Content by Keyword: Medicare

MCBS data would be analyzed using both descriptive and multivariate modeling. Given that outcome variables typically are categorical (no continuous outcomes), multivariate models would be estimated using dichotomous, multinomial, or ordered logistic regression equations. To account for the variance calculation complexities of the multistage MCBS s

An important advantage of using the MCBS is that the data collection modality has already been developed and implemented. The survey instrument, sample, and data collection strategy have already been firmly established and are collected annually. However, this could also be a disadvantage of this design, if, because of competing survey interests,

The MCBS includes a number of descriptive variables of beneficiaries that can be used to examine differences among groups: age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, self-reported health status, urbanicity, cable TV and Internet access, type of supplemental coverage (e.g., employer-sponsored, privately purchased

The MCBS can answer the following research questions, addressing various dimensions of an evaluation of the NMEP: access to NMEP information, understanding of Medicare, understanding of NMEP information, use of the NMEP, and disparities between groups in outcomes of interest. 1. Do beneficiaries have access to information from Medicare when they

The MCBS is a national probability sample of approximately 12,000 noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries who are interviewed every 4 months for up to 4 years. Very old and disabled beneficiaries under age 65 are oversampled for some rounds of the survey. Proxy respondents answer questions for survey respondents who are unable to do so for the

The MCBS provides a ready source of data on beneficiary knowledge and need for information from a large, nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. In addition to any new questions, existing questions concerning beneficiary knowledge and behavior that could be used in the future to evaluate the NMEP have been fielded through the M

One of the first steps in designing comprehensive evaluation options for the NMEP is to select which activities to focus on (among the various NMEP components) as part of this effort. The options proposed in this evaluation design focus on the following components that represent the current core NMEP activities: Medicare & You handbook 1-8

Because a comprehensive evaluation of the NMEP should assess how well it is meeting its stated goals, we recommend including outcome measures that assess awareness, knowledge, and use of information. Table 3-3 lists specific outcome measures pertaining to each of the three goals along with potential data sources.

A successful campaign meets or exceeds its goals and objectives (Kotler et al. , 2002Kotler et al., 2002). Therefore, it is critical to establish specific, measurable, realistic, and meaningful campaign goals and objectives. It follows that successful outcomes would demonstrate that the campaign has met or exceeded its goals and objectives. One ch

Program evaluation typically focuses on measuring processes and outcomes (Kotler et al ., 2002Kotler et al., 2002). Process measures focus on campaign activities and assess how well the campaign was implemented as intended. Outcome measures assess specific results that can be attributed to the campaign (Kotler et al., 2002Kotler et al., 2002). Tab

Fortunately, the IDM literature offers some useful guidance for campaign design, evaluation, and measurement despite its focus on clinical decision making instead of insurance choices. According to Briss and colleagues (2004), IDM occurs

Prior to designing the evaluation options, we considered which ou tcome measures to focus on and how to define a successful outcome. We also identified and prioritized specific NMEP activities for evaluation. We discuss each of these issues in this chapter within the broader rubric of measurement.

We offer the following observations about the studies previously conducted to evaluate the NMEP. CMS has sponsored numerous large and rigorously conducted evaluations of the NMEP. Studies include both quantitative and qualitative methods. Many of the individual studies appear to be of reasonable quality in terms of weighting responses to general

We also examined how previous evaluations have studied the full range of specific NMEP activities. Table 2-2 highlights the number of studies that addressed each NMEP activity out of the 53 total studies reviewed and congressional monies allocated to them between 1999 and 2005. The Medicare & You handbook was the most studied specific activity

Previous studies have addressed each of the three goals of the NMEP awareness, understanding, and access/use/satisfactionwith the greatest number focusing on Medicare-related knowledge. Most studies devoted some attention to some of the common vulnerable subgroups.

A key determinant of a successful campaign is how well it achieved its goals. Therefore, an evaluation of the NMEP should assess how well it is meeting its goals. In turn, the measures used in the evaluation of the NMEP should be linked to these goals and be able to adequately assess whether they are being met. The previous evaluations of the NMEP

We conducted a systematic review of both the peer-reviewed published literature and unpublished materials (e.g ., official CMS and other agency reports and documents; trade publications; publications by advocacy, watchdog, and other stakeholder organizations; and congressional testimony).

There are many important reasons to invest in future comprehensive evaluations of the NMEP, particularly as this program continues to evolve (and in some cases expand) to meet the changing information needs of Medicare beneficiaries. Since 2003, the focus of NMEP has appeared to shift with the MMA and the introduction of the Medicare Part D progra