health insurance essay

Health Insurance Reform Has Surprisingly Little Impact on Actual Health

Cost of health care concept, stethoscope and calculator on document

T he typical American’s health compares poorly to that of their counterparts in other high-income countries, even though the U.S. spends twice as much as these countries do on medical care. Behind that middling average lies substantial health inequality. A 40-year-old American male can expect to live 15 years less if he’s one of the poorest 1% of Americans rather than one of the richest 1%. Black children who live in the richest parts of the United States have higher mortality rates than White children in the poorest parts of the country.

Many have put these observations together with another aspect of U.S. “exceptionalism”: We are the only high-income country without universal health insurance coverage. And they have concluded that the key to improving health and reducing health inequality in the U.S. is to finally enact universal coverage.

They’re wrong. While these two facts are correct, they have very little to do with each other. There are good reasons to support universal health coverage, but noticeably improving population health is not one of them.

Indeed, the evidence suggests that the health disparities among Americans are not driven by differences in access to health insurance or to medical care. Rather, the key to improving health is far more complex: It lies in changing health behaviors and reducing exposure to external sources of poor health.

Perhaps the clearest evidence for how little impact health insurance reform has on health comes from the experience of other countries which have universal health insurance but also experience substantial health inequality. Consider Sweden and Norway , two Nordic countries with universal health insurance as well as a cradle-to-grave generous social safety net. Yet differences in life expectancy between adults in the top 10% and bottom 10% of the national income distribution in those countries are similar to the disparities in the United States.

Read More: Long Waits, Short Appointments, Huge Bills: U.S. Health Care Is Causing Patient Burnout

Or consider the enormous differences across the country in remaining life expectancy for elderly Americans, all of whom are covered by the same Medicare health insurance program. Researchers have identified which cities in the U.S. are better or worse for elderly longevity , and also which tend to provide more medical care than others . But, the evidence indicates, the places you’d want to move to in order to increase your life expectancy in retirement aren’t the same as the places to move to if you want to receive more medical care.

Indeed, there is widespread agreement among researchers that medical care, let alone health insurance, is not the only—or even the most important—determinant of health. Rather, the key to better health and smaller health disparities lies in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the cigarettes we do or do not smoke. Which means that the key public policies for improving health must be those that tackle these sources of poor health through pollution regulation, or soda and cigarette taxes. The path to major health improvements doesn’t run through health insurance and health care policy.

How can this possibly be?

It is not because health insurance is not important for health. Of course it is . But its effects are too small for health insurance reform to make much of a dent in the large U.S. income-health gradient, or to substantially improve the poor health of average Americans.

Behind this relative unimportance of health insurance coverage for health is a startling, but little-understood reality: No one in America is actually uninsured when it comes to their health care. Rather, the nominally “uninsured”—those who lack formal health insurance coverage—nonetheless receive a substantial amount of medical care which they don’t pay for.

There is a vast web of public policy requirements and dedicated public funding to provide the nominally uninsured with free or heavily discounted medical care. And no, we’re not just talking about the emergency room. Through a piecemeal slew of policies at the federal, state, and local level, the government has created a large, complex web of publicly-regulated, publicly-funded programs that provide free or low-fee preventive care, care management for chronic health problems, and non-emergency hospital care for the uninsured and under-insured.

This point was made clear by data from Oregon, where the state ran a lottery for health insurance coverage in 2008. The process was similar to a clinical trial for a new drug, in which some patients are randomly assigned the new drug and others are assigned an older drug or a sugar pill. Except in this case, Oregon randomly assigned public health insurance coverage to about 10,000 low-income, uninsured adults but not to the thousands of others who had signed up to “win” free public health insurance. The results of this lottery made clear that providing formal health insurance coverage to the uninsured provides them with real benefits: better protection against expensive medical bills, greater likelihood of having a medical home, more access to medical care, and ultimately, improved health.

But the experiment’s results also revealed something striking about the experience of the uninsured: The uninsured receive about four-fifths of the medical care that they would get had they been insured. This medical care includes primary care, preventive care, prescription drugs, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions. And they pay for only about 20 cents out of every dollar of medical care that they receive. In other words, they are not actually uninsured. Rather, there’s a lot more commonality in the medical care received and (not) paid for by the insured and the uninsured than those labels might suggest.

And once we realize that everyone in America can access medical care, it becomes much clearer why formalizing this access – while important for other reasons – is unlikely to make an important difference for people’s health, or substantially reduce the large disparities in population health.

The surprisingly limited role for health care policy or health insurance in driving population health is not a new observation. A half century ago, the economist Victor Fuchs – who at age 99 is now widely considered to be the founding father of the economic study of health – made this point in his now-famous “ Tale of Two States. ” He described two neighboring states in the Western U.S. that were similar along many of the dimensions believed to be important for health – including medical care, income, schooling, climate, and urbanicity. Yet in one state, the people were among the U.S. healthiest. Their neighbors in the other state were among the least healthy, with annual death rates that were 40% to 50% higher.

You may get an inkling of where Fuchs was going with this comparison when we tell you that the two states were Utah and Nevada. And that the residents of Utah were the ones enjoying much better health.

Fuchs famously attributed the lower-mortality rates of the clean-living, predominantly Mormon residents of Utah to their better health behaviors. Their Nevada neighbors enjoyed what he referred to as “more permissive” norms. Rates of smoking and drinking were much lower in Utah than in Nevada. And differences in mortality between the two states were particularly pronounced for diseases for which there was a direct link to such behaviors, such as lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver.

Fuchs’s simple tabulations of publicly reported death rates by age and gender for Utah and Nevada appear antiquated by modern data science standards. But his central argument has stood the test of time. A subsequent half-century of confirmatory work has hammered home an important but often overlooked point: when it comes to improving health outcomes and reducing health disparities, health insurance policy is not the lever to lean on.

Adapted from We’ve Got You Covered: Rebooting American Health Care by Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein, in agreement with Portfolio, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein, 2023.

More Must-Reads from TIME

‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town
Why Are COVID-19 Cases Spiking Again ?
Lionel Messi Isn't Finished Yet
Fiji’s Fiery Battle Against Plastics
Column: AI-Driven Behavior Change Could Transform Health Care
How to Watch Lost in 2024 Without Setting Yourself Up for Disappointment
How Often Do You Really Need to Wash Your Sheets ?
The 15 Best Movies to Watch on a Plane
Get Our Paris Olympics Newsletter in Your Inbox

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Health Insurance — Importance of Health Insurance

Importance of Health Insurance

Categories: Health Insurance Insurance

About this sample

Words: 665 |

Published: Jun 13, 2024

Words: 665 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Access to necessary healthcare, promoting public health, protection against financial hardship, enhancing quality of life, supporting the healthcare system.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 552 words

1 pages / 580 words

1 pages / 471 words

1 pages / 679 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Health Insurance

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is a critical piece of legislation that has far-reaching implications for the healthcare industry in the United States. While it addresses various aspects of [...]

After researching the various coding and billing regulations, I feel that the biggest and most important ones are Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Affordable Care Act (ACA). HIPAA has set standards [...]

Many people in the United States—approximately 10% of the population—are without healthcare insurance. These same people, due to socioeconomic reasons, are the most likely of Americans to experience stress, one of the causes of [...]

People with physical problems are a familiar site. In wheelchairs or on crutches, blind or even deaf we have all crossed paths with a disabled person as some stage in our lives. What do you feel when you see a disabled person? [...]

Public transport is an important and necessary aspect of modern day society. It can be defined as transport that is available to the public, that charge set fares, and runs along set routes. For example, buses, trains, light [...]

The memory of fear that stands out the most for me is, the first time that I rode The Tower of Terror. Disney Land is the happiest place on Earth to me. It has a bunch of fun rides and rollercoasters to go on. It was my fourth [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, United Kingdom

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Centre of Health Economics, University of York, York, England, United Kingdom, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-economic Research (LISER), Luxembourg

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, United Kingdom, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Darius Erlangga,
Marc Suhrcke,
Shehzad Ali,
Karen Bloor

Published: August 28, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731
Reader Comments

7 Nov 2019: Erlangga D, Suhrcke M, Ali S, Bloor K (2019) Correction: The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. PLOS ONE 14(11): e0225237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225237 View correction

Expanding public health insurance seeks to attain several desirable objectives, including increasing access to healthcare services, reducing the risk of catastrophic healthcare expenditures, and improving health outcomes. The extent to which these objectives are met in a real-world policy context remains an empirical question of increasing research and policy interest in recent years.

We reviewed systematically empirical studies published from July 2010 to September 2016 using Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL Plus via EBSCO, and Web of Science and grey literature databases. No language restrictions were applied. Our focus was on both randomised and observational studies, particularly those including explicitly attempts to tackle selection bias in estimating the treatment effect of health insurance. The main outcomes are: (1) utilisation of health services, (2) financial protection for the target population, and (3) changes in health status.

8755 abstracts and 118 full-text articles were assessed. Sixty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria including six randomised studies, reflecting a substantial increase in the quantity and quality of research output compared to the time period before 2010. Overall, health insurance schemes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been found to improve access to health care as measured by increased utilisation of health care facilities (32 out of 40 studies). There also appeared to be a favourable effect on financial protection (26 out of 46 studies), although several studies indicated otherwise. There is moderate evidence that health insurance schemes improve the health of the insured (9 out of 12 studies).

Interpretation

Increased health insurance coverage generally appears to increase access to health care facilities, improve financial protection and improve health status, although findings are not totally consistent. Understanding the drivers of differences in the outcomes of insurance reforms is critical to inform future implementations of publicly funded health insurance to achieve the broader goal of universal health coverage.

Citation: Erlangga D, Suhrcke M, Ali S, Bloor K (2019) The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 14(8): e0219731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731

Editor: Sandra C. Buttigieg, University of Malta Faculty of Health Sciences, MALTA

Received: March 19, 2018; Accepted: July 2, 2019; Published: August 28, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Erlangga et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The search strategy for this review is available in Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In recent decades, achieving universal health coverage (UHC) has been a major health policy focus globally.[ 1 – 3 ] UHC entitles all people to access healthcare services through publicly organised risk pooling,[ 4 ] safeguarding against the risk of catastrophic healthcare expenditures.[ 5 ] Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face particular challenges in achieving UHC due to particularly limited public resources for health care, inefficient allocation, over-reliance on out-of-pocket payments, and often large population size.[ 5 ] As a result, access to health care and the burden of financial cost in LMICs tends to be worse for the poor, often resulting in forgone care.[ 6 – 8 ]

Introducing and increasing the coverage of publicly organised and financed health insurance is widely seen as the most promising way of achieving UHC,[ 9 , 10 ] since private insurance is mostly unaffordable for the poor.[ 11 ] Historically, social health insurance, tax-based insurance, or a mix of the two have been the dominant health insurance models amongst high income countries and some LMICs, including Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Thailand.[ 12 ] This is partly influenced by the size of the formal sector economy from which taxes and payroll contributions can be collected. In recent decades, community-based health insurance (CBHI) or “mutual health organizations” have become increasingly popular among LMICs, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. Burkina Faso,[ 13 ] Senegal[ 14 ] and Rwanda[ 15 ]) as well as Asia (e.g. China[ 16 ] and India[ 17 ]). CBHI has emerged as an alternative health financing strategy, particularly in cases where the public sector has failed to provide adequate access to health care.[ 18 ]

We searched for existing systematic reviews on health insurance in the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, and Econlit. Search terms “health insurance”, “low-middle income countries”, and “utilisation” were used alongside methodological search strategy to locate reviews. Seven systematic reviews were identified of varying levels of quality, [ 19 – 26 ] with Acharya et al.[ 27 ] being the most comprehensive. The majority of existing reviews has suggested that publicly-funded health insurance has typically shown a positive impact on access to care, while the picture for financial protection was mixed, and evidence of the impact on health status was very sparse.

This study reviews systematically the recent fast-growing evidence on the impact of health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in LMICs. Since the publication of Acharya et al. (which conducted literature searches in July 2010), the empirical evidence on the impact of health insurance has expanded significantly in terms of quantity and quality, with growing use of sophisticated techniques to account for statistical challenges[ 28 ] (particularly insurance selection bias). This study makes an important contribution towards our understanding of the impact of health insurance in LMICs, taking particular care in appraising the quality of studies. We recognise the heterogeneity of insurance schemes implemented in LMICs and therefore do not attempt to generalise findings, but we aim to explore the pattern emerging from various studies and to extract common factors that may affect the effectiveness of health insurance, that should be the focus of future policy and research. Furthermore, we explore evidence of moral hazard in insurance membership, an aspect that was not addressed in the Acharya et al review.[ 27 ]

This review was planned, conducted, and reported in adherence with PRISMA standards of quality for reporting systematic reviews.[ 29 ]

Participants

Studies focusing on LMICs are included, as measured by per capita gross national income (GNI) estimated using the World Bank Atlas method per July 2016.[ 30 ]

Intervention

Classification of health insurance can be complicated due to the many characteristics defining its structure, including the mode of participation (compulsory or voluntary), benefit entitlement, level of membership (individual or household), methods for raising funds (taxes, flat premium, or income-based premium) and the mechanism and extent of risk pooling [ 31 ]. For the purpose of this review, we included all health insurance schemes organised by government, comprising social health insurance and tax-based health insurance. Private health insurance was excluded from our review, but we recognise the presence of community-based health insurance (CBHI) in many LMICs, especially in Africa and Asia [ 18 ]. We also therefore included CBHI if it was scaled up nationally or was actively promoted by national government. Primary studies that included both public and private health insurance were also considered for inclusion if a clear distinction between the two was made in the primary paper. Studies examining other types of financial incentives to increase the demand for healthcare services, such as voucher schemes or cash transfers, were excluded.

