4.4 Article

Modeling Semicontinuous Longitudinal Expenditures: A Practical Guide

Journal

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
Volume 53, Issue -, Pages 3125-3147

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12815

Keywords

Semicontinuous data; two-part models; zero-inflated; expenditures; costs

Funding

  1. Office of Research and Development
  2. Health Services Research and Development Service
  3. Department of Veterans Affairs [IIR 03-200]
  4. Center of Innovation for Health Services Research in Primary Care [CIN 13-410]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo compare different strategies for analyzing longitudinal expenditure data that have a point mass at $0. We provide guidance on parameter interpretation, research questions, and model selection. Data Sources, Study Design, and Data CollectionOne-part models, uncorrelated two-part models, correlated conditional two-part (CTP) models, and correlated marginalized two-part (MTP) models have been proposed for longitudinal expenditures that often exhibit a large proportion of zeros and a distribution of continuous, highly right-skewed positive values. Guidance on implementing and interpreting each of these model is illustrated with an example of longitudinal (2000-2003) specialty careexpenditures of veterans with hypertension, drawn from Veterans Administration data. Principal FindingsThe four strategies answer different research questions, are appropriate for different structures of data, and provide different results. If there is a point mass at $0, then the MTP model may be most useful if the primary interest is in mean expenditures of the entire population. A CTP model may be most useful if the primary interest is in the level of expenditures conditional on them being incurred. ConclusionsResearchers should consider which modeling strategy for longitudinal expenditure outcomes is both consistent with research aims and appropriate for the data at hand.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available