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 It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work.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
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
5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857