Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 1-2/2011

01-07-2011

On stratified sampling and ratio estimation in medicare and medicaid benefit integrity investigations

Author: Don Edwards

Published in: Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology | Issue 1-2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Billions of dollars are lost each year to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Using three real payment populations, we consider the operating characteristics of commonly used sampling-and-extrapolation strategies for these audits: simple random sampling using (1) the simple expansion estimator or (2) the ratio estimator; and (3) stratified sampling where the basis of stratification is the payment amount. The achieved confidence level (=rate of under-recoupment) of the lower confidence bound based on the ratio estimator fell far below the government-prescribed 90% level for all three populations in commonly encountered high denial-rate scenarios. For the expansion estimator in simple random sampling, the achieved confidence level depends on the skew of the overpayment population: if it is left skewed, the level will fall below 90%, sometimes far below; if it is right-skewed, it will exceed 90%. In the latter case, careless stratification by payment amount can destroy this conservatism. When there is strong right skew, limited stratification can sometimes preserve the 90% confidence while yielding improvements in overpayment recovery. In any population where 90% under-recoupment is not achieved by extrapolation methods based on the central limit theorem, methods based on sample counts and the hypergeometric distribution (Edwards et al., Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 4:241–263, 2005; Gilliland and Feng, Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 10:154–164, 2010; Edwards et al., Pennysampling. Technical Report No. 232, Dept. of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 2010) should be considered; these mathematically guarantee the 90% confidence level. Regardless of the sampling and extrapolation plan being considered, operating characteristics (under-recoupment rate, overpayment recovery, etc.) should be thoroughly checked in the planning stages with Monte Carlo simulation testing, which we use throughout this paper.
Literature
go back to reference Cochran, W.G.: Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (1977) Cochran, W.G.: Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (1977)
go back to reference Edwards, D., Ward-Besser, G., Lasecki, J., Parker, B., Wieduwilt, K., Wu, F., Moorhead, P.: The minimum sum method: a distribution-free sampling procedure for medicare fraud investigations. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 4, 241–263 (2005)CrossRef Edwards, D., Ward-Besser, G., Lasecki, J., Parker, B., Wieduwilt, K., Wu, F., Moorhead, P.: The minimum sum method: a distribution-free sampling procedure for medicare fraud investigations. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 4, 241–263 (2005)CrossRef
go back to reference Edwards, D., Gilliland, D., Ward-Bessr, G., Lasecki, J.: Pennysampling. Technical Report No. 232, Dept. of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC (2010) Edwards, D., Gilliland, D., Ward-Bessr, G., Lasecki, J.: Pennysampling. Technical Report No. 232, Dept. of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC (2010)
go back to reference Gilliland, D., Edwards, D.: Using randomized confidence limits to balance risk – an application to Medicare fraud investigations. Statistics and Probability Research Memorandum RM-685, Michigan State University (2010) Gilliland, D., Edwards, D.: Using randomized confidence limits to balance risk – an application to Medicare fraud investigations. Statistics and Probability Research Memorandum RM-685, Michigan State University (2010)
go back to reference Gilliland, D., Feng, W.: An adaptation of the minimum sum method. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 10, 154–164 (2010) Gilliland, D., Feng, W.: An adaptation of the minimum sum method. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 10, 154–164 (2010)
go back to reference Ignatova, I., Edwards, D.: Probe samples and the minimum sum method for medicare fraud investigations. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 8, 209–221 (2008)CrossRef Ignatova, I., Edwards, D.: Probe samples and the minimum sum method for medicare fraud investigations. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 8, 209–221 (2008)CrossRef
go back to reference Mobley, J.: Sample Size Selection for the Minimum Sum Method. Technical Report No. 230. Department of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia (2009) Mobley, J.: Sample Size Selection for the Minimum Sum Method. Technical Report No. 230. Department of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia (2009)
go back to reference Neter, J., Loebbecke, J.K.: On the behavior of statistical estimators when sampling accounting populations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 72, 501–507 (1977)CrossRef Neter, J., Loebbecke, J.K.: On the behavior of statistical estimators when sampling accounting populations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 72, 501–507 (1977)CrossRef
go back to reference Scheaffer, R.E., Mendenhall, W., Ott, L.: Elementary Survey Sampling, 4th edn. PWS-Kent, Boston (1990) Scheaffer, R.E., Mendenhall, W., Ott, L.: Elementary Survey Sampling, 4th edn. PWS-Kent, Boston (1990)
Metadata
Title
On stratified sampling and ratio estimation in medicare and medicaid benefit integrity investigations
Author
Don Edwards
Publication date
01-07-2011
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology / Issue 1-2/2011
Print ISSN: 1387-3741
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9400
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-011-0073-7

Other articles of this Issue 1-2/2011

Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 1-2/2011 Go to the issue