Control group

In order to provide robust evidence on the effect on insurance, it is necessary to compare an insured group with an appropriate control group. In this review, we selected studies that used an uninsured population as the control group. Multiple comparison groups were allowed, but an uninsured group had to be one of them.

Outcome measures

We focus on three main outcomes:

Utilisation of health care facilities or services (e.g. immunisation coverage, number of visits, rates of hospitalisation).
Financial protection, as measured by changes in out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditure at household or individual level, and also catastrophic health expenditure or impoverishment from medical expenses.
Health status, as measured by morbidity and mortality rates, indicators of risk factors (e.g. nutritional status), and self-reported health status.

The scope of this review is not restricted to any level of healthcare delivery (i.e. primary or secondary care). All types of health services were considered in this review.

Types of studies

The review includes randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (or “natural experiments”[ 32 ]), and observational studies that account for selection bias due to insurance endogeneity (i.e. bias caused by insurance decisions that are correlated with the expected level of utilisation and/or OOP expenditure). Observational studies that did not take account of selection bias were excluded.

Databases and search terms

A search for relevant articles was conducted on 6 September 2016 using peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL Plus via EBSCO and Web of Science) and grey literatures (WHO, World Bank, and PAHO). Our search was restricted to studies published since July 2010, immediately after the period covered by the earlier Acharya et al. (2012) review. No language restrictions were applied. Full details of our search strategy are available in the supporting information ( S1 Table ).

Screening and data extraction

Two independent reviewers (DE and MS) screened all titles and abstracts of the initially identified studies to determine whether they satisfied the inclusion criteria. Any disagreement was resolved through mutual consensus. Full texts were retrieved for the studies that met the inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to extract the relevant information from the included studies.

Assessment of study quality

We used the Grades of Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system checklist[ 33 , 34 ] which is commonly used for quality assessment in systematic reviews. However, GRADE does not rate observational studies based on whether they controlled for selection bias. Therefore, we supplemented the GRADE score with the ‘Quality of Effectiveness Estimates from Non-randomised Studies’ (QuEENS) checklist.[ 35 ]

cRandomised studies were considered to have low risk of bias. Non-randomised studies that account for selection on observable variables, such as propensity score matching (PSM), were categorised as high risk of bias unless they provided adequate assumption checks or compared the results to those from other methods, in which case they may be classed as medium risk. Non-randomised studies that account for selection on both observables and unobservables, such as regression with difference-in-differences (DiD) or Heckman sample selection models, were considered to have medium risk of bias–some of these studies were graded as high or low risk depending on sufficiency of assumption checks and comparison with results from other methods.

Heterogeneity of health insurance programmes across countries and variability in empirical methods used across studies precluded a formal meta-analysis. We therefore conducted a narrative synthesis of the literature and did not report the effect size. Throughout this review, we only considered three possible effects: positive outcome, negative outcome, or no statistically significant effect (here defined as p-value > 0.1).

Results of the search

Our database search identified 8,755 studies. Five additional studies were retrieved from grey literature. After screening of titles and abstracts, 118 studies were identified as potentially relevant. After reviewing the full-texts, 68 studies were included in the systematic review (see Fig 1 for the PRISMA diagram). A full description of the included studies is presented in the supporting information ( S2 Table ). Of the 68 included studies, 40 studies examined the effect on utilisation, 46 studies on financial protection, and only 12 studies on health status (see Table 1 ).

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.t001

Utilisation of health care

Table 2 collates evidence on the effects of health insurance on utilisation of healthcare services. Three main findings were observed:

Evidence on utilisation of curative care generally suggested a positive effect, with 30 out of 38 studies reporting a statistically significant positive effect.
Evidence on preventive care is less clear with 4 out of 7 studies reporting a positive effect, two studies finding a negative effect and one study reporting no effect.
Among the higher quality studies, i.e. those that suitably controlled for selection bias reflected by moderate or low GRADE score and low risk of bias (score = 3) on QuEENS, seven studies reported a positive relationship between insurance and utilisation. One study[ 36 ] reported no statistically significant effect, and another study found a statistically significant negative effect.[ 37 ]

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.t002

Financial protection

Overall, evidence on the impact of health insurance on financial protection is less clear than that for utilisation (see Table 3 ). 34 of the 46 studies reported the impact of health insurance on the level of out-of-pocket health expenditure. Among those 34 studies, 17 found a positive effect (i.e. a reduction in out-of-pocket expenditure), 15 studies found no statistically significant effect, and two studies–from Indonesia[ 59 ] and Peru[ 62 ]–reported a negative effect (i.e. an increase in out-of-pocket expenditure).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.t003

Another financial protection measure is the probability of incurring catastrophic health expenditure defined as OOP exceeding a certain threshold percentage of total expenditure or income. Of the 14 studies reporting this measure, nine reported reduction in the risk of catastrophic expenditure, three found no statistically significant difference, and two found a negative effect of health insurance. Only four studies reported sensitivity analysis varying changes in the threshold level,[ 59 , 62 , 75 , 76 ] though this did not materially affect the findings.

Two studies used a different measure of financial protection, the probability of impoverishment due to catastrophic health expenditure, reporting conflicting findings.[ 77 , 78 ] Finally, four studies evaluated the effect on financial protection by assessing the impact of insurance on non-healthcare consumption or saving behaviour, such as non-medical related consumption[ 79 ], probability of financing medical bills via asset sales or borrowing[ 40 ], and household saving[ 80 ]. No clear pattern can be observed from those four studies.

Health status

Improving health is one of the main objectives of health insurance, yet very few studies thus far have attempted to evaluate health outcomes. We identified 12 studies, with considerable variation in the precise health measure considered (see Table 4 ). There was some evidence of positive impact on health status: nine studies found a positive effect, one study reported a negative effect, and two studies reported no effect.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.t004

Type of insurance and countries

Considering the heterogeneity of insurance schemes among different countries, we attempted to explore the aggregate results by the type of insurance scheme and by country. Table 5 provides a summary of results classified by three type of insurance scheme: community-based health insurance, voluntary health insurance (non-CBHI), and compulsory health insurance. This division is based on the mode of participation (compulsory vs voluntary), which may affect the presence of adverse selection and moral hazard. Premiums are typically community-rated in CBHI, risk-rated in voluntary schemes and income-rated in compulsory schemes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.t005

In principle, CBHI is also considered a voluntary scheme, but we separated it to explore whether the larger size of pooling from non-CBHI schemes may affect the outcomes. Social health insurance is theoretically a mandatory scheme that requires contribution from the enrolees. However, in the context of LMICs, the mandatory element is hard to enforce, and in practice the scheme adopts a voluntary enrolment. Additionally, the government may also want to subsidise the premium for poor people. Therefore, in this review SHI schemes can fall into either the voluntary health insurance (non-CBHI) or compulsory health insurance (non-CBHI), depending on the target population defined in the evaluation study. Lastly, we chose studies with high quality/low risk only to provide more robust results.

Based on the summary in Table 5 , the effect on utilisation overall does not differ based on type of insurance, with most evidence suggesting an overall increase in utilisation by the insured. The two studies showing no effect or reduced consumption of care were conducted in two different areas of India, which may–somewhat tentatively–suggest a common factor unique to India’s health system that may compromise the effectiveness of health insurance in increasing utilisation.

Regarding financial protection, the evidence for both CBHI and non-CBHI voluntary health insurance is inconclusive. Furthermore, there is an indication of heterogeneity by supply side factors captured by proximity to health facilities. Evidence from studies exploring subsidised schemes suggests no effect on financial protection, even a negative effect among the insured in Peru.

Lastly, evidence for health status may be influenced by how health outcomes are measured. Studies exploring specific health status, (examples included health indexes, wasting, C-reactive protein, and low birth weight), show a positive effect, whereas studies using mortality rates tends to show no effect or even negative effects. Studies exploring CBHI scheme did not find any evidence of positive effect on health status, as measured either by mortality rate or specific health status.

This review synthesises the recent, burgeoning empirical literature on the impact of health insurance in LMICs. We identified a total of 68 eligible studies over a period of six years–double the amount identified by the previous review by Acharya et al. over an approximately 60-year time horizon (1950—July 2010). We used two quality assessment checklists to scrutinise the study methodology, taking more explicit account of the methodological robustness of non-experimental designs.

Programme evaluation has been of interest to many researchers for reporting on the effectiveness of a public policy to policymakers. In theory, the gold standard for a programme evaluation is the randomised control trial, in which the treatment is randomly assigned to the participants. The treatment assignment process has to be exogenous to ensure that any observed effect between the treated and control groups can only be caused by the difference in the treatment assignment. Unfortunately, this ideal scenario is often not feasible in a public policy setting. Our findings showed that only three papers between 2010 and 2016 were able to conduct a randomised study to evaluate the impact of health insurance programmes in developing countries, particularly CBHI [ 38 , 75 , 103 ]. Policymakers may believe in the value of an intervention regardless of its actual evidence base, or they may believe that the intervention is beneficial and that no one in need should be denied it. In addition, policymakers are inclined to demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention that they want implemented in the most promising contexts, as opposed to random allocation [ 104 ].

Consequently, programme evaluators often have to deal with a non-randomised treatment assignment which may result in selection bias problems. Selection bias is defined as a spurious relationship between the treatment and the outcome of interest due to the systematic differences between the treated and the control groups [ 105 ]. In the case of health insurance, an individual who chooses to enrol in the scheme may have different characteristics to an individual who chooses not to enrol. When those important characteristics are unobservable, the analyst needs to apply more advanced techniques and, sometimes, stronger assumptions. Based on our findings, we noted several popular methods, including propensity score matching (N = 8), difference-in-difference (N = 10), fixed or random effects of panel data (N = 6), instrumental variables (N = 12) and regression discontinuity (N = 6). Those methods have varying degree of success in controlling the unobserved selection bias and analysts should explore the robustness of their findings by comparing initial findings with other methods by testing important assumptions. We noted some papers combining two common methods, such as difference-in-difference with propensity score matching (N = 10) and fixed effects with instrumental variables (N = 8), in order to obtain more robust results.

Overall effect

Compared with the earlier review, our study has found stronger and more consistent evidence of positive effects of health insurance on health care utilisation, but less clear evidence on financial protection. Restricting the evidence base to the small subset of randomised studies, the effects on financial protection appear more consistently positive, i.e. three cluster randomised studies[ 39 , 75 , 76 ] showed a decline in OOP expenditure and one randomised study[ 36 ] found no significant effect.

Besides the impact on utilisation and financial protection, this review identified a number of good quality studies measuring the impact of health insurance on health outcomes. Twelve studies were identified (i.e. twice as many as those published before 2010), nine of which showed a beneficial health effect. This holds for the subset of papers with stronger methodology for tackling selection bias.[ 39 , 49 , 89 , 103 ] In cases where a health insurance programme does not have a positive effect on either utilisation, financial protection, and health status, it is particularly important to understand the underlying reasons.

Possible explanation of heterogeneity

Payment system..

Heterogeneity of the impact of health insurance may be explained by differences in health systems and/or health insurance programmes. Robyn et al. (2012) and Fink et al (2013) argued that the lack of significant effect of insurance in Burkina Faso may have been partially influenced by the capitation payment system. As the health workers relied heavily on user fees for their income, the change of payment system from fee-for-services to capitation may have discouraged provision of high quality services. If enrolees perceive the quality of contracted providers as bad, they might delay seeking treatment, which in turn could impact negatively on health.

Several studies from China found the utilisation of expensive treatment and higher-level health care facilities to have increased following the introduction of the insurance scheme.[ 41 , 44 , 45 , 88 ] A fee-for-service payment system may have incentivised providers to include more expensive treatments.[ 43 , 83 , 88 ] Recent systematic reviews suggested that payment systems might play a key role in determining the success of insurance schemes,[ 23 , 106 ] but this evidence is still weak, as most of the included studies were observational studies that did not control sufficiently for selection bias.

Uncovered essential items.

Sood et al. (2014) found no statistically significant effect of community-based health insurance on utilisation in India. They argued that this could be caused by their inability to specify the medical conditions covered by the insurance, causing dilution of a potential true effect. In other countries, transportation costs[ 69 ] and treatments that were not covered by the insurance[ 59 , 60 ] may explain the absence of a reduction in out-of-pocket health expenditures.

Methodological differences.

Two studies in Georgia evaluated the same programme but with different conclusions.[ 50 , 51 ] This discrepancy may be explained by the difference in the estimated treatment effect: one used average treatment effect (ATE), finding no effect, and another used average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), reporting a positive effect. ATE is of prime interest when policymakers are interested in scaling up the programme, whereas ATT is useful to measure the effect on people who were actually exposed to insurance.[ 107 ]

Duration of health insurance.

We also found that the longer an insurance programme has been in place prior to the timing of the evaluation, the higher the odds of improved health outcomes. It is plausible that health insurance would not change the health status of population instantly upon implementation.[ 21 ] While there may be an appetite among policymakers to obtain favourable short term assessments, it is important to compare the impact over time, where feasible.

Moral hazard.

Acharya et al (2012) raised an important question about the possibility of a moral hazard effect as an unintended consequence of introducing (or expanding) health insurance in LMICs. We found seven studies exploring ex-ante moral hazard by estimating the effect on preventive care. If uninsured individuals expect to be covered in the future, they may reduce the consumption of preventive care or invest less in healthy behaviours.[ 108 , 109 ] Current overall evidence cannot suggest a definite conclusion considering the heterogeneity in chosen outcomes. One study found that the use of a self-treated bed nets to prevent malaria declined among the insured group in Ghana[ 54 ] while two studies reported an increase in vaccination rates[ 62 ] and the number of prenatal care visits[ 55 , 62 ]among the insured group. Another study reported no evidence that health insurance encouraged unhealthy behaviour or reduction of preventive efforts in Thailand.[ 66 ]

Two studies from Colombia found that the insured group is more likely to increase their demand for preventive treatment.[ 47 , 49 ] As preventive treatment is free for all, both authors attributed this increased demand to the scheme’s capitation system, incentivising providers to promote preventive care to avoid future costly treatments.[ 110 ] Another study of a different health insurance programme in Colombia found an opposite effect.[ 48 ]

Study limitations.

