 HOW WELL DO WE MEASURE EMPLOYER‐PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE?Mark Berger, Dan Black and Frank Scott Contemporary Economic Policy, 1998, vol. 16, issue 3, 356-367 Abstract: Using data from the Current Population Survey and a new matched survey of employers and employees, this paper investigates error in the measurement of employer‐provided health insurance. The often‐used March CPS gives lower coverage estimates than the April/May CPS, which focuses on employer‐provided coverage. In addition, individuals who are in both the March CPS and April/May CPS often give inconsistent responses on their health insurance status, perhaps due to differences in the wording of the health insurance questions. A new survey shows that workers tend to report higher rates of coverage than do firms and that many individuals also disagree with their employers about their coverage. The differences in the firm and worker reports of coverage are uncorrelated with standard worker and firm characteristics, suggesting classical measurement error that does not bias the parameters of models explaining health coverage. When health insurance is used as an explanatory variable, however, measurement error results in significant bias toward zero. Date: 1998 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:16:y:1998:i:3:p:356-367 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from Access Statistics for this article Contemporary Economic Policy is currently edited by Brad R. Humphreys More articles in Contemporary Economic Policy from Western Economic Association International Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.