Skip Navigation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
Agency for Healthcare Research Quality www.ahrq.gov
Archive print banner

Session 2: Bringing Data to Policy

This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.

Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.


On December 4, 2008, Alan Weil participated on a panel about using administrative data to inform policy at the Using Administrative Data to Answer State Policy Questions Intensive Workshop by giving a presentation on how researchers can inform policymakers. This is the text version of the event's slide presentation. Please select the following link to access the slides: (PowerPoint® File, 740 KB).

Slides: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14


Slide 1: Bringing Data to Policy

Bringing Data to Policy Or... You can show data to policymakers but you can't make them read the footnotes.

Alan Weil
Executive Director
National Academy for State Health Policy
December 4, 2008
Using Administrative Data to Answer State Policy Questions
AHRQ

Throughout this presentation, the National Academy for State Health Policy logo is centered at the bottom of the slide.

Top of Page


Slide 2: Presentation Outline

  • A Tale of Two Programs
  • Two Worlds Collide
  • Health Policy Needs You!

Top of Page


Slide 3: A Tale of Two Programs

This slide contains two graphs. On the left, the graph depicts Enrollment in SCHIP, which increased from 0 to 3,950 from 1997 until 2004. And on the right, the graph depicts Children receiving TANF, which decreased from 9,448 to 4,399 from 1994 until 2000.

Top of Page


Slide 4: Former Recipients' Reasons for Leaving Welfare

This slide contains a horizontal bar graph listing reasons former Welfare recipients left the program (in percentages):
Increased earnings or new job: 69 percent
Administrative/hassle: 10 percent
No need/not interested: 7 percent
Change in family situation: 6 percent
Income from other source: 5 percent
Moved to new county/state: 4 percent
Other: 6 percent

Source: Urban Institute calculations from the National Survey of America's Families, 1997.

Top of Page


Slide 5: Mean Earnings of Single-Parent Welfare Leavers

The graph on this slide shows the range and mean earnings of single-parent families who left the Welfare program.

First quarter range: $1,941 to $3,416; mean: $2,663
Second quarter range: $2,081 to $3,439; mean: $2,575
Third quarter range: $2,163 to $3,877; mean: $2,695
Fourth quarter range: $2,327 to $3,934; mean: $2,712

Notes: The graph shows the minimum, maximum and median earnings as reported across the studies. The shaded box represents the range in which the middle 50 percent of reported earnings fall. Not all studies provide data for all post-exit quarters. See table III.5 for more information.
Source: "Final Synthesis Report Of Findings From ASPE's 'Leavers' Grants," Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, November 27, 2001.

Top of Page


Slide 6: Percentage of Single-Parent Welfare Leavers Returning to TANF

The graph on this slide shows the percentage range and mean of single-parent families who left the Welfare program and returned to the TANF program.

First quarter range: 3 to 21 percent; mean: 7 percent
Second quarter range: 9 to 24 percent; mean: 15 percent
Third quarter range: 12 to 25 percent; mean: 18 percent
Fourth quarter range: 11 to 25 percent; mean: 19 percent
Ever returned: 17 to 38 percent; mean: 27 percent

Notes: The graph shows the minimum and maximum, and median TANF return rates as reported across the studies. The shaded box represents the range in which the middle 50 percent of reported TANF return rates fall. Not all studies provide data for all post-exit quarters. See table IV.1 for more information.
Source: "Final Synthesis Report Of Findings From ASPE's 'Leavers' Grants," Gregory Acs and Pamela Loprest, November 27, 2001.

Top of Page


Slide 7: Coverage of Recent Enrollees During the 6 Months Before They Enrolled

This slide contains a pie graph depicting the coverage of SCHIP enrollees during the 6 months prior to enrollment.
Uninsured all 6 months before enrolling: 43 percent
Medicaid during 6 months before enrolling: 29 percent
Private insurance during 6 months before enrolling: 28 percent
Other coverage during 6 months before enrolling: less than 1 percent

Source: 2002 congressionally mandated survey of SCHIP enrollees and disenrollees in 10 states and State Enrollment Data Files

Top of Page


Slide 8: Reasons Private Coverage Ended Among Recent Enrollees

This slide contains a table listing  the percentage of SCHIP enrollees indicating each reason for loss of private insurance and whether it was voluntary.

Involuntary loss of coverage:Total of 14 percent

  • Employment change or benefit loss at same job: 13 percent
  • Loss of parent or family structure change: 1 percent

May be voluntary loss of coverage, dependent on state policy: total of 8 percent

  • Affordability: 8 percent

Voluntary loss of coverage: total of 7 percent

  • Prefers SCHIP or dislikes other insurance: 2 percent
  • Miscellaneous: 5 percent

Source: 2002 congressionally mandated survey of SCHIP enrollees and disenrollees in 10 states
Note: Miscellaneous category includes moved/relocated, wanted child to be insured, enrolled based on provider/agency recommendation, and other reasons with insufficient information to determine whether substitution played a role.

Top of Page


Slide 9: Percentage of Children with a Usual Source of Care Before and After Enrolling in State SCHIP Programs

This slide contains a bar graph showing the percentage of children with usual source of care before and after enrolling in the state SCHIP programs in 6 states.

Alabama
Pre-SCHIP: 79 percent
Post-SCHIP: 92 percent

Florida
Pre-SCHIP: 81 percent
Post-SCHIP: 95 percent

Iowa
Pre-SCHIP: 86 percent
Post-SCHIP: 86 percent

Missouri
Pre-SCHIP: 62 percent
Post-SCHIP: 91 percent

New Hampshire
Pre-SCHIP: 91 percent
Post-SCHIP: 99 percent

Texas
Pre-SCHIP: 84 percent
Post-SCHIP: 90 percent

Source: State Title XXI annual reports from fiscal years 1999 through 2003
Note: Florida, New Hampshire, and Texas reported data on the percent of SCHIP enrollees with a "usual place," Iowa and Missouri reported on "usual provider," and Alabama did not define the type of usual source of care.

Top of Page


Slide 10: Two Worlds Collide

Top of Page


Slide 11: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

This slide contains a 5-level pyramid. From bottom to top, the categories are: Physical, Security, Belonging, Self Esteem, and Self Actualization.

Top of Page


Slide 12: Wolsam's Hierarchy of Needs

This slide contains two 5-level pyramids, modeled on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The left pyramid represents policymakers' hierarchy of needs; from bottom to top: NOW! Unambiguous, Accessible to all, Values, Net Effects, and Reelection. The right pyramid represents researchers' hierarchy of needs; from bottom to top: Before the grant runs out, Complex, Peer review, Objectivity, Marginal effects, Tenure.

Top of Page


Slide 13: Health Policy Needs You!

A picture of Uncle Sam is centered on this slide.

Top of Page


Slide 14: Types of Data to Inform Policy

  • Clinical
  • Population
  • Survey
  • Administrative

Top of Page

Return to Contents

The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.

 

AHRQ Advancing Excellence in Health Care