This review includes a large variety of study designs and indicators for assessing the multiple potential impacts of health insurance, making it hard to directly compare and aggregate findings. For those studies that used a control group, the use of self-selected controls in many cases creates potential bias. Studies of the effect of CBHI are often better at establishing the counterfactual by allowing the use of randomisation in a small area, whereas government schemes or social health insurance covering larger populations have limited opportunity to use randomisation. Non-randomised studies are more susceptible to confounding factors unobserved by the analysts. For a better understanding of the links between health insurance and relevant outcomes, there is also a need to go beyond quantitative evidence alone and combine the quantitative findings with qualitative insights. This is particularly important when trying to interpret some of the counterintuitive results encountered in some studies.

The impact of different health insurance schemes in many countries on utilisation generally shows a positive effect. This is aligned with the supply-demand theory in whichhealth insurance decreases the price of health care services resulting in increased demand. It is difficult to draw an overall conclusion about the impact of health insurance on financial protection, most likely because of differences in health insurance programmes. The impact of health insurance on health status suggests a promising positive effect, but more studies from different countries is required.

The interest in achieving UHC via publicly funded health insurance is likely to increase even further in the coming years, and it is one of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030[ 111 ]. As public health insurance is still being widely implemented in many LMICs, the findings from this review should be of interest to health experts and policy-makers at the national and the international level.

Supporting information

S1 table. search strategies..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.s001

S2 Table. Study characteristic and reported effect from the included studies (N = 68).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.s002

S3 Table. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.s003

View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
4. World Health Organization. Research for universal health coverage: World health report 2013. WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
5. World Health Organization. The world health report 2010. Health systems financing: the path to universal coverage. World Health Organization; 2010.
9. Maeda A, Araujo E, Cashin C, Harris J, Ikegami N, Reich MR. Universal Health Coverage for Inclusive and Sustainable Development: A Synthesis of 11 Country Case Studies. The World Bank; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0297-3
10. Jowett M, Kutzin J. Raising revenues for health in support of UHC: strategic issues for policy makers. world Health Organization. Geneva; 2015. Report No.: 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1088658
12. Wang H, Switlick K, Ortiz C, Zurita B, Connor C. Health Insurance Handbook. The World Bank; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8982-9
21. Giedion U, Alfonso EA, Díaz Y, Andrés Alfonso E, Díaz Y. The Impact of Universal Coverage Schemes in the Developing World: A Review of the Existing Evidence. Univers Heal Cover Stud Ser (UNICO), No 25. Washington DC: World; 2013;
31. A System of Health Accounts 2011. OECD; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270985-en
34. Cochrane . Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins JPT, Green SE, editors. Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
37. Sheth K. Evaluating Health-Seeking Behavior, Utilization of Care, and Health Risk: Evidence from a Community Based Insurance Model in India. 2014. Report No.: 36.
105. Wooldridge JM. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Fifth Inte. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning; 2013.
111. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2016: Monitoring health for the SDGs. WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance. Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2002.

Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late.

Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

3 Effects of Health Insurance on Health

This chapter presents the Committee's review of studies that address the impact of health insurance on various health-related outcomes. It examines research on the relationship between health insurance (or lack of insurance), use of medical care and health outcomes for specific conditions and types of services, and with overall health status and mortality. There is a consistent, positive relationship between health insurance coverage and health-related outcomes across a body of studies that use a variety of data sources and different analytic approaches. The best evidence suggests that health insurance is associated with more appropriate use of health care services and better health outcomes for adults.

The discussion of the research in this chapter is organized within sections that encompass virtually all of the research literature on health outcomes and insurance status that the Committee identified. The chapter sections include the following:

Primary prevention and screening services
Cancer care and outcomes
Chronic disease management, with specific discussions of diabetes, hypertension, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), HIV disease, and mental illness
Hospital-based care (emergency services, traumatic injury, cardiovascular disease)
Overall mortality and general measures of health status

The Committee consolidated study results within categories that reflect both diseases and services because these frameworks helped in summarizing the individual studies and subsumed similar research structures and outcome measures. Older studies and those of lesser relevance or quality are not discussed within this chapter devoted to presenting study results and reaching Committee findings. However, all of the studies reviewed are described briefly in Appendix B .

The studies presented in some detail in this chapter are those that the Committee judged to be both methodologically sound and the most informative regarding health insurance effects on health-related outcomes. 1 Most studies report a positive relationship between health insurance coverage and measured outcomes. However, all studies with negative results that are contrary to the Committee's findings are presented and discussed in this chapter. Appendix B includes summaries of the complete set of studies that the Committee reviewed.

In the pages that follow, the Committee's findings introduce each of the five major sections listed above and also some of the subsections under chronic disease and hospital-based care. All of the Committee's specific findings are also presented together in Box 3.12 in the concluding section of this chapter. These findings are the basis for the Committee's overall conclusions in Chapter 4 .

Specific Committee Findings. Uninsured adults are less likely than adults with any kind of health coverage to receive preventive and screening services and less likely to receive these services on a timely basis. Health insurance that provides more extensive (more...)

PRIMARY PREVENTION AND SCREENING SERVICES

Finding: Uninsured adults are less likely than adults with any kind of health coverage to receive preventive and screening services and less likely to receive these services on a timely basis. Health insurance that provides more extensive coverage of preventive and screening services is likely to result in greater and more appropriate use of these services.

Finding: Health insurance may reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the receipt of preventive and screening services.

These findings have important implications for health outcomes, as can be seen in the later sections on cancer and chronic diseases. For prevention and screening services, health insurance facilitates both the receipt of services and a continuing care relationship or regular source of care, which also increases the likelihood of receiving appropriate care.

Insurance benefits are less likely to include preventive and screening services ( Box 3.2 ) than they are physician visits for acute care or diagnostic tests for symptomatic conditions. However, over time, coverage of preventive and screening services has been increasing. In 1998, about three-quarters of adults with employment-based health insurance had a benefit package that included adult physical examinations; two years later in 2000, the proportion had risen to 90 percent (KPMG, 1998; Kaiser Family Foundation/HRET, 2000). Yet even if health insurance benefit packages do not cover preventive or screening services, those with health insurance are more likely to receive these recommended services because they are more likely to have a regular source of care, and having a regular source of care is independently associated with receiving recommended services (Bush and Langer, 1998; Gordon et al., 1998; Mandelblatt et al., 1999; Zambrana et al., 1999; Cummings et al., 2000; Hsia et al., 2000; Breen et al., 2001). The effect of having health insurance is more evident for relatively costly services, such as mammograms, than for less costly services, such as a clinical breast exam (CBE) or Pap test (Zambrana et al., 1999; Cummings et al., 2000; O'Malley et al., 2001).

Screening Services. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for the following conditions in the general adult population under age 65: cervical cancer (above age 18), breast and colorectal cancer (above age 50), hypertension (more...)

According to several large population surveys conducted within the past decade, adults without health insurance are less likely to receive recommended preventive and screening services and are less likely to receive them at the frequencies recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force than are insured adults. 2 The 1992 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) documented receipt of mammography, CBE, Pap test, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, and digital rectal exam by adults under 65 (Potosky et al., 1998). Those with no health insurance had significantly lower screening rates compared to those with private coverage and compared to those with Medicaid for every service except sigmoidoscopy. The odds ratios (ORs) for receiving a screening service if uninsured compared with having private health insurance ranged from 0.27 for mammography to 0.43 for Pap test. 3

The 1998 NHIS found that, although rates of screening at appropriate intervals had increased generally over the preceding decade, they remained substantially lower for uninsured adults than for those with any kind of health insurance (Breen et al., 2001). 4 In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for age, race, education, and a regular source of care, uninsured adults were significantly less likely than those with any kind of coverage to receive a Pap test, mammography, and colorectal screening (FOBT or sigmoidoscopy) (ORs ranged from 0.37 to 0.5) (Breen et al., 2001). The study reported a strong relationship between having a regular source of care and timely receipt of these screening services in addition to the relationship between health insurance and screening.

Studies using other national samples report results consistent with those of the NHIS. A study of more than 31,000 women between ages 50 and 64 who responded to telephone surveys conducted between 1994 and 1997 about their receipt of mammograms, Pap smears, and colorectal cancer screening (either FOBT or sigmoidoscopy) found that uninsured women were significantly less likely to have received these tests than were women with private prepaid plan insurance (ORs ranging from 0.30 to 0.50) (Hsia et al., 2000). This study also found a strong relationship between having a regular source of care and receipt of screening services. Health insurance was an independently significant predictor. Another study based on several years of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) for older adults (55 through 64) found that uninsured men and women were much less likely than their insured counterparts to receive cancer or heart disease screening tests and also much less likely to have a regular source of care (Powell-Griner et al., 1999; see Table 4.1 ).

Disparities Among Population Groups

A review of the literature on the interaction of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) with health insurance, concluded that health insurance makes a positive contribution to the likelihood of receiving appropriate screening services, although racial and ethnic disparities persist independent of health insurance (Haas and Adler, 2001). Studies of the use of preventive services by particular ethnic groups, such as Hispanics and African Americans, find that health insurance is associated with increased receipt of preventive services and increased likelihood of having a regular source of care, which improves one's chances of receiving appropriate preventive services (Solis et al., 1990; Mandelblatt et al., 1999; Zambrana et al., 1999; Wagner and Guendelman, 2000; Breen et al., 2001; O'Malley et al., 2001).

Breen and colleagues (2001) modeled the expected increase in screening rates for different ethnic groups if they were to gain health insurance coverage and a regular source of care. This “what-if” model suggests that those groups for whom screening rates are particularly low (e.g., receipt of mammography by Hispanic women, colorectal screening of African-American men) would make the largest gains (an 11 percentage-point increase in mammography rates for Hispanic women [to 77 percent] and a 5 percentage-point increase in colorectal screening for African-American men [to 31 percent] (Breen et al., 2001).

Extensiveness of Insurance Benefits

The type of health insurance and the continuity of coverage have also been found to affect receipt of appropriate preventive and screening services. Faulkner and Schauffler (1997) examined receipt of physical examinations, blood pressure screening, lipid screening for detection of cardiovascular disease, Pap test, CBE, and mammography and identified a positive and statistically significant “dose– response” relationship between the extent of coverage for preventive services (e.g., whether all such services, most, some, or none were covered by health insurance). Insurance coverage for preventive care increased men's receipt of preventive services more than it did that of women. Men with no coverage for preventive services were much less likely than men with complete coverage for such services to receive them (ORs for receipt of specific services ranged from 0.36 to 0.56). Women with no preventive services coverage also received fewer of these services than did women with full coverage for them (ORs for specific services ranged from 0.5 to 0.83) (Faulkner and Schauffler, 1997).

Ayanian and colleagues (2000) used the 1998 BRFSS data set to analyze the effect of length of time without coverage on receipt of preventive and screening services for adults between ages 18 and 65. Those without coverage for a year or longer were more likely than those uninsured for less than one year to go without appropriate preventive and screening services. For every generally recommended service (mammography, CBE, Pap smear, FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, hypertension screening, and cholesterol screening), the longer-term uninsured were significantly less likely than persons with any form of health insurance to receive these services (Ayanian et al., 2000).

Negative Findings

In the Committee's review, the one study that did not find a positive effect of insurance coverage compared mammography use among clients of various sites of care in Detroit, Michigan: two health department clinics, a health maintenance organization (HMO), and a private hospital (Burack et al., 1993). This study found no significant differences among women according to their health insurance status but did find that patients with more visits annually for any service (seven or more) were more likely to receive mammography. All women in this study had access to a primary care provider and, in the case of uninsured women, to clinics with the mission of serving the uninsured. These factors may explain why uninsured women had mammography rates as high as those of women with insurance.

CANCER CARE AND OUTCOMES

Finding: Uninsured cancer patients generally have poorer outcomes and are more likely to die prematurely than persons with insurance, largely because of delayed diagnosis. This finding is supported by population-based studies of breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer and melanoma.

The studies analyzing health-related outcomes for cancer patients provide some of the most compelling evidence for the effect of health insurance status on health outcomes ( Box 3.3 ). This evidence comes from research based on area or statewide cancer registries, which provide large numbers of observations and reflect almost all cases occurring in a geographic region. Multivariable data analysis is used to determine the independent effects of health insurance, by controlling for demographic, SES, and clinical differences among study subjects.

Cancer. Cancers of all kinds have an overall incidence nationally of 400 cases per 100,000 people each year. More than 8.9 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. Cancers account for approximately 550,000 deaths each year in the United (more...)

In addition to receiving fewer cancer screening services, uninsured adults are at greater risk of late-stage, often fatal cancer. Early diagnosis frequently improves the chances of surviving cancer. Generally, in studies examining the stage at which cancer is diagnosed, those with private health insurance have the best outcomes and those with no insurance have the worst (i.e., the highest proportion of late-stage diagnoses), with intermediate outcomes for Medicaid enrollees. In some studies however, the outcomes for Medicaid enrollees are comparable to those for uninsured cancer patients (Roetzheim et al., 1999). Both because of an assumption of similarity in SES between uninsured and Medicaid patients and because of small numbers of observations in the separate categories, some studies report combined results for Medicaid and uninsured patients and compare these findings with those for privately insured patients (e.g., Lee-Feldstein et al., 2000).

