Sri Lanka LK: Domestic Private Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data was reported at 45.151 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 41.799 % for 2014. Sri Lanka LK: Domestic Private Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 39.731 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2015, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 45.151 % in 2015 and a record low of 31.971 % in 2003. Sri Lanka LK: Domestic Private Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Sri Lanka – Table LK.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Share of current health expenditures funded from domestic private sources. Domestic private sources include funds from households, corporations and non-profit organizations. Such expenditures can be either prepaid to voluntary health insurance or paid directly to healthcare providers.; ; World Health Organization Global Health Expenditure database (http://apps.who.int/nha/database).; Weighted average;

This dataset contains aggregate Medicaid payments, and counts for eligible recipients and recipients served by month and county in Iowa, starting with month ending 1/31/2011.

Eligibility groups are a category of people who meet certain common eligibility requirements. Some Medicaid eligibility groups cover additional services, such as nursing facility care and care received in the home. Others have higher income and resource limits, charge a premium, only pay the Medicare premium or cover only expenses also paid by Medicare, or require the recipient to pay a specific dollar amount of their medical expenses. Eligible Medicaid recipients may be considered medically needy if their medical costs are so high that they use up most of their income. Those considered medically needy are responsible for paying some of their medical expenses. This is called meeting a spend down. Then Medicaid would start to pay for the rest. Think of the spend down like a deductible that people pay as part of a private insurance plan.

Context

This dataset is a capitation list containing the list of staff of a company eligible for treatment for the specified period of time. With this dataset, One can study how much a company spends on her staff on a monthly basis, how often staffs are added to the health insurance scheme and how often staffs are withdrawn from the scheme.

Content

The datasets contains the following column with about 103385 rows which is the data of two months 2017-09-01 and 2017-10-01

• ID_capitation
• Hospital_ID
• CapitationAmount
• ValueDate
• CompanyID
• PatientUniqueID
• CapitationType

Inspiration

How can we eradicate fraud from this system because capitation Fee are still being paid on some ghost staffs.

Explore World Bank Health, Nutrition and Population Statistics dataset featuring a wide range of indicators such as School enrollment, UHC service coverage index, Fertility rate, and more from countries like Bahrain, China, India, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

School enrollment, tertiary, UHC service coverage index, Wanted fertility rate, People with basic handwashing facilities, urban population, Rural population, AIDS estimated deaths, Domestic private health expenditure, Fertility rate, Domestic general government health expenditure, Age dependency ratio, Postnatal care coverage, People using safely managed drinking water services, Unemployment, Lifetime risk of maternal death, External health expenditure, Population growth, Completeness of birth registration, Urban poverty headcount ratio, Prevalence of undernourishment, People using at least basic sanitation services, Prevalence of current tobacco use, Urban poverty headcount ratio, Tuberculosis treatment success rate, Low-birthweight babies, Female headed households, Completeness of birth registration, Urban population growth, Antiretroviral therapy coverage, Labor force, and more.

Bahrain, China, India, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia

Follow data.kapsarc.org for timely data to advance energy economics research.

LT: Domestic General Government Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data was reported at 65.866 % in 2015. This records a decrease from the previous number of 66.741 % for 2014. LT: Domestic General Government Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 69.864 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2015, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 75.696 % in 2003 and a record low of 65.866 % in 2015. LT: Domestic General Government Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Lithuania – Table LT.World Bank: Health Statistics. Share of current health expenditures funded from domestic public sources for health. Domestic public sources include domestic revenue as internal transfers and grants, transfers, subsidies to voluntary health insurance beneficiaries, non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) or enterprise financing schemes as well as compulsory prepayment and social health insurance contributions. They do not include external resources spent by governments on health.; ; World Health Organization Global Health Expenditure database (http://apps.who.int/nha/database).; Weighted Average;

