Abstract This study randomized a sample of households covered by one large health plan to two different surveys on health insurance coverage and matched person-level survey reports to enrollment records. The goal was to compare accuracy of coverage type and uninsured estimates produced by the health insurance modules from two major federal surveys – the redesigned Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS) and the American Community Survey (ACS) – after implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The sample was stratified by coverage type, including two types of public coverage (Medicaid and a state-sponsored program) and three types of private coverage (employer-sponsored, non-group, and marketplace plans). Consistent with previous studies, accurate reporting of private coverage is higher than public coverage. Generally, misreporting the wrong type of coverage is more likely than incorrectly reporting no coverage; the CPS module overestimated the uninsured by 1.9 and the ACS module by 3.5 percentage points. Other differences in accuracy metrics between the CPS and ACS are relatively small, suggesting that reporting accuracy should not be a factor in decisions about which source of survey data to use. Results consistently indicate that the Medicaid undercount has been substantially reduced with the redesigned CPS.

中文翻译：

---

实施《平价医疗法案》后的两个联邦健康保险调查模块的验证

摘要本研究将一项大型卫生计划覆盖的家庭样本随机分配至两项不同的健康保险覆盖率调查，并将个人水平的调查报告与入学记录进行匹配。目标是在实施《医疗保险计划》后，比较两种主要的联邦调查（重新设计的《现行人口调查》年度社会经济补充（CPS）和美国社区调查（ACS））的健康保险模块得出的承保类型和未保险估算的准确性。负担得起的护理法。该样本按覆盖类型进行了分层，包括两种类型的公共覆盖（Medicaid和一个国家资助的计划）和三种类型的私有覆盖（雇主资助的，非团体和市场计划）。与以前的研究一致，对私人保险的准确报告要高于公共保险。通常，错误地报告错误的承保范围比错误地报告无承保范围更有可能；CPS模块高估了未保险人1.9和ACS模块3.5个百分点。CPS和ACS之间准确性指标的其他差异相对较小，这表明报告准确性不应成为决定使用哪种调查数据源的决定因素。结果始终表明，通过重新设计的CPS可以大大减少医疗补助金的不足。建议报告的准确性不应成为决定使用哪种调查数据来源的决定因素。结果始终表明，通过重新设计的CPS，医疗补助金的不足数已大大减少。建议报告的准确性不应成为决定使用哪种调查数据源的决定因素。结果始终表明，通过重新设计的CPS，医疗补助金的不足数已大大减少。