Locating and Surveying Medicaid and AFDC Beneficiaries
CAHPS Field Test Experience to Date
Download Free Electronic Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.5 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
As part of the field testing effort for the Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Study (or CAHPS), RAND tested both telephone and mixed mode (mail followed by telephone) methods to locate and survey adult and child Medicaid and AFDC beneficiaries. As expected, the mixed mode approach was more successful in locating sampled individuals (67% of the sample was located) and yielded the best response rate (56% of the sample completed a survey). In addition, study results indicate that directory assistance, criss-cross directories, and CD-ROM sources of phone numbers provide some limited additional information beyond the sample list provided by a Medicaid health insurance plan.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Draft series. The unrestricted draft was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003 that represented preliminary or prepublication versions of other more formal RAND products for distribution to appropriate external audiences. The draft could be considered similar to an academic discussion paper. Although unrestricted drafts had been approved for circulation, they were not usually formally edited or peer reviewed.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.