Uzbekistan UZ: Domestic Private Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data was reported at 45.296 % in 2015. This records a decrease from the previous number of 47.593 % for 2014. Uzbekistan UZ: Domestic Private Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data is updated yearly, averaging 50.407 % from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2015, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 55.334 % in 2002 and a record low of 45.296 % in 2015. Uzbekistan UZ: Domestic Private Health Expenditure: % of Current Health Expenditure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Uzbekistan – Table UZ.World Bank: Health Statistics. Share of current health expenditures funded from domestic private sources. Domestic private sources include funds from households, corporations and non-profit organizations. Such expenditures can be either prepaid to voluntary health insurance or paid directly to healthcare providers.; ; World Health Organization Global Health Expenditure database (http://apps.who.int/nha/database).; Weighted Average;

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

This data allows citizens to view who received payments from the state for goods or services and how much they received. The data can be explored by searching for specific payee names or by browsing by Government Function. The Open Checkbook app allows the user to drill down from aggregated spending accounts all the way down to each individual payment to a payee. The data is updated nightly and therefore reflects current spending activities more accurately than any other publicly available source. In general the data reflects all payments made up to 24 to 48 hours prior to view. Certain payee names have been removed in order to protect the privacy of individuals, in accordance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations or where the information is otherwise protected by law. Redacted information includes: •Payees who are statutorily protected •Information that would lead to violating HIPAA laws •Information of Minors

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Study on elderly people living in institutions, in somatic as well as psychogeriatric wards (nursing home, rest home, retirement home, verzorgingshuis, verpleeghuis). Respondents are questioned about their physical and mental health, mobility, activities, living conditions, relations, financial situation. If a respondent is not able to answer the questions a proxy is asked (a family member or a staff member). Data on the institutions were also collected. Reason for moving to institution, how long in institution, situation before moving / how long had to wait to move to institution, move alone or with partner, how many rooms / valuation of living in institution. Health: satisfaction with own health / does r. have pain / how many days ill in last two weeks / which illnesses, bedridden, incontinence / difficulties with sitting and standing / test of cognitive functions, memory / self rating: eyesight, hearing / medical care: use of drugs, how often visit g.p., medical specialist, physiotherapist, hospital admissions, how many days, mental health care, depression / does r. have alarm system, ever used it. Relations and activities: relation with family / how often visitors, pay visits / does r. practice sports / which recreational, cultural facilities visited / recreational facilities in home / loneliness / holiday, how often / membership of organizations / does r. possess 65+ card / possibility to heat up food / r. makes own cold meals / r. eats hot meals in dining room or own room / does r. need help with personal care, housekeeping. Mobility: does r. need help to move around / how often gets outside / does r. use wheelchair, walking frame, adapted car, adapted scooter, bicycle / costs of transport / use of public transport, special transport for elderly or handicapped, why not / use of taxi, car, bicycle. Finance: gross income / how much spending money each month / does r. have enough money to go on a one week holiday each year, buy new clothes, buy presents, go out, make telephone calls / costs of home / cost made for dentist, dentures / health insurance, costs /, who takes care of finance / does r. have own telephone, newspaper, cost of newspaper telephone, television, television guide / Religion: in youth, now / life after death / r. how often pray, go to church / talk to religious person Background variables: year of birth / marital status / where is partner living / year of birth partner / no. children / education, education partner / r., parents, born in which country.

This data allows citizens to view who received payments from the state for goods or services and how much they received. The data can be explored by searching for specific payee names or by browsing by Government Function. The Open Checkbook app allows the user to drill down from aggregated spending accounts all the way down to each individual payment to a payee.

The data is updated nightly and therefore reflects current spending activities more accurately than any other publicly available source. In general the data reflects all payments made up to 24 to 48 hours prior to view.

Certain payee names have been removed in order to protect the privacy of individuals, in accordance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations or where the information is otherwise protected by law.

Redacted information includes: •Payees who are statutorily protected •Information that would lead to violating HIPAA laws •Information of Minors