In studies assessing the outcomes for adults with cancer—stage of disease at diagnosis and mortality—Medicaid enrollees often do no better, and sometimes do worse, than uninsured patients. This similarity in experience between patients enrolled in Medicaid and those without any coverage may reflect the fact that uninsured persons in poor health, once they seek care, may become enrolled in Medicaid as a result of their frequent interactions with the health care system (Davidoff et al., 2001; see Box 2.1 ). Also, Medicaid enrollees tend to have discontinuous coverage and thus may have had less regular access to screening services. Consequently, persons with Medicaid at the time of a cancer diagnosis may have been without coverage for some prior period (Carrasquillo et al., 1998; IOM, 2001a; Perkins et al., 2001). For example, one study of women under 65 with Medi-Cal coverage (California's Medicaid and indigent care program) who were diagnosed with breast cancer found that, among those who had been uninsured during the year prior to their diagnosis (18 percent of all Medi-Cal enrollees), late-stage diagnosis was much more likely than among those who had been continuously enrolled for the previous 12 months (ORs of 3.9 for those who had been uninsured and 1.4 for those continuously covered by Medi-Cal, compared with all other women ages 30–64 diagnosed with breast cancer) (Perkins et al., 2001).

With this general background on the nature of the research examining health insurance status effects, the remainder of this section discusses study results for five specific cancers.

Breast Cancer

Uninsured women and women with Medicaid are more likely to receive a breast cancer diagnosis at a late stage of disease (regional or distant) and have a 30– 50 percent greater risk of dying than women with private coverage, as shown in studies based on three different state or regional cancer registries (Ayanian et al., 1993; Roetzheim et al., 1999, 2000; Lee-Feldstein et al., 2000).

In a study using the New Jersey Cancer Registry, Ayanian and colleagues (1993) identified 4,675 women 35 to 65 years of age diagnosed with breast cancer and assessed their stage of disease at diagnosis and their survival rates 4.5 to 7 years after diagnosis. The authors found that uninsured women were significantly more likely than privately insured women to be diagnosed with regional or late-stage cancer, as were patients with Medicaid. After controlling for stage of disease at diagnosis and other factors, uninsured women had an adjusted risk of death 49 percent higher than that of privately insured women, and women with Medicaid had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who were privately insured.

Using a regional cancer registry and Census data for 1987 through 1993, Lee-Feldstein and colleagues (2000) examined the stage of disease at diagnosis, treatment, and survival experience of about 1,800 northern California women under the age of 65 diagnosed with breast cancer. They found that women who were uninsured and publicly insured (primarily Medicaid), taken together, were twice as likely as privately insured women with indemnity coverage to be diagnosed at a late stage of disease. Over a four- to ten-year follow-up, uninsured and publicly insured women had higher risks of death from both breast cancer (42 percent higher) and all causes (46 percent higher) than did privately insured women with indemnity coverage. The likelihood of receiving breast-conserving surgery did not differ between these two groups.

In a review of approximately 9,800 Florida residents diagnosed with breast cancer in 1994, Roetzheim and colleagues calculated that, after controlling for age, education, income, marital status, race, and comorbidity, women without insurance were more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease than women with private indemnity coverage (OR = 1.43) (Roetzheim et al., 1999). Women with Medicaid had an even greater likelihood of late-stage diagnosis compared with privately insured women (OR = 1.87). In a subsequent analysis of mortality using the same registry data, the authors estimated that the relative risk (RR) of dying was 31 percent higher for uninsured women and 58 percent higher for women with Medicaid over a three to four-year follow-up period (Roetzheim et al, 2000a). Further analysis suggested that stage of disease at diagnosis and, to a lesser extent, treatment modality appeared to account for the differences in survival by insurance status. Finally, uninsured women were less likely than women with private coverage to receive breast-conserving surgery when stage at diagnosis, comorbidities, and other personal characteristics were taken into account (OR = 0.70) (Roetzheim et al., 2000a).

Cervical Cancer

Uninsured women are more likely to receive a late-stage diagnosis for invasive cervical cancer than are privately insured women. Ferrante and colleagues (2000) analyzed 852 cases of invasive cervical cancer reported in the Florida tumor registry for 1994 to determine factors associated with late-stage diagnosis. In bivariate analysis, being uninsured was associated with an increased likelihood of late-stage diagnosis (OR = 1.6). In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for age, education, income, marital status, race, comorbidities, and smoking, uninsured women were more likely to present with a late-stage cancer compared to women with private indemnity coverage, although this finding was not statistically significant (OR = 1.49, confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–2.50). The outcome for Medicaid enrollees was similar to that of privately insured women in both bivariate and multivariable analysis (Ferrante et al., 2000).

Colorectal Cancer

Uninsured patients with colorectal cancer have a greater risk of dying than do patients with private indemnity insurance, even after adjusting for differences in the stage at which the cancer is diagnosed and the treatment modality. Using the Florida cancer registry for 1994, Roetzheim and colleagues (1999) analyzed the relative likelihood of late-stage diagnosis by insurance status for more than 8,000 cases of colorectal cancer. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, smoking status, and comorbidities, uninsured patients were more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage colorectal cancer than were patients with private indemnity coverage (OR = 1.67). Medicaid enrollees had a statistically insignificant greater likelihood of late-stage disease compared to patients with indemnity coverage (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.92–2.25).

A subsequent analysis of largely the same data set (9,500 cases) that adjusted for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities but not for smoking estimated the adjusted mortality risk for uninsured patients with colorectal cancer to be 64 percent greater over a three- to four-year follow-up period than that for patients covered by private indemnity plans (Roetzheim et al., 2000b). 5 Even after adjusting for stage of disease at diagnosis, the risk of death for uninsured patients was 50 percent higher than that for the privately insured, and after further adjustment for treatment modality, the risk for uninsured patients was 40 percent higher (Roetzheim et al., 2000b).

Prostate Cancer

In addition to delayed diagnosis and greater risk of death, uninsured prostate cancer patients have been found to experience a decrease in health-related quality of life after their diagnosis and during treatment, unlike publicly and privately insured patients. A study of about 8,700 cases of newly diagnosed prostate cancer reported to the Florida cancer registry in 1994 found that uninsured men were more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of the disease than were men with private indemnity insurance (OR = 1.47) (Roetzheim et al., 1999). A study of 860 men in 26 medical practices with newly diagnosed prostate cancer evaluated their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at three- to six-month intervals over a two-year period (Penson et al., 2001). Although uninsured men diagnosed with prostate cancer did not have a lower HRQOL at diagnosis, their HRQOL decreased over the course of their disease and treatment, in contrast to that of HMO and Medicare patients. The authors suggest that “patients undergoing aggressive treatment, which can itself have deleterious effects on quality of life, are exposed to further hardships when they do not have comprehensive health insurance upon which to support their care” (Penson et al., 2001, p. 357).

Uninsured patients, as well as Medicaid patients have been found to be more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage melanoma than are privately insured patients. Among 1,500 patients diagnosed with melanoma, uninsured patients were more likely to have late-stage (regional or distant) disease than those with private indemnity coverage (OR = 2.6) (Roetzheim et al., 1999). The small number of Medicaid patients with melanoma (13) included in this study also had a much greater chance of being diagnosed with late-stage cancer.

CHRONIC DISEASE CARE AND OUTCOMES

Finding: Uninsured people with chronic diseases are less likely to receive appropriate care to manage their health conditions than are those who have health insurance. For the five disease conditions that the Committee examined (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, end-stage renal disease, HIV infection, and mental illness), uninsured patients have worse clinical outcomes than insured patients.

Effective management of chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, HIV, and depression ( Box 3.4 ) includes not only periodic services and care from health care professionals but also the active involvement of patients in modifying their behavior, monitoring their condition, and participating in treatment regimens (Wagner et al., 1996; Davis et al., 2000). Identifying chronic conditions early and providing appropriate health care on an ongoing and coordinated basis are health care system goals that have been developed over several decades and have been continuously refined as evidence for cost-effective interventions and practices has accumulated. Maintaining an ongoing relationship with a specific provider who keeps records, manages care, and is available for consultation between visits is a key to high-quality health care, particularly for those with chronic illnesses (O'Connor et al., 1998; IOM, 2001b).

Chronic Conditions. Chronic conditions are the leading causes of death, disability, and illness in the United States, accounting for one-third of the potential life years lost before age 65 (CDC, 2000a). Almost 100 million Americans have chronic conditions. (more...)

For persons with a chronic illness, health insurance may be most important in that it enhances the opportunities to acquire a regular source of care. If someone has coverage through a private or public managed care plan, a relationship with a primary care provider may be built into the insurance. Indemnity or fee-for-service (FFS) insurance coverage also improves the chances of having a regular source of care because having the resources to pay for services is often a prerequi-site to being seen in a medical practice. Uninsured adults are much less likely to have a regular source of care and are more likely to identify an emergency department as their regular source of care than are adults with any form of coverage (Weinick et al., 1997; Cunningham and Whitmore, 1998; Zuvekas and Weinick, 1999; Haley and Zuckerman, 2000). Loss of coverage also interrupts patterns of use of health care and results in delays in seeking needed care (Burstin et al., 1998; Kasper et al., 2000; Hoffman et al., 2001). For uninsured adults under age 65, 19 percent with heart disease and 14 percent with hypertension lack a usual source of care, compared to 8 and 4 percent, respectively, of their insured counterparts (Fish-Parcham, 2001). For uninsured patients without a regular source of care or those who identify an emergency department as their usual source, obtaining care that is consistent with recognized standards for effective disease management is a daunting challenge.

Providers with a commitment to serving uninsured clients, such as local public health and hospital clinics and federally funded community health centers, have sometimes instituted special interventions and programs for the chronically ill to promote continuity of care and disease management. These innovations are critically important to the identified, chronically ill patients who routinely receive care at such clinics and centers. The efforts of these providers, however, are limited in scale by funding and service capacity relative to the high need for care within their service areas (Baker et al., 1998; Chin et al., 2000; Piette, 2000; Philis-Tsimikas and Walker, 2001). As demonstrated in the following review of studies examining the care and outcomes for patients with specific chronic conditions, those who do not have health insurance coverage of any kind fare measurably worse than their insured counterparts.

Cardiovascular Disease

Finding: Uninsured adults with hypertension or high cholesterol have diminished access to care, are less likely to be screened, are less likely to take prescription medication if diagnosed, and experience worse health outcomes.

Across the spectrum of services and the course of development of cardiovascular disease ( Box 3.5 ), uninsured adults receive fewer services and experience worse health. They are less likely to receive screening for hypertension and high cholesterol and to have frequent monitoring of blood pressure once they develop hypertension. Uninsured adults are less likely to stay on drug therapy for hypertension both because they lack a regular provider and because they do not have insurance coverage. Loss of insurance coverage has been demonstrated to disrupt therapeutic relationships and worsen control of blood pressure.

Cardiovascular Disease. “Cardiovascular disease” encompasses a variety of diseases and conditions that affect the heart and blood vessels, including hypertension (high blood pressure), heart disease, and stroke. One-quarter of all Americans (more...)

Uninsured adults are less likely to receive routine screening services for cardiovascular disease. A nationwide household survey in 1997 found that adults who had been without health insurance for one year or longer were less likely than insured adults to have received recommended hypertension screening within the previous two years (80 percent compared with 94 percent) or cholesterol screening (60 percent compared with 82 percent) (Ayanian et al., 2000). Adults who were uninsured for less than one year received these screening services at rates intermediate between those for long-term uninsured and insured adults.

Health insurance coverage is associated with better blood pressure control for lower-income persons with hypertension, according to two studies, one prospective and experimental and the other a longitudinal analysis of a cohort of patients that either lost or maintained Medicaid coverage. The prospective study, the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, found that for patients with diagnosed hypertension, patients in the plan without any cost sharing had significantly lower blood pressure than those in health plans with any form of cost sharing (an overall difference of 1.9 mm Hg) (Keeler et al., 1985). A much greater effect of cost sharing on average blood pressure was found for low-income patients than for high-income patients (3.5 mm Hg. versus 1.1 mm Hg.). Patients in the plan without cost sharing also had greater compliance with drug and behavioral therapies. These differences were attributed to more frequent contact with health providers in the free care plan (Keeler et al., 1985). 6

In the longitudinal analysis, Lurie and colleagues (1984, 1986) followed a cohort of patients at a university ambulatory care clinic for one year after some lost their Medi-Cal coverage consequent to a state policy change. At six months after loss of coverage and again at one year, hypertensive patients who lost coverage had significantly worse blood pressure than did those who remained covered by MediCal, with an average increase in diastolic blood pressure of 6 mm Hg compared with a decrease in the insured control group of 3 mm Hg after a full year (Lurie et al., 1984, 1986). The percentage of patients with diastolic blood pressure greater than 100 mm Hg increased in the group that lost coverage from 3 percent at baseline to 31 percent at six months, and then declined to 19 percent at one year, while the proportion with diastolic blood pressure > 100 mm Hg in the continuously covered control group did not change significantly over the year (Lurie et al., 1986).

