| AZ |
No restrictions
|
| CA |
Confidentiality of Records
|
Confidentiality of Physicians |
|
|
| CO |
No restrictions
|
| CT |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
Confidentiality of Records |
Confidentiality of Physicians |
|
| FL |
Confidentiality of Records
|
|
| GA |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
To meet Georgia confidentiality requirements, hospitals were dropped from the sampling frame whenever there were fewer than two hospitals in a sampling stratum or the hospital was a stand-alone children’s hospitals. Georgia requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID. The following data elements are set to missing for all Georgia hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of Georgia hospitals. |
Confidentiality of Physicians |
|
| HI |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
Hawaii requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all Hawaii hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of Hawaii hospitals. |
| IA |
Missing Discharges
|
These discharges were not included in the source file provided to HCUP and are therefore not included in the KID. |
| IL |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
|
|
| IN |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
Indiana requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all Indiana hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of Indiana hospitals. |
|
| KS |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
|
| KY |
No restrictions
|
| MA |
Confidentiality of Records
|
|
|
| MD |
No restrictions
|
| MI |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
Michigan requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all Michigan hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of Michigan hospitals. |
| MN |
No restrictions
|
| MO |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
|
| NC |
Confidentiality of Physicians
|
|
| NE |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
Nebraska requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all Nebraska hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of Nebraska hospitals. |
|
| NH |
Confidentiality of Records
|
|
| NJ |
No restrictions
|
| NV |
No restrictions
|
| NY |
Confidentiality of Records
|
|
| OH |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
To meet Ohio confidentiality requirements, hospitals were to be dropped from the sampling frame whenever there were fewer than two hospitals in a sampling stratum. Ohio requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all Ohio hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of Ohio hospitals. |
|
| OR |
No restrictions
|
| RI |
No restrictions
|
| SC |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
South Carolina requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all South Carolina hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of South Carolina hospitals. |
|
| SD |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
South Dakota requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all South Dakota hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of South Dakota hospitals. |
| TN |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
Tennessee requested that hospitals not be identified in the KID database. The following data elements are set to missing for all Tennessee hospitals: In order to further ensure the confidentiality of hospitals, stratifier data elements were set to missing if the cell, as defined by had fewer than two hospitals in the universe of Tennessee hospitals. |
| TX |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
Confidentiality of Records |
|
| Texas Restriction on AGE for General Patient Population other than HIV or Drug/Alcohol Use Patients | |
| Age Range | New value of AGE |
| 0 | 0 |
| 1-4 | 2 |
| 5-9 | 7 |
| 10-14 | 12 |
| 15-17 | 16 |
| 18-20 | 19 |
|
| UT |
Confidentiality of Physicians
|
|
| VA |
Confidentiality of Hospitals
|
|
| VT |
Confidentiality of Physicians
|
|
| WA |
No restrictions
|
| WI |
No restrictions
|
| WV |
Confidentiality of Physicians
|
|
| Additional information is available on the AHRQ Website. If you have comments, suggestions, and/or questions, please contact hcup@ahrq.gov. |
| Are you having problems viewing or printing pages on this Website? |
|
Internet Citation: 2003 KID Data and State-Specific Restrictions.
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). March 2006 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/kid/kid_2003_stspecific_restr.jsp. |
| Last modified 3/8/06 |