analyze the national health interview survey (nhis) with r the national health interview survey (nhis) is a household survey about health status and utilization. each annual data set can be used to examine the disease burden and access to care that individuals and families are currently experiencing across the country. check out the wikipedia article (ohh hayy i wrote that) for more detail about its current and potential uses. if you're cooking up a health-related analysis that doesn't need medical expenditures or monthly health insurance coverage, look at nhis before the medical expenditure panel survey (it's sample is twice as big). the centers for disease control and prevention (cdc) has been keeping nhis real since 1957, and the scripts below automate the download, importation, and analysis of every file back to 1963. what happened in 1997, you ask? scientists cloned dolly the sheep, clinton started his second term, and the national health interview survey underwent its most recent major questionnaire re-design. here's how all the moving parts work: a person-level file (personsx) that merges onto other files using unique household (hhx), family (fmx), and person (fpx) identifiers. [note to data historians: prior to 2004, person number was (px) and unique within each household.] this file includes the complex sample survey variables needed to construct a taylor-series linearization design, and should be used if your analysis doesn't require variables from the sample adult or sample c hild files. this survey setup generalizes to the noninstitutional, non-active duty military population. a family-level file that merges onto other files using unique household (hhx) and family (fmx) identifiers. a household-level file that merges onto other files using the unique household (hhx) identifier. a sample adult file that includes questions asked of only one adult within each household (selected at random) - a subset of the main person-level file. hhx, fmx, and fpx identifiers will merge with each of the files above, but since not every adult gets asked thes e questions, this file contains its own set of weights: wtfa_sa instead of wtfa. you can merge on whatever other variables you need from the three files above, but if your analysis requires any variables from the sample adult questionnaire, you can't use records in the person-level file that aren't also in the sample adult file (a big sample size cut). this survey setup generalizes to the noninstitutional, non-active duty military adult population. a sample child file that includes questions asked of only one child within each household (if available, and also selected at random) - another subset of the main person-level file. same deal as the sample adult description, except use wtfa_sc instead of wtfa oh yeah and this one generalizes to the child population. five imputed income files. if you want income and/or poverty variables incorporated into any part of your analysis, you'll need these puppies. the replication example below uses these, but if that's impenetrable, post in the comments describing where you get stuck. some injury stuff and other miscellanea that varies by year. if anyone uses this, please share your experience. if you use anything more than the personsx file alone, you'll need to merge some tables together. make sure you understand the difference between setting the parameter all = TRUE versus all = FALSE -- not everyone in the personsx file has a record in the samadult and sam child files. this new github repository contains four scripts: 1963-2011 - download all microdata.R loop through every year and download every file hosted on the cdc's nhis ftp site import each file into r with SAScii save each file as an r d ata file (.rda) download all the documentation into the year-specific directory 2011 personsx - analyze.R load the r data file (.rda) created by the download script (above) set up a taylor-series linearization survey design outlined on page 6 of this survey document perform a smattering of analysis examples 2011 personsx plus samadult with multiple imputation - analyze.R load the personsx and samadult r data files (.rda) created by the download script (above) merge the personsx and samadult files, highlighting how to conduct analyses that need both create tandem survey designs for both personsx-only and merg ed personsx-samadult files perform just a touch of analysis examples load and loop through the five imputed income files, tack them onto the personsx-samadult file conduct a poverty recode or two analyze the multiply-imputed survey design object, just like mom used to analyze replicate cdc tecdoc - 2000 multiple imputation.R download and import the nhis 2000 personsx and imputed income files, using SAScii and this imputed income sas importation script (no longer hosted on the cdc's nhis ftp site). loop through each of the five imputed income files, merging each to the personsx file and performing the same set of...

The Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing, which ran from 1992 to 2014, was devised to generate longitudinal data over multiple time points. Thirteen waves were carried out. Waves 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 comprised of a full face-to-face ‘household’ interview and a clinical assessment. Waves 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13 consisted of shorter telephone household interviews.The initial sample of the older old (70 and older) was randomly drawn from the database of the South Australian Electoral Roll. Persons in the older age groups as well as males were deliberately oversampled to compensate for the higher mortality that could be expected over the study period. In addition, spouses of primary respondents (aged 65 and over) and other household members aged 70 and over were asked to participate. 2087 participants were initially interviewed at Wave 1 in 1992. Over the years, attrition due to either death, ill health, moving out of scope, being uncontactable, or refusal has reduced the number of participants to 94 in 2014. Information covering the data, questionnaires and relevant details are openly available.Items in the household interview schedule represent a comprehensive set of measures chosen for their reliability and validity in previous studies, sensitivity to change over time, and suitability for use in a study of elderly persons. The domains assessed included demography, health, depression, morbid conditions, hospitalisation, hearing and vision difficulties, cognition, gross mobility and physical performance, activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, lifestyle activities, exercise education and income.At the completion of the household interview, participants were left with self-administered questionnaires, which were mailed back in pre- paid envelopes or collected at the time of the clinical assessment. The domains covered by the questionnaires were dental health, sexual activity and psychological measures of self-esteem, morale and perceived control.The individual clinical assessment objectively measured both physical and cognitive functioning. The physical examination included measures of blood pressure, anthropometry, visual acuity, audiometry and physical performance. The cognitive assessment included measures of memory, information processing efficiency, verbal ability and executive function. The clinical assessments were conducted by nurses who received special training in the standard administration of all psychological instruments and the anthropometric measures. In addition, fasting blood samples and urine specimens were collected on the morning following the clinical assessment at Wave 1, and blood samples were again taken at Wave 3.Some data have been provided by secondary sources. Participant deaths have been systematically monitored through the government Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.From Wave 7 onward, collateral data were gathered from the files of the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). Permission was sought for access to the Health Insurance Commission HIC for purposes of establishing use of medical care and services and expenditure. The information sought from the HIC database included: the number of medical care services, and for each service, the nature of the service, date, charge, and benefit; the number of PBS prescriptions, and for each prescription, the drug prescribed, number of repeats, date, charge, and benefit.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) extended dependent care coverage to all individuals under age 26. The coverage expansion in 2010 likely caused an increase in private insurance coverage and mental health treatment use for young adults. For mental health and substance use treatment, changes in who pays for care can be evaluated using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Annual data from 2004 to 2012 were used to determine the average treatment payments by payer type before and after the dependent care expansion for all individuals aged 19-26 who reported treatment for mental health or substance use issues. Costs are presented in this spotlight.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