Deficits in the care of uninsured persons with hypertension place them at risk of complications and deterioration in their condition. The 1987 National Medical Expenditures Survey afforded an in-depth examination of the use of antihypertensive medications by health insurance status. Uninsured persons younger than 65 who had hypertension were less likely than either those with private insurance or Medicaid to have any antihypertensive medication therapy (ORs = 0.62 and 0.44, respectively) (Huttin et al., 2000). 7 An analysis of the third round of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), with data on 40,000 respondents for the period 1988–1994, found that 22 percent of uninsured adults under age 65 with diagnosed hypertension had gone for more than one year without a blood pressure check, compared to 10 percent of insured adults with hypertension (Fish-Parcham, 2001). While 75 percent of insured adults under 65 who had ever been diagnosed with high blood pressure and been told to take medication for it were in fact taking blood pressure medication, only 58 percent of their uninsured counterparts who had been advised to take medication were doing so. Among those adults under 65 who had been advised to take cholesterol-lowering medication, 43 percent of those without insurance failed to take such medication, compared to 29 percent among those with health insurance who did not comply with this advice (Fish-Parcham, 2001).

A study by Shea and colleagues (1992a, 1992b) of patients presenting to two New York hospital emergency departments between 1989 and 1991 found that uninsured patients were more likely to have severe, uncontrolled hypertension than were sociodemographically similar patients with any health insurance (OR = 2.2), while patients without a regular source of care had an even greater risk of severe and uncontrolled disease (OR = 4.4). When insurance status, having a regular source of care, and complying with a therapeutic regimen were all included in the analysis, the odds ratio for being uninsured was no longer statistically significant (OR = 1.9, CI: 0.8–4.6). This result is not surprising, given the strong association between having health insurance and having a regular source of care.

Finding: Uninsured persons with diabetes are less likely to receive recommended services. Lacking health insurance for longer periods increases the risk of inadequate care for this condition and can lead to uncontrolled blood sugar levels, which, over time, put diabetics at risk for additional chronic disease and disability.

Despite the demanding and costly care regimen that persons with diabetes face, adults with diabetes are almost as likely to lack health insurance as those without this disease. Of diabetic adults under age 65, 12 percent are uninsured compared with 15 percent of the comparable general population (Harris, 1999). Persons with diabetes who are uninsured are less likely to receive the professionally recommended standard of care than are those who have health insurance ( Box 3.6 ). One result of not receiving appropriate care may be uncontrolled blood sugar levels, which puts diabetics at increased risk of hospitalization for either hyper- or hypoglycemia, in addition to increasing the likelihood of comorbidities and disabilities (Palta et al., 1997).

Diabetes. Diabetes mellitus is a prevalent chronic disease that has been increasing in the U.S. population by 5–6 percent each year during the past decade. Approximately 800,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. More than 16 million Americans (more...)

Based on a 1994 survey, among adults diagnosed with diabetes who did not use insulin, those without health insurance were less likely than those with any kind of coverage to self-monitor blood glucose (OR = 0.5) or, within the past year, to have had their feet examined (OR = 0.4), or a dilated eye exam (OR = 0.5) (Beckles et al., 1998). 8 Persons with diabetes who used insulin and were uninsured were also less likely than those with health insurance to have had a foot examination (OR = 0.25) or a dilated eye examination (OR = 0.34) (Beckles et al., 1998).

A later analysis, using 1998 data from the same annual survey, found that 25 percent of adults younger than 65 who had diabetes and were uninsured for a year or more had not had a routine checkup within the past two years, compared with 7 percent of diabetics who were uninsured for less than a year and 5 percent of diabetics with health insurance (Ayanian et al., 2000). Adjusting results for the demographic characteristics of the national population, persons with diabetes who were uninsured for a year or longer were significantly less likely to have had a foot examination, a dilated eye examination, a cholesterol measurement, or a flu shot than were insured diabetics ( Figure 3.1 ) (Ayanian et al., 2000).

Diabetes management among insured and uninsured adults, ages 18–64. NOTE: Proportions adjusted to demographic characteristics of study cohort.

End-Stage Renal Disease

Finding: Uninsured patients with end-stage renal disease begin dialysis at a later stage of disease than do insured patients and have poorer clinical measures of their condition at the time they begin dialysis.

Insurance status affects the timing and quality of care ( Box 3.7 ) and may contribute to the longevity of dialysis patients, which is substantially lower than that of others of the same age (Obrador et al., 1999). The clinical goals for patients with kidney disease are to slow the progression of renal failure, manage complications, and prevent or manage comorbidities effectively. Although professional consensus about when dialysis should begin is not complete, there is agreement that the point in the progression of the disease at which dialysis begins affects patient outcomes (Kausz et al., 2000).

End-Stage Renal Disease. In 2000, 90,000 people in the United States developed end-stage renal disease (kidney failure). Dialysis and transplantation are the two standard treatments. Approximately 300,000 patients are on dialysis and 80,000 have received (more...)

The Medicare ESRD program maintains extensive clinical and sociodemographic information on all dialysis patients, including information on patient health insurance status before beginning dialysis. This database provides opportunities to analyze the health care experience of all Americans who eventually develop ESRD, rather than just a sample of the population. One study that used this database analyzed the characteristics of 155,000 chronic dialysis patients who entered dialysis over a 27-month period between 1995 and 1997 (Obrador et al., 1999). This study found that uninsured patients were sicker at initiation of dialysis and less likely to have received erythropoietin (EPO) therapy than patients with any kind of insurance pre-ESRD. Uninsured patients also had an increased likelihood of hypoalbuminemia than those who had previously been privately insured (OR = 1.37) and a greater likelihood of low hematocrit (<28 percent) 9 than the privately insured (OR = 1.34), after controlling for patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including comorbidities. Uninsured patients were also less likely than privately insured patients to have received EPO prior to dialysis (OR = 0.49) (Obrador et al., 1999). A second study based on the same data set found that patients without insurance were more likely to begin dialysis late 10 than were patients with any form of insurance (OR = 1.55) (Kausz et al., 2000).

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection

Finding: Uninsured adults with HIV infection are less likely to receive highly effective medications that have been shown to improve survival.

A strong body of research about HIV infection confirms the findings of the general literature on insurance status and access to and use of services: uninsured adults diagnosed with HIV face greater delays in care than those with health insurance. They are less likely to receive regular care and drug therapy and are more likely to go without needed care than patients with any kind of coverage (Cunningham et al., 1995, 1999; Katz et al., 1995; Shapiro et al., 1999).

BOX 3.8 HIV Infection

As of the beginning of 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that about 800,000 to 900,000 people were living with HIV infection or AIDS in the United States (CDC, 2001a).
In each of the years 1997, 1998, and 1999, between 40,000 and 50,000 new cases of AIDS were reported.
By 1996, combination antiretroviral therapy including protease inhibitors and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, referred to as highly active antiretroviral therapies were becoming established as the treatment of choice for HIV infection (Carpenter et al., 1996). Largely as a result of these therapies, deaths among persons with AIDS dropped for the first time between 1996 and 1997 (by 42 percent) and declined 8 percent between 1998 and 1999 (CDC, 2001a).
About half of all adults with HIV infection see a provider at least once every six months (Bozzette et al., 1998).
Studies of HIV infection and health insurance examine a variety of health-related outcomes: general measures of access and utilization such as routine care visits and emergency department visits without hospitalization, delays between diagnosis and initiation of therapy, use of recommended drug therapies, and clinical outcomes such as CD4 lymphocyte counts.

A number of analyses have been based on national, longitudinal surveys evaluating access to care for persons with HIV infection (Niemcryk et al., 1998; Joyce et al., 1999; Shapiro et al., 1999; Andersen et al., 2000; Cunningham et al., 1999, 2000; Turner et al., 2000, Goldman et al., 2001). 11 These surveys allow assessment of the relationship between health insurance and access to care, use of services, receipt and timeliness of recommended therapies, and mortality as related to health insurance status. The research based on one of these surveys, the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study (HCSUS), represents some of the most carefully designed studies of access to care and receipt of recommended therapies for specific conditions. In addition, there are several smaller, local studies based on hospital records or patient surveys (Katz et al., 1992, 1995; Bennett et al., 1995; Cunningham et al., 1995, 1996; Palacio et al, 1999; Sorvillo et al., 1999).

Access to a Regular Source of Care

Several studies suggest that the positive effects of health insurance for HIV-infected adults are achieved through the mechanism of having a regular source of care. Sorvillo and colleagues (1999) surveyed 339 HIV-positive adults in Los Angeles county in 1996–1997, and found that two-thirds of insured patients used protease inhibitors (PIs), while just half of uninsured patients were using them. When the site of care (private clinic, HMO, or public clinic) was included in a multivariable analysis, insurance status was no longer significantly related to receipt of PIs because of the concentration of uninsured patients in public clinics, which were less likely to prescribe PIs, especially at the beginning of the study period (Sorvillo et al., 1999).

Uninsured patients appear to face greater delays in beginning care following a diagnosis of HIV infection. In bivariate analysis of HCSUS data, uninsured patients were significantly more likely to have their first office visit more than three months after diagnosis with HIV than were privately insured patients (37 percent of uninsured patients had delays compared to 25 percent of privately insured patients in 1993; by 1995, those patients with delays decreased to 22 percent of uninsured patients and 14 percent of privately insured) (Turner et al., 2000). However, in a multivariable analysis, being uninsured was no longer a significant predictor of late initiation, while not having a regular source of care remained an important predictor (Turner et al., 2000).

Findings regarding emergency department (ED) use and hospitalization have changed over time. The most recent analysis, based on HCSUS, finds greater use of EDs, without hospitalization, and hospitalization more frequently than every six months for uninsured HIV patients (Shapiro et al., 1999), suggesting poorer access to other kinds of outpatient care. Studies based on earlier data report that uninsured patients had lower use of emergency rooms and hospitalization than either publicly or privately insured patients (Mor et al., 1992; Fleishman and Mor, 1993; Niemcryk et al., 1998; Joyce et al., 1999), suggesting poorer access even at high levels of acuity.

Receipt of Drug Therapies

Adults with HIV infection are more likely to receive effective drug therapies and to receive them earlier in the course of disease if they have health insurance. In an HCSUS analysis with extensive adjustments for sociodemographic and clinical factors, those without health insurance were much less likely to have ever received antiretroviral therapy (OR = 0.35) (Shapiro et al., 1999). Waiting times from diagnosis to the start of therapy with either PIs or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, were 9.4 months for the privately insured, 12.4 months for Medicaid enrollees, and 13.9 months for uninsured patients (Shapiro et al., 2000).

Overall, many HIV-infected patients abandon recommended drug therapy over time. However, uninsured patients are more likely to stop drug therapy than are those with coverage. At the second follow-up interview of HCSUS respondents in 1997–1998, only half (53 percent) of all HIV-positive patients in care were receiving the recommended combination drug therapy, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), although 71 percent had received HAART at some time in their treatment history (Cunningham et al., 2000). Uninsured patients were significantly less likely than privately insured patients with indemnity coverage (OR = 0.71) to be receiving HAART at the time of follow-up, indicating less appropriate care for uninsured patients with this disease (Cunningham et al., 2000).

Clinical Outcomes and Mortality

Studies of clinical outcomes for HIV patients present an evolving picture of both the efficacy of treatments and the impact of health insurance. A relatively early study of patients hospitalized with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (1987– 1990) found that uninsured patients had a higher in-hospital mortality rate than did those with private insurance (OR = 1.49), and Medicaid patients had an even higher in-hospital mortality, relative to private patients (OR = 2.1) (Bennett et al., 1995). Another early and small study (96 patients in one university clinic) found that patients with private insurance had significantly lower CD4 lymphocyte counts (a worse outcome) than either uninsured or Medicaid patients (who had the highest counts), when first treated at the clinic (Katz et al., 1992). The authors hypothesize that some relatively healthy patients with private health insurance coverage may have been reluctant to use it and thus reported their status as uninsured.

More recently, an analysis based on HCSUS examined the mortality experience of insured and uninsured HIV-infected adults and found that having health insurance of any kind reduced the risk of dying within six months of being surveyed between 71 and 85 percent, when severity of illness (measured by CD4 lymphocyte count) and sociodemographic characteristics were controlled (Goldman et al., 2001). The greater reduction in mortality risk (85 percent) was estimated for a surviving subset (2,466 participants) of the original 1996 sample of 2,864 participants a year later, when HAART was in wider use and was reducing mortality among HIV patients who used it. This impact of health insurance on mortality for HIV-infected adults within a short follow-up period, six months, demonstrates how sensitive health outcomes can be to coverage when it facilitates receipt of effective therapy.

Mental Illness

Finding: Health insurance that covers any mental health treatment is associated with the receipt of mental health care and with care consistent with clinical practice guidelines from both general medical and specialty mental health providers.

Mental disorders or illnesses are health conditions that are characterized by changes in thinking, mood, or behavior. They are often chronic conditions but may also occur as single or infrequent episodes over a lifetime. Mental illnesses represent a major source of disability in the United States that is often underestimated by the public and health care professionals alike (USDHHS, 2000). In industrialized economies, mental illness is equivalent to heart disease and cancer in terms of its impact on disability (Murray and Lopez, 1996).

Despite the differential treatment of mental health services in both public and private insurance plans, the studies reviewed by the Committee document a positive association between health insurance coverage and more appropriate care for mental illnesses ( Box 3.9 ). Health insurance plans and programs historically have excluded services related to treatment for mental illness, strictly limited coverage of mental health services, and administered mental health benefits separately from other kinds of medical care. Thus, studies that attempt to measure the effects of health insurance status on health care and outcomes for mental illnesses may be affected by the diversity of health insurance benefits and of cost sharing and administrative requirements for these services and conditions. Variability in benefits among health insurance plans and types of insurance complicates the interpretation of all observational studies of health insurance effects but poses a particular problem vis–a–vis mental health. (See the discussion of measurement bias in Chapter 2 .)

Mental Illness. About 38 million people ages 18 and older are estimated to have a single mental disorder of any severity or both a mental and an addictive disorder in a given year (Narrow et al., 2002). The most common conditions fall into the broad categories (more...)

