to generate improved risk-adjusted payment formulas using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Truven MarketScan databases. Our approach requires multi-stage data selection and imputation procedures because both data sources have systemic missing data on crucial variables and arise from different populations. We present matching and imputation methods adapted to this setting. The long-term goal is to improve risk adjustment estimation utilizing information found in Truven MarketScan data supplemented with imputed Medical Expenditure Panel Survey values.
KeywordsMatching Imputation Prediction Risk adjustment
The authors acknowledge support from NIH/NIMH 2R01MH094290.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
- 1.Adamson DM, Chang S, Hansen LG (2008) Health research data for the real world: the marketscan databases. Thompson Healthcare, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 6.Gu X, Rosenbaum PR (1993) Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat 2:405–420Google Scholar
- 7.Kautter J, Pope GC, Ingber M, Freeman S, Patterson L, Cohen M, Keenan P (2014) The HHS-HCC risk adjustment model for individual and small group markets under the Affordable Care Act. Medicare Med Res Rev 4(3):E1–E46Google Scholar
- 8.King G, Honaker J, Joseph A, Scheve K (2001) Analyzing incomplete political science data: an alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. In American Political Science Association, vol 95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 49–69Google Scholar
- 12.Meng XL (1994) Multiple-imputation inferences with uncongenial sources of input. Stat Sci: 9(4):538–558Google Scholar
- 13.Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski JM, Van Hoewyk J, Solenberger P (2001) A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Survey Methodol 27(1):85–96Google Scholar
- 17.Rose S, van der Laan M (2008) Simple optimal weighting of cases and controls in case-control studies. Int J Biostat 4(1): Article 19Google Scholar
- 18.Rose S, van der Laan M (2009) Why match? Investigating matched case-control study designs with causal effect estimation. Int J Biostat 5(1):Article 1Google Scholar
- 19.Rose S, van der Laan, M (2011) A targeted maximum likelihood estimator for two-stage designs. Int J Biostat 7(1): Article 17Google Scholar
- 25.Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics 103–116Google Scholar
- 32.van Kleef RC, Van Vliet RC, Van de Ven WP (2013) Risk equalization in the netherlands: an empirical evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 13(6):829–839Google Scholar