These datasets contain aggregated expenditure and demographic variables, that are derived from the Family Expenditure Survey (GN 33057), the Expenditure and Food Survey/Living Costs and Food Survey (GN 33334), the General Household Survey (GN 33090) and the Health Survey for England (GN 33261). These files can be used to replicate the results in the paper Banks, J., Blundell, R., Levell, P. and Smith, J. "Life-Cycle Consumption Patterns at Older Ages in the US and the UK: Can Medical Expenditures Explain the Difference?", AEJ: Economic Policy (August, 2019) (see related resources). This proposal sets out a major new programme of research that will lead to significant scientific progress and policy impact. Building on the expertise developed at the Centre and at IFS, we will use the developments in econometric techniques and data availability, including linked survey and administrative data, to push our research agenda in exciting new directions. The focus of the work will be on: a) Consumers and markets. We will use insights from behavioural economics and robust methods to understand within-household behaviour and we will explore the relationships between government policy, firm behaviour and outcomes for consumers. This work has the potential to transform our understanding of the effects of policy interventions that either change the relative prices of the goods consumers buy (e.g. taxes on alcohol, green levies, sugar taxes) or try to change consumers' preferences (e.g. through information campaigns or restrictions on advertising). b) Inequality, risk and insurance. Understanding the determinants of inequality is central to our agenda. We will focus on understanding inequality across the life cycle and across and within generations. We will explore the role of housing, of insurance and of market and non-market mechanisms in managing risk and uncertainty. The availability of new administrative data linked to existing surveys will allow us to examine the dynamics of inequality and the impact of alternative policies. In particular, we will focus on the role of wealth and bequests in generating within-cohort inequality among the younger generations and we will investigate how uncertainty is resolved over the life cycle and how this affects the degree of insurance provided by taxes and benefits at different ages. c) Public finances and taxation. Focusing on high earners and multinational companies, we will use newly-available data to throw new light on risks to the public finances in the UK from these vital but increasingly risky sources of revenue. We will also develop a programme of work that focuses on the particular issues facing tax design in middle-income countries. d) Evolution of human capital over the life cycle. We aim to make major strides in understanding the process of formation of human capital from the early years to young adulthood, how human capital is rewarded in the labour market, how it is linked to labour supply and productivity, and how the evolution of health and well-being interacts with labour supply and other outcomes in later years. These issues are intricately related and we envisage a joined-up programme of work that will provide new answers to some of the most important questions currently facing policymakers. How do people make decisions over savings, nutrition, education and labour supply and how can government influence those decisions? What is driving increased levels of income inequality and how might interventions in education and through the tax and welfare system ameliorate them, and at what cost? How should governments respond to the pressures on corporate and individual tax revenues created by increasing globalisation? What drives decisions over pension savings, health behaviours and retirement decisions and how should governments design policy in the face of an ageing population? In answering these questions, we will make use of the unique expertise and data resources brought together at the Centre. Crucially, our intention is also to take a consistent approach in which we will model the determinants of individual decisions over the life course and the interactions between economic actors; we will model behavioural 'biases' and market frictions; we will use a combination of available data, randomised controlled trials and structural modelling to understand not just the effect of policies but also what drives that effect and hence what might be the effect of other policies; and we will develop new data and measurement tools. Derived dataset using data collected from household surveys of the UK population. The LCFS collects detailed data on household expenditure which we were able to use to separate out spending into different categories for comparison with spending in the United States (as measured in the Consumer Expenditure Survey). The HSE and GHS were chosen as they have household level data on self-reported health which we were able to compare across different cohorts and also with measures from similar surveys in the US.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (formerly known as the ONS Opinions Survey or Omnibus) is an omnibus survey that began in 1990, collecting data on a range of subjects commissioned by both the ONS internally and external clients (limited to other government departments, charities, non-profit organisations and academia).Data are collected from one individual aged 16 or over, selected from each sampled private household. Personal data include data on the individual, their family, address, household, income and education, plus responses and opinions on a variety of subjects within commissioned modules. The questionnaire collects timely data for research and policy analysis evaluation on the social impacts of recent topics of national importance, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the cost of living, on individuals and households in Great Britain. From April 2018 to November 2019, the design of the OPN changed from face-to-face to a mixed-mode design (online first with telephone interviewing where necessary). Mixed-mode collection allows respondents to complete the survey more flexibly and provides a more cost-effective service for customers. In March 2020, the OPN was adapted to become a weekly survey used to collect data on the social impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the lives of people of Great Britain. These data are held in the Secure Access study, SN 8635, ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, Covid-19 Module, 2020-2022: Secure Access. From August 2021, as coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions were lifting across Great Britain, the OPN moved to fortnightly data collection, sampling around 5,000 households in each survey wave to ensure the survey remains sustainable. The OPN has since expanded to include questions on other topics of national importance, such as health and the cost of living. For more information about the survey and its methodology, see the ONS OPN Quality and Methodology Information webpage.Secure Access Opinions and Lifestyle Survey dataOther Secure Access OPN data cover modules run at various points from 1997-2019, on Census religion (SN 8078), cervical cancer screening (SN 8080), contact after separation (SN 8089), contraception (SN 8095), disability (SNs 8680 and 8096), general lifestyle (SN 8092), illness and activity (SN 8094), and non-resident parental contact (SN 8093). See Opinions and Lifestyle Survey: Secure Access for details. Main Topics:Each month's questionnaire consists of two elements: core questions, covering demographic information, are asked each month together with non-core questions that vary from month to month. The non-core questions for this month were: Televisions (Module 177): this module was asked on behalf of the Department of National Heritage, to ascertain how many households have a television that did not work at the time and did not have another TV set that did work, and whether they intended to get the broken television set repaired in the next seven days after the interview took place. ACAS awareness (Module 187): this module was asked on behalf of ACAS, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, who wished to know how many people had heard of them and how many had a realistic idea of what sort of organisation they are and what they do. The module was asked of all respondents in paid employment. Second homes (Module 4): this module was asked on behalf of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). It has appeared in previous Omnibus surveys in a slightly different form. The module queried respondents on ownership of a second home by any member of the household and reasons for having the second home. Expectation of house price changes (Module 137): this module asks respondents' views on changes to house prices in the next year and next five years. Fire safety (Module 33): this module covers fire safety and was asked in connection with Fire Safety Week. Questions assess awareness of fire risks and fire safety measures the respondent has taken. Lone mothers (Module 184): this module was asked on behalf of the Department of Social Security. The questions were taken from a British attitudes survey and compare attitudes towards mothers living in couples with children of varying ages with attitudes towards lone mothers. Smoking (Module 130): this module assesses people's smoking habits, past and present, attitudes to smoking in different scenarios, and awareness of cigarette advertising. Unemployment risk (Module 183): this module was asked on behalf of the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. The questions were designed to investigate respondents' assessment of the risks of being unemployed, their attitude towards unemployment insurance and their recent experience of unemployment. Contraception (Module 170): the Special Licence version of this module is held under SN 6475. PEPs and TESSAs (Module 185): this module was asked on behalf of the Inland Revenue, to gain more information about the distribution of PEPs and TESSAs and in particular the extent to which the two groups overlap. Multi-stage stratified random sample Face-to-face interview 1997 ACCIDENTS ADULTS ADVERTISING ADVICE AGE ARBITRATION ASTHMA ATTITUDES BANK ACCOUNTS CANCER CARDIOVASCULAR DISE... CAUSES OF DEATH CHILD BENEFITS CHILD CARE CHILD DAY CARE CHILDREN CINEMA COHABITATION COLOUR TELEVISION R... COMPANIES CONFLICT RESOLUTION COOKING EQUIPMENT COSTS COT DEATHS COURTS CREDIT CARD USE CULTURAL EVENTS Consumption and con... DIABETES DISEASES ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ECONOMIC VALUE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS EMPLOYMENT HISTORY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES ETHNIC GROUPS EXPENDITURE Economic conditions... FAMILY MEMBERS FINANCIAL SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION EQU... FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT FURNISHED ACCOMMODA... Family life and mar... GENDER GENERAL PRACTITIONERS GRANTS HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD HEALTH HEALTH CONSULTATIONS HEALTH PROFESSIONALS HEARING HEATING SYSTEMS HOLIDAYS HOME CONTENTS INSUR... HOME OWNERSHIP HOME SELLING HOSPITAL SERVICES HOURS OF WORK HOUSEHOLDS HOUSES HOUSING TENURE HUMAN SETTLEMENT Health behaviour Housing ILL HEALTH INCOME INCOME TAX INDUSTRIES INFLATION INFORMATION MATERIALS INFORMATION SOURCES INHERITANCE INSURANCE INTEREST FINANCE INVESTMENT Income JOB HUNTING JUDGMENTS LAW LABOUR RELATIONS LANDLORDS Labour relations co... MANAGERS MARITAL STATUS MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION MASS MEDIA MEDICAL CENTRES MEDICAL INSURANCE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS MORTGAGES MOTHERS MOTOR VEHICLES ONE PARENT FAMILIES ORGANIZATIONS PARENTS PART TIME EMPLOYMENT PASSIVE SMOKING PENSIONS PERSONNEL PLACE OF RESIDENCE PRESCHOOL CHILDREN PRICES PRIVATE SECTOR PUBLIC HOUSES PUBLIC INFORMATION PUBLIC SERVICE BUIL... RADIO RECRUITMENT RENTED ACCOMMODATION RESPIRATORY TRACT D... RESTAURANTS RETIREMENT SAVINGS SCHOOLCHILDREN SCHOOLS SECOND HOMES SELF EMPLOYED SHOPS SICK LEAVE SMOKING SMOKING CESSATION SMOKING RESTRICTIONS SOCIAL HOUSING SOCIAL SECURITY BEN... SPORTING EVENTS SPOUSE S ECONOMIC A... SPOUSE S EMPLOYMENT SPOUSES STATE AID SUPERVISORS Social behaviour an... TELEPHONE HELP LINES TELEVISION ADVERTISING TELEVISION RECEIVERS TERMINATION OF SERVICE TIED HOUSING TOBACCO TRAINING TRAVEL UNEMPLOYMENT UNFURNISHED ACCOMMO... UNMARRIED MOTHERS UNWAGED WORKERS Unemployment VOCATIONAL EDUCATIO... WAGES WORKERS RIGHTS WORKING MOTHERS WORKPLACE property and invest...