The use of mental health services in both the general and specialty mental health sectors by adults is positively associated with health insurance coverage (Cooper-Patrick et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2000; Young et al., 2001). Between 1987 and 1997, the overall rate of treatment for depression among American adults under age 65 tripled from 1 person per 100 to 3.2 persons per 100, yet the treatment rate among those without health insurance was half that of the overall population rate in 1997, 1.5 persons treated per 100 population (Olfson et al., 2002). A longitudinal, community-based study in Baltimore, Maryland, between 1981 and 1996 documented increased use of mental health services over this period (Cooper-Patrick et al., 1999). Analyzing the experience of African Americans and whites separately, the authors found that for African Americans specifically, this increase was achieved predominantly with services provided in the general medical sector. For both African Americans and whites, being uninsured reduced the likelihood of receiving any mental health services.

At the same time, insurance coverage for adults with mental illness is less stable than average for those without this condition (Sturm and Wells, 2000; Rabinowitz et al., 2001). In a recent (1998) follow-up survey of participants in the Community Tracking Study, those who reported having symptoms of mental disorders were found to be more likely to lose coverage within a year following their diagnosis than those without a mental disorder (Sturm and Wells, 2000). As discussed below, those with severe mental illness also experience transitions in insurance coverage, frequently ending up with public program coverage (Rabinowitz et al., 2001).

The findings reported below are grouped into those for depression and anxiety disorders and those for severe mental illnesses. Depression and anxiety disorders are often treatable in the general medical sector and primarily require outpatient services. Severe mental illnesses (schizophrenia, other psychoses, and bipolar depression) require the attention of specialty mental health professionals and may require inpatient and other forms of more extensive services (e.g., partial or day hospitalization). Public health insurance, both Medicare and Medicaid, is an important source of coverage for specialty mental health services for those disabled by severe mental illness (SMI).

Depression and Anxiety Disorders

Receipt of appropriate (guideline-concordant) care for depression is associated with improved functional outcomes at two years (Sturm and Wells, 1995). Health insurance coverage specifically for mental health services is associated with an increased likelihood of receiving such care. Two studies support this claim.

The first, a nationally representative study of three prevalent disorders— depression, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder—investigated the contribution of insurance coverage and health care utilization to guideline-con-cordant treatment (Wang et al., 2000). Mental health diagnoses were determined in a structured interview using a well-defined operational definition of mental health care over the previous 12 months. Treatment criteria included the combination of a prescription medication for depression or anxiety from a general medical doctor or a psychiatrist in addition to at least four visits to the same type of provider or, where medication was not prescribed, a minimum of eight visits to either a psychiatrist or a mental health specialist (Wang et al., 2000). A multivariable analysis estimated the effects of sociodemographic characteristics, various measures of clinical status including a measure of mental illness severity, insurance coverage for mental health visits, number and reasons for use of general medical services, other medications, and alternative therapies. Patients diagnosed with depression, panic disorder, or a generalized anxiety disorder who had no health insurance coverage for mental health visits were less likely to receive any mental health services (OR = 0.43). They were also less likely to receive guideline-concordant care in the general medical sector (OR = 0.24) or in the mental health treatment sector (OR = 0.36) (Wang et al., 2000).

A second study of adults with a probable 12-month diagnosis of depression or anxiety examined factors associated with receipt of appropriate care (psychiatric medication and counseling) (Young et al, 2001): 1,636 respondents were identified as having one or more depressive or anxiety disorders based on a structured diagnostic interview. Respondents with a depressive or anxiety disorder who had more education and a greater number of medical disorders were more likely to have had contact with providers than those with less education and fewer medical conditions. Those with no health insurance were less likely to have had any provider contact than were those with any form of health insurance (OR = 0.46). However, for those receiving any care, insurance status was not related to receipt of appropriate care (Young et al., 2001). These findings suggest that health insurance alone may not ensure appropriate mental health care.

Severe Mental Illness

Uninsured adults with severe mental illnesses are less likely to receive appropriate care than are those with coverage and may experience delays in receiving services until they gain public insurance.

In a study using the same sample and survey as that used by Young and colleagues, McAlpine and Mechanic (2001) investigated the association of current insurance coverage and specialty mental health utilization within the past 12 months (i.e., visits to a psychiatrist or psychologist, hospital admission, or emergency room visit for an emotional or substance use problem) for SMI. Two diagnostic indices, including a global measure of mental health, measured the need for care. Potential confounding factors such as physical symptoms and degree of dangerousness and disruptiveness were also measured. One in five respondents identified with an SMI was uninsured. Among persons with SMI, those without health insurance were far less likely to use specialty mental health services than those with Medicare or Medicaid (OR = 0.17) (McAlpine and Mechanic, 2000).

Individuals with SMIs typically lack insurance at the time of hospitalization (Rabinowitz et al., 2001). An important question regarding insurance coverage in this patient population is whether a first hospitalization for SMI results in a change in insurance status and whether such a change influences subsequent mental health care. Rabinowitz and colleagues followed the progress of 443 individuals enrolled in a county mental health project to determine whether changes in coverage followed first admission for psychosis and the association between type of insurance coverage and future care. Overall, the proportion of patients with no insurance 24 months after hospitalization decreased from 42 percent at baseline to 21 percent as a result of enrollment in public insurance programs. Men were more likely to remain uninsured than were women. The total number of days of care received (inpatient, outpatient, day hospital) was significantly higher for the publicly insured group compared to both those with private insurance and those with no insurance during the first 6 months after initial hospitalization and over the entire 24-month period. Uninsured patients with SMI were much less likely to receive outpatient care after hospitalization than patients with Medicaid or Medicare (OR = 0.24) and also less likely than those with private health insurance to receive outpatient care subsequent to hospitalization (OR = 0.56) (Rabinowitz et al., 2001).

An earlier study using the same data also reported an association between health insurance and receipt of mental health services prior to a first admission for psychotic disorder (Rabinowitz et al., 1998). Forty-four percent of patients (n = 525) were uninsured at first admission. Uninsured patients were less likely than those with private insurance to have had

any mental health treatment prior to admission (OR = 0.53),
specific psychotherapeutic contact (OR = 0.43),
voluntary admission (OR = 0.56),
less than three months between onset of psychosis and admission (OR = 0.56)

and were less likely to have been admitted to a community (versus public) hospital (OR = 0.14) (Rabinowitz et al., 1998). Uninsured patients were also less likely than those with either Medicaid or Medicare to have received antipsychotic medication (OR = 0.4), had voluntary admission (OR = 0.53), and be admitted to a community hospital (OR = 0.33).

HOSPITAL-BASED CARE

Finding: Uninsured patients who are hospitalized for a range of conditions experience higher rates of death in the hospital, receive fewer services, and are more likely to experience an adverse medical event due to negligence than are insured patients.

Americans assume and expect that hospital-based care for serious and emergency conditions is available to everyone, regardless of health insurance coverage, while recognizing that uninsured patients may be limited to treatment at public or otherwise designated “safety-net” hospitals (IOM, 2001a). Professional and institutional standards of practice grounded in ethics, law, and licensure dictate that the care received by all patients, regardless of financial or insurance status, be of equal and high quality. Yet studies of hospital-based care conducted over the past two decades have documented differences in the services received by insured and uninsured patients, differences in the quality of their care (sometimes but not always related to the site of care), and differences in patient outcomes such as in-hospital mortality rates. 12

One of the most comprehensive of these studies of hospitalization analyzed more than 592,000 hospital discharge abstracts in 1987 (Hadley et al., 1991). The authors report that for adults ages 18–65, uninsured hospital inpatients had a significantly higher risk of dying in the hospital than their privately insured counterparts in 8 of 12 age–sex–race-specific population cohorts (relative risks ranged from 1.1 for black women ages 50–64 to 3.2 for black men ages 35–49). This analysis adjusted for patient condition on admission to the hospital. Uninsured patients were also less likely to receive endoscopic procedures in the hospital than privately insured patients, and when they did receive these diagnostic services, the resultant pathology reports were more likely to be abnormal (OR = 1.56) (Hadley et al., 1991).

This study by Hadley and colleagues also examined the relative resource use (length of stay) of uninsured hospital patients compared to privately insured patients and found that for conditions that afford high discretion in treatment decisions (e.g., tonsillitis, bronchitis, hernia), uninsured patients had significantly shorter lengths of stay (Hadley et al., 1991). However, for diagnoses that afford little discretion in treatment (e.g., gastrointestinal hemorrhage, congestive heart failure), lengths of stay were not significantly different for uninsured and privately insured patients, although uninsured patients tended to have shorter stays. This underscores the possibility that when uninsured patients are found to receive fewer services than insured patients, it may be the result of overtreatment of patients with insurance, rather than undertreatment of those without coverage.

In addition to differences in the resources devoted to the care of insured and uninsured patients, the quality of the care provided may differ. One study of more than 30,000 hospital medical records in 51 hospitals in New York State for 1984 found that the proportion of adverse medical events due to negligence was substantially greater among patients without health insurance than among privately insured patients (OR = 2.35), while the experience of Medicaid patients did not differ significantly from that of the privately insured population (Burstin et al., 1992). This increased risk for uninsured patients was attributable only in part to receiving care more frequently in emergency departments, which generally were found to have higher rates of adverse events.

Because most studies of hospital-based care and outcomes are observational, including only those who literally “show up” for care, and because appropriateness criteria are not available for many conditions, some of the strongest research on health insurance effects involves studies of specific conditions. Studies of certain conditions are less likely to be compromised by nonrandom or unrepresentative samples (selection bias) simply because a larger proportion of the population of interest—namely, acutely ill adults—is likely to be captured in the hospital-based study population. Furthermore, condition-specific studies are more likely to include evidence-based criteria for judging the appropriateness of care.

The following two sections consider research that has examined the effect of health insurance on care and outcomes for patients with (1) emergency conditions and traumatic injuries and (2) cardiovascular disease. For both categories, selection bias among those reaching treatment is minimized, and appropriateness guidelines and outcomes criteria (e.g., mortality) are definitive. Traumatic injuries (specifically automobile accidents), for example, reduce some of the unmeasured differences in propensity to seek care between insured and uninsured patients (Doyle, 2001). Another area of hospital-based services for which there is sufficient professional consensus about appropriate treatment is the use of angiography and revascularization procedures following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or heart attack, at least for a subset of patients with severe coronary artery disease. 13

Emergency and Trauma Care

Finding: Uninsured persons with traumatic injuries are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive fewer services when admitted, and are more likely to die than insured trauma victims.

Two studies based on large, statewide data sets have found substantial and significant differences in the risk of dying for insured and uninsured trauma patients ( Box 3.10 ) who were admitted to hospitals as emergencies. Doyle (2001) analyzed more than 10,000 police reports of auto accidents linked to hospital records maintained by Wisconsin over 1992–1997 to ascertain the care received and the mortality of insured and uninsured crash victims. After controlling for personal, crash, and hospital characteristics, it was found that uninsured accident victims received 20 percent less care, as measured by hospital charges and length of stay, and had a 37 percent higher mortality rate than did privately insured accident victims (5.2 percent versus 3.8 percent, respectively) (Doyle, 2001). The authors conclude that these differences are attributable to provider response to insurance status because extensive patient characteristics were accounted for in the analysis and because unmeasured patient characteristics that might influence these outcomes were unlikely to be related to patients' health insurance status.

Trauma. Throughout the United States in 1997, approximately 34.4 million episodes of injury and poisoning received medical attention and 40.9 million injuries and poisonings were reported as a result (Warner et al., 2000). For injury-related deaths, 43 (more...)

Haas and Goldman (1994) evaluated the treatment experience and mortality of more than 15,000 insured and uninsured trauma patients admitted to hospitals on an emergency basis in Massachusetts in 1990. Adjusting the data for injury severity and comorbidities as well as for age, sex, and race, the authors found that uninsured trauma patients received less care and had higher in-hospital mortality than did patients with private insurance or Medicaid. Uninsured patients were just as likely to receive care in an intensive care unit (ICU) as privately insured trauma patients but were less likely to undergo an operative procedure (OR = 0.68) or to receive physical therapy (OR = 0.61). Uninsured patients were much more likely than privately insured patients to die in the hospital (OR = 2.15) (Haas and Goldman, 1994). The differences in services and mortality experience between Medicaid and privately insured patients were small and were not statistically significant.

Other studies of emergency department use and admissions and care for traumatic injuries shed some light on patient behavior and institutional responses related to health insurance status. Both lacking health insurance and not having a regular source of care have been found in surveys of patients who eventually do arrive at an ED to be related to delays in seeking care (Ell et al., 1994; Rucker et al., 2001). Braveman and colleagues (1994) examined hospital discharge records of more than 91,000 adults diagnosed with acute appendicitis in California hospitals between 1984 and 1989. They found that the risk of a ruptured appendix was 50 percent higher for both uninsured and Medicaid patients, than for privately insured patients in prepaid plans, in an analysis that controlled for age, sex, race, psychiatric diagnoses, diabetes, and hospital characteristics. Admission to a public hospital also was associated with rupture, as were diagnoses of psychiatric illness or diabetes (Braveman et al., 1994). The authors hypothesized that both Medicaid and uninsured patients incurred avoidable delays before seeking care for appendicitis.

Three separate studies that analyzed Medicaid and uninsured trauma patients together report mixed findings regarding patient outcomes and hospital care. Rhee and colleagues (1997) examined patient information for more than 2,800 persons hospitalized at a Level 1 trauma center after a motor vehicle crash in Seattle, Washington, between 1990 and 1993. 14 This study found no significant differences in mortality, hospital charges, or length of stay (LOS) between privately insured patients and those who either had Medicaid coverage or were uninsured, except for patients who ultimately were transferred to a long-term care or rehabilitation facility. In the case of patients awaiting transfer, those with Medicaid or no insurance had an adjusted LOS that was 11 percent longer than privately insured patients (Rhee et al., 1997). The authors speculate that the similarity in treatment and outcomes for patients of different insurance status could be due to the mission of the public, Level 1 trauma center to which they were admitted, which was to serve the entire state population needing that level of care and act as a provider of last resort for uninsured patients. Because this study did not differentiate results for Medicaid and uninsured patients, it provides less information about outcomes for uninsured patients than studies that analyze these groups separately.

Uninsured trauma patients may also be treated differently from insured patients in interhospital transfer decisions. Using Washington State trauma registry information, Nathens and colleagues (2001) identified 2,008 trauma patients between 16 and 64 years of age injured in King County (Seattle) and originally transported to one of seven Level 3 or 4 trauma centers in the county between 1995 and 1999. Adjusting for age, sex, type of injury, and injury severity, they looked at independent predictors of transfer to the Level 1 trauma center in the county—a public, safety-net hospital, and estimated that patients who either had Medicaid or were uninsured were more than twice as likely to be transferred to the higher level facility than were privately insured patients (OR = 2.4) and that many of these transferred patients had low injury severity scores (ISS). 15 The authors conclude that this “payer-based triage” may undermine the effectiveness of Level 1 trauma centers in serving the more critically injured patients by diverting resources to patients who could have been treated appropriately in their original hospital (Nathens et al., 2001).

Finally, the differences found between uninsured and insured patients in highly discretionary cases may reflect overtreatment of those with health insurance rather than undertreatment of uninsured patients. Svenson and Spurlock (2001) evaluated the experience of more than 8,500 patients with head injuries treated in four Kentucky hospitals between 1995 and 1997. For those with less severe head injuries (lacerations, contusion, or concussion), uninsured patients were substantially less likely than privately insured patients to be admitted to the hospital (OR = 0.14 for laceration, 0.38 for contusion or concussion). The likelihood of admission for Medicaid was also substantially lower than for privately insured patients, but not as low as for uninsured patients (ORs = 0.33 and 0.45, respectively). Little difference was found in hospital admissions for more severe head injuries among patients with different insurance status. The authors were unable to determine whether the differences in admissions for less severe head trauma are due to undertreatment of uninsured and Medicaid patients or overtreatment of privately insured patients (Svenson and Spurlock, 2001).

Finding: Uninsured patients with acute cardiovascular disease are less likely to be admitted to a hospital that performs angiography or revascularization procedures, are less likely to receive these diagnostic and treatment procedures, and are more likely to die in the short term.

Finding: Health insurance reduces the disparity in receipt of these services by members of racial and ethnic minority groups.

Health insurance is positively associated with receipt of hospital-based treatments for cardiovascular disease (specifically, coronary artery disease) and with lower patient mortality ( Box 3.11 ). One meta-analysis has credited medical advances in the treatment of cardiovascular disease, including hospital-based care following AMI, with roughly half of the reduction in post-AMI mortality between 1975 and 1995 (with a range of 20 to 85 percent) (Cutler et al., 1998). Some of the most recent studies have used appropriateness criteria to identify when a given procedure is considered necessary according to professional consensus, reducing the chances that differences in rates between uninsured and insured patients are a result of overtreatment of the insured population (i.e., Sada et al.,1998; Leape et al., 1999).

In 2001, an estimated 1.1 million Americans suffered a diagnosed heart attack. An estimated 7.3 million Americans have a history of AMI (American Heart Association, 2001). During 1998, coronary heart disease accounted for about 460,000 deaths; AMI was (more...)

Five studies that examined the mortality experience of patients hospitalized for cardiovascular disease (including AMI, angina, and chest pain) reported higher in-hospital or 30-day posthospitalization mortality for uninsured patients (Young and Cohen, 1991; Blustein et al., 1995; Kreindel et al., 1997; Sada et al., 1998; Canto et al., 2000).

The first study, of about 5,000 patients admitted on an emergency basis for AMI in 1987, found that uninsured patients were more likely to die within 30 days of admission than privately insured patients (OR = 1.5) (Young and Cohen, 1991). In a second study, Blustein and colleagues (1995) examined records for 5,800 patients under 65 who were admitted to California hospitals for AMI in 1991 and found that uninsured patients were more likely to die in the hospital than privately insured patients (OR = 1.9) and still had an increased risk of dying after adjusting for receipt of a revascularization procedure (OR = 1.7). Finally, a study in a single Massachusetts community of 3,700 patients hospitalized for AMI between 1986 and 1993 reported that uninsured patients had a slight, but statistically insignificant greater in-hospital mortality than privately insured patients (OR = 1.2, CI: 0.6–2.4) (Kreindel et al., 1997).

Two larger studies that used more recent data (1994–1996) from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction reported higher in-hospital mortality for uninsured than for privately insured patients. In the first, Sada and colleagues (1998) reviewed records for 17,600 patients under age 65 who were admitted to hospital for AMI and found that uninsured patients had an in-hospital mortality rate of 5.4 percent, compared with 3.8 percent for private FFS patients and 3.9 percent for private HMO patients. Medicaid patients had the highest in-hospital mortality rate, 8.9 percent. In a model that adjusted for demographic and clinical factors, the likelihood of uninsured patients dying in the hospital was still higher but was not statistically significantly different from that of privately insured patients (OR = 1.2, CI: 0.8–1.6) (Sada et al, 1998). The second national study examined records for more than 332,000 patients admitted with AMI and found that after adjusting for demographics, prior disease history, and clinical characteristics, uninsured patients were more likely to die in the hospital than privately insured FFS patients (OR = 1.29) (Canto et al., 2000). The mortality experience of Medicaid patients was the same as that of uninsured patients.

Only one study, a review of hospital records of 1,556 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery in a single Louisiana teaching hospital, found that uninsured patients had better long-term survival than did insured patients (Mancini et al., 2001). However, this study did not control for age or characteristics of the patients. The average age of uninsured patients at the time of surgery was 55, and of insured patients, 65 years. Furthermore, only 7 percent of the insured study population had private insurance, so the population was not representative of the insured population at large.

Coronary Procedures

The body of research on the use of specific procedures to diagnose and treat cardiovascular disease as a function of the insurance status of the patient consistently reports differences in utilization, with uninsured patients generally less likely to receive coronary angiography, CABG, or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) than privately insured patients (Young and Cohen, 1991; Blustein et al., 1995; Kuykendall et al., 1995; Sada et al., 1998; Leape et al., 1999; Canto et al., 2000; Daumit et al., 2000). However, only some of these studies applied appropriateness criteria to identify cases in which the use of these procedures was considered nondiscretionary or necessary. In the studies that examined overall utilization rates, the differences found by insurance status could be attributed to overutilization as well as underutilization.

Angiography (cardiac catheterization) is an invasive diagnostic procedure that provides information to guide decisions about subsequent treatment options, including revascularization procedures. Sada and colleagues (1998) applied the criteria of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Joint Task Force to a national data set of 17,600 myocardial infarction patients under 65 to identify nondiscretionary angiography for revascularization candidates considered to be at high risk. They estimated that in hospitals providing these cardiac procedures, patients with private FFS coverage who were deemed high-risk and for whom angiography was nondiscretionary were more likely than similarly high-risk uninsured patients or Medicaid patients to receive angiography. Among high-risk FFS patients, 84 percent received this service compared to 73 percent of high-risk uninsured patients and 60 percent of similar Medicaid patients (Sada et al., 1998).

Revascularization procedures (either CABG or PTCA) following a heart attack are also more likely to be performed on insured than uninsured patients. In two studies, uninsured patients were less likely to receive revascularization (either CABG or PTCA) than privately insured FFS patients (OR = 0.6 in the 1991 study and 0.8 in the 2000 study) (Young and Cohen, 1991; Canto et al., 2000). Blustein and colleagues (1995) and Kuykendall and colleagues (1995) reported similar comparative findings regarding the revascularization of uninsured and privately insured patients (ORs in these studies ranged from 0.4 to 0.6).

InterHospital Transfers to Receive Services. For patients with AMI, health insurance facilitates access to hospitals that perform angiography and revascularization, whether admission is initial or by means of an interhospital transfer (Blustein et al., 1995; Canto et al., 1999; Leape et al., 1999).

In a study of California hospital admissions for AMI, Blustein and colleagues (1995) found that uninsured patients were less likely than privately insured patients to be admitted initially to a hospital that offered revascularization and much less likely to be transferred if admitted initially to one that did not (ORs = 0.71 and 0.42, respectively).

Leape and colleagues (1999) reviewed 631 records for patients who had received angiography and subsequently met expert panel criteria for necessary revascularization. Overall, 74 percent of patients meeting these criteria received revascularization. Leape et al. found that in hospitals that also performed CABG and PTCA, there were no differences in rates of revascularization for patients with different insurance status. However, for patients initially hospitalized in facilities that did not perform CABG and PTCA, who required a transfer to another hospital to receive revascularization, the rates differed significantly by insurance status: 91 percent of Medicare patients, 82 percent of privately insured patients, 75 percent of Medicaid patients, and just 52 percent of uninsured patients received this indicated surgery (Leape et al., 1999).

Insurance Status and Racial and Gender Disparities. Health insurance has been shown to lessen disparities in the care for cardiovascular disease received by men compared to women and among members of racial and ethnic groups (Carlisle et al., 1997; Daumit et al., 1999, 2000).

An analysis of more than 100,000 hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in Los Angeles County between 1986 and 1988 revealed significant differences in rates of angiography, CABG, and PTCA between uninsured African-American and white patients but not between members of these ethnic groups who were privately insured (Carlisle et al., 1997). In a multivariate analysis that controlled for demographic and clinical characteristics and hospital procedure volume, the odds ratios for uninsured African Americans to receive one of these services compared with uninsured whites ranged from 0.33 to 0.5 (Carlisle et al., 1997).

A longitudinal study with a seven-year follow-up of a national random sample of patients who initially became eligible for the Medicare ESRD program in 1986 or 1987 found that once uninsured patients qualified for ESRD benefits, pronounced disparities by gender or race in their likelihood of receiving either angiography, CABG, or PTCA were eliminated (Daumit et al., 1999, 2000). In the period prior to qualifying for Medicare, uninsured African Americans were far less likely than uninsured whites to undergo a cardiac procedure (OR = 0.07) (Daumit et al., 1999). Uninsured women were also less likely than uninsured men to receive a cardiac procedure before qualifying for Medicare (OR = 0.4), and uninsured men were much less likely than men with private insurance to receive one (OR = 0.47) (Daumit et al., 2000). In the case of both race and gender, differences in the receipt of these cardiac procedures were eliminated after gaining Medicare ESRD coverage.

GENERAL HEALTH OUTCOMES

Finding: Longitudinal population-based studies of the mortality of uninsured and privately insured adults reveal a higher risk of dying for those who were uninsured at baseline than for those who initially had private coverage.

Finding: Relatively short (one- to four-year) longitudinal studies document relatively greater decreases in general health status measures for uninsured adults and for those who lost insurance coverage during the period studied than for those with continuous coverage.

This chapter concludes with a review of the studies evaluating the overall health status and mortality experience of insured and uninsured populations. Assessments of general health outcomes such as self-reported health status and mortality or survival rates for uninsured adults under 65 compared to those with some form of health insurance (i.e., employment-sponsored, Medicaid, Medicare, individually purchased policies), present researchers with even greater challenges of analytic adjustment than those encountered in studies of specific health conditions. Not only might health insurance affect health status, but health status can affect health insurance status. Thus, it is difficult to interpret cross-sectional studies of health insurance and health status. However, several well-designed longitudinal studies with extensive analytic adjustments for covariates have found higher mortality and worse overall functional and health status among uninsured adults than among otherwise similar insured adults.

Two studies provide evidence that uninsured adults are more likely to die prematurely than are their privately insured counterparts.

Franks and colleagues (1993a) followed a national cohort of 4,700 adults age 25 or older for 13 to 17 years who, at the baseline interview, were either privately insured or uninsured. At the end of the follow-up period (1987), about twice as many participants who were uninsured at the time of the first interview had died as had those with private health insurance (18.4 percent compared with 9.6 percent). Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, health examination findings, self-reported health status, and health behaviors, the risk of death for adults who initially were uninsured was 25 percent greater than for those who had private health insurance at the time of the initial interview (mortality hazard ratio = 1.25, CI: 1.00–1.55). The magnitude of this independent health insurance effect on mortality risk was comparable to that of being unemployed, to lacking a high school diploma, or to being in the lowest income category (Franks et al., 1993a). 16 Because insurance status was measured only at the initial interview and thus did not reflect the subjects' cumulative insurance experience over the 13–17 year follow-up period, the difference found in mortality between uninsured and privately insured persons most likely is an underestimate of differences in the mortality experience of those who are continuously uninsured and those who are continuously insured.

A study by Sorlie and colleagues (1994) tracked the mortality experience of 148,000 adults between 25 and 65 years of age until 1987, a two- to five-year follow-up period. After adjusting for age and income, this study found that uninsured white men had a 20 percent higher risk of dying than white men with employment-based health insurance. Uninsured black men and white women each had a 50 percent higher mortality risk than their counterparts with employment-based coverage (Sorlie et al., 1994). Among black women, insurance was not statistically associated with mortality. The authors also examined the mortality experience of insured and uninsured employed white men and women, adjusted for age and income. (Because of small sample size, they did not perform this analysis for black men and women.) Uninsured employed white men had a 30 percent greater risk of dying than their working counterparts with health insurance, and uninsured employed white women had a 20 percent greater risk over two to five years than their counterparts with health insurance (Sorlie et al., 1994).

Loss of Coverage and Changes in Health Status Over Time

Persons who lose health insurance have been found to experience declines in their health status. Longitudinal studies that follow a cohort of individuals over time can provide a “before-and-after” picture of health status, comparing a group that maintained coverage with one that lost it. Such a design helps to minimize the possibility that unmeasured factors that vary along with health insurance status account for differences in health, a competing hypothesis that cannot be eliminated in cross-sectional studies.

Lurie and colleagues (1984, 1986) took advantage of a natural experiment in the mid-1980s when California eliminated Medi-Cal coverage for a group of medically indigent adults. Following matched cohorts of adults seen at an internal medicine practice at a university clinic who either maintained or lost Medi-Cal coverage, the authors found that the patients who lost coverage reported significant decreases in perceived overall health at both six months and a year later, unlike those who maintained coverage. As discussed earlier in this chapter, participants in this study with hypertension who lost coverage also experienced worsening blood pressure control, while those who maintained coverage did not.

Like those with chronic health conditions, adults in late middle age are particularly susceptible to deteriorations of function and health status if they lack or lose health insurance coverage. Baker and colleagues (2001) followed a group of more than 7,500 participants in the longitudinal Health and Retirement Survey (adults ages 51 to 61 at the outset) between 1992 and 1996. The authors compared three groups:

those who were continuously insured over the first two years (measured in 1992 and 1994);

those who were continuously without insurance over that period; and

those who were intermittently uninsured , defined as those who lacked health insurance either in 1992 or in 1994, but not at both times (Baker et al., 2001).

Of those who were continuously uninsured, 22 percent had a major decline 17 in self-reported health, 16 percent of the intermittently uninsured experienced a major decline, and 8 percent of the continuously insured reported a major decline in health. In an analysis that controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, preexisting medical conditions, and health behaviors, the authors estimated a 60 percent greater risk of a major decline in health for continuously uninsured persons and a 40 percent greater risk for intermittently insured persons, as compared with continuously insured persons. Continuously or intermittently uninsured persons also had a 20 to 25 percent greater risk of developing a new difficulty in walking or climbing stairs than did those who were continuously insured (Baker et al., 2001).

Cross-Sectional Studies of Health Status

Cross-sectional studies based on large national population surveys (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey [MEPS], National Medical Expenditure Survey [NMES], and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, provide snapshots of the subjective or self-reported health status of populations according to insurance status. These surveys report worse health status among those without insurance than among those with coverage. Two large studies with careful and extensive analytic adjustments for covarying personal characteristics are presented here.

Franks and colleagues (1993b) examined the relationship between health insurance status and subjective health across several dimensions, including a general health perceptions scale, physical and role functions, and mental health, for 12,000 adults ages 25 through 64. The authors compared participants who had private health insurance for an entire year with those who had been without health insurance the entire year. In an analysis that controlled for age, sex, race, education, presence of a medical condition, and attitude toward medical care and insurance, uninsured adults had significantly lower subjective health scores across all dimensions. The effect on these measures of health of being uninsured was greater for lower-income persons than for those in families with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty level, although the effect persisted in both income groups. For both lower- and higher-income adults, the negative effect on perceived health of being uninsured was greater than that of having minority racial or ethnic status. Overall, the extent to which being uninsured negatively affected subjective health (a decrement of 4 points on a 100-point scale) was greater than that of having either of two diseases, cancer or gall bladder disease, and slightly lower than that for arteriosclerosis (Franks et al., 1993b).

Ayanian and colleagues' (2000) analysis of the 1998 BRFSS compared self-reported health status among adults 18-64 who were uninsured for a year or longer, those uninsured for less than a year, and those with any kind of insurance, public or private. Table 3.1 presents the unadjusted results for the approximately 163,000 adults surveyed. One in five adults uninsured for a year or longer reported being in fair or poor health, compared with one in seven among those uninsured for less than a year, and one in nine for those with health insurance.

Unadjusted Self-Reported Health Status for 18–64 Year-Old Adults, BRFSS, 1998 (percent).

The RAND Health Insurance Experiment

In an experimental study conducted between 1975 and 1982, about 4,000 participants between 14 and 61 years were randomly assigned (in family units) to health insurance plans that differed in the amount of patient cost sharing required, ranging from free care to major deductible plans (95 percent cost sharing, with a maximum of $1,000 per family per year) (Brook et al., 1983; Newhouse et al., 1993). Participants received a lump-sum payment at the beginning of the study to compensate them for their expected out-of-pocket costs if they were in cost-sharing plans. Participants were studied for a three- to five-year period. While persons in plans with any cost sharing had significantly fewer physician visits and hospitalizations than persons in a free-care plan, no difference was found overall between plans with any amount of cost sharing and those with no cost sharing. Free care did result in better outcomes for adults with hypertension, as discussed earlier in this chapter, and in improved visual acuity. This experiment demonstrates both the sensitivity of health care utilization in the general population to cost sharing and the relative insensitivity of short-term (three- to five-year) health outcomes for the general population to cost sharing.

Negative Results

Some studies have reported worse health status for those with health insurance compared to uninsured adults. This result may be attributable to the fact that worse health status may lead to coverage by Medicare or Medicaid, as discussed in Chapter 2 (see Box 2.1 ) and Chapter 4 . However, the competing hypothesis, that health insurance is not associated with overall health status, must also be considered.

Hahn and Flood (1995) used NMES to examine health status by both income level and type and duration of insurance coverage. When SES and demographic characteristics, health behaviors, health care utilization, and Social Security disability status were controlled for in the analysis, self-reported health status was seen to be arrayed from highest to lowest as follows:

privately insured for the full year,
privately insured for part of the year and uninsured for part of the year,
uninsured for the full year,
publicly insured for part of the year, and
publicly insured for the full year.

The authors concluded that the likeliest explanation for their results was that the poorer health status of those who qualify for public coverage was not fully accounted for in their analytic model, even though qualification on the basis of disability was considered explicitly (Hahn and Flood, 1995). An alternative (and possibly supplementary) hypothesis was that public insurance—Medicaid specifically—provided enrollees with access and services that were less effective than those provided by private insurance. Neither of these possible explanations can be eliminated based on the research that the Committee has reviewed.

A second study by Ross and Mirowsky (2000) based on the Survey of Aging, Status and the Sense of Control (ASOC) examined the claim that being uninsured contributes to the worse health of persons of lower SES. The ASOC survey included 2,600 adults between ages 18 and 95 at baseline in 1995, 38 percent of whom were 60 years or older. Participants were reinterviewed in 1998 (44 percent were lost to follow-up) (Ross and Mirowsky, 2000). Health status, functional status, and chronic conditions reported by participants at baseline were used to predict health status, functional status, and chronic conditions three years later. Changes in these measures between baseline and follow-up were also included as predictors of health status, functional status, and number of chronic conditions at follow-up in 1998. The authors concluded that privately insured and uninsured persons had similar health status at a three-year follow-up, adjusted for baseline health status, chronic conditions, and sociodemo-graphic characteristics, and that publicly insured persons had worse health status than privately insured and uninsured adults (Ross and Mirowsky, 2000).

The Committee does not find this study convincing in its conclusions because of both the study sample and its analytic design. The sample included a large proportion of persons over 65, all of whom have Medicare, and the substantial fraction of participants lost to follow-up differed systematically from those who were reinterviewed. By including changes in health condition over the study period as independent variables along with health measures at baseline, the authors may have built their findings into the predictive model itself. In addition, Medicare beneficiaries with supplemental health insurance were classified as privately insured; thus, those who counted as publicly insured included only those Medicare beneficiaries without supplemental policies (a lower-income subset of all Medicare beneficiaries) and Medicaid beneficiaries. This atypical classification scheme distorts the comparison between those with public and private health insurance.

This chapter has presented studies examining the impact of health insurance status on general measures of population health, on health care and clinical outcomes for specific conditions, and on the appropriate use of preventive services for the nonelderly adult population in the United States. This body of research yields largely consistent and significant findings about the relationship between health insurance and health-related outcomes. In summary, uninsured adults receive health care services that are less adequate and appropriate than those received by patients who have either public or private health insurance, and they have poorer clinical outcomes and poorer overall health than do adults with private health insurance. The specific findings discussed throughout this chapter are presented in Box 3.12 .

The Committee has assessed the research regarding the effects of health insurance status across a range of health conditions and services affecting adults. In each domain examined—

preventive care and screening services,
cancer care and outcomes,
chronic disease management and patient outcomes,
acute care services and outcomes for hospitalized adults, and
overall health status and mortality,

health insurance improved the likelihood of appropriate care and was associated with better health outcomes. Health insurance appears to achieve these positive effects in part through facilitating ongoing care with a regular health care provider and reducing financial barriers to obtaining those services that constitute or contribute to appropriate care, including screening services, prescription drugs, and specialty mental health services.

Chapter 4 specifically addresses the question of the difference that providing health insurance to uninsured individuals and populations would make to their health and health care. The Committee assesses the potential impact of health insurance coverage on those uninsured adults who are most at risk for poor or adverse health-related outcomes, including the chronically ill, adults in late middle age, members of ethnic minorities, and adults in lower-income households. The chapter also reviews the features and characteristics of health insurance that account for its effectiveness in achieving better health outcomes, including both continuity of coverage and scope of benefits.

BOX 4.1 Conclusions

The Committee's conclusions are supported by the evidence and findings presented in Chapter 3 , which are largely based on observational studies.

Health insurance is associated with better health outcomes for adults and with their receipt of appropriate care across a range of preventive, chronic, and acute care services. Adults without health insurance coverage die sooner and experience greater declines in health status over time than do adults with continuous coverage.
Adults with chronic conditions, and those in late middle age, are the most likely to realize improved health outcomes as a result of gaining health insurance coverage because of their high probability of needing health care services.
Population groups that are most at risk of lacking stable health insurance coverage and that have worse health status, including racial and ethnic minorities and lower-income adults, particularly would benefit from increased health insurance coverage. Increased coverage would likely reduce some of the racial and ethnic disparities in the utilization of appropriate health care services and might also reduce disparities in morbidity and mortality among ethnic groups.
When health insurance affords access to providers and includes preventive and screening services, outpatient prescription drugs, and specialty mental health care, it is more likely to facilitate the receipt of appropriate care than when insurance does not have these features.
Broad-based health insurance strategies across the entire uninsured population would be more likely to produce the benefits of enhanced health and life expectancy than would “rescue” programs aimed only at the seriously ill.

Chapter 2 discusses the features of observational (nonexperimental) studies that are necessary for methodological soundness. All quantified study results that are presented in this chapter and in Chapter 4 are significant at least at the 95 percent confidence interval. If results do not meet this level of statistical significance, the confidence interval is reported. See “confidence interval” in Appendix C for further discussion.

Earlier studies based on the 1986 Access to Care Survey and the 1982 NHIS had findings consistent with those of the more recent nationally representative sample surveys regarding receipt of preventive and screening services by those without health insurance (Hayward et al., 1988; Woolhandler and Himmelstein, 1988).

Enrollees in private managed care plans is the reference group; however, fee-for-service enrollees did not have significantly different screening rates from those of managed care enrollees. The odds ratio is the relative odds of having an outcome in the uninsured and insured groups. For example, if the odds of receiving a Pap test are 2:1 in a group of uninsured women (i.e., two of every three women or 67 percent receive the test) and the odds are 4:1 in a group of women with insurance (i.e., four of every five women, or 80 percent, receive the test), the odds ratio of uninsured compared to insured women is 0.5 (2:1/4:1). The OR is not a good estimate of the relative risk (the probability of been screened in the uninsured group divided by the probability of being screened in the insured group) because screening is not a rare event. Throughout this report the results of particular studies, if reported as odds ratios or as relative risks, will be presented as the ratio of the uninsured to the insured rates (in this example, as an OR of 0.5).

Comparing results presented in Potosky et al., 1998, and Breen et al., 2001, the gap in screening rates between insured and uninsured adults decreased between 1992 and 1998.

Smoking has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (Chao et al., 2000).

This hypertension result was an exception to the overall results for the RAND study, which did not find significant differences in outcomes for most conditions and dimensions of health. These results are discussed further in the General Health Outcomes section later in this chapter.

Notably, this same study found that persons with hypertension who had Medicare coverage only (which does not pay for outpatient prescription drugs) did not have a statistically significant difference in their likelihood of receiving antihypertensive medication than uninsured persons, while those who had Medicare plus Medicaid coverage or Medicare with private supplemental insurance were significantly more likely to have received drug therapy than uninsured persons with hypertension.

BRFSS has documented the use of recommended services among insured and uninsured persons with diabetes for two recent years. BRFSS collected information on diabetes management in 1994 in 22 jurisdictions (21 states and the District of Columbia) and in 1998 in 37 jurisdictions, representing 70 percent of the U.S. population (Beckles et al., 1998; Ayanian et al., 2000).

This standard of low hematocrit is below the hematocrit target range of 33–36 percent recommended by the National Kidney Foundation's Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF, 2001).

In this study, “late initiation” is defined as glomerular filtration rate of serum creatinine of <5 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 —a level substantially below both that recommended by the National Kidney Foundation (<10.5 ml/min) and the U.S. mean value at initiation (<7.1 ml/min) (Kausz et al., 2000).

The HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study (HSCUS), conducted by RAND and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, was a probability sample of persons 18 years and older in the contiguous United States known to have HIV infection who had one visit for regular care (except in a military, prison, or emergency treatment facility) within a two-month period in 1996. Three rounds of interviews were conducted over a two-year period, 1996–1998, with between 2,267 and 2,864 subjects (Shapiro et al., 1999). The AIDS Costs and Utilization Survey, a predecessor study to HCSUS, with six waves over 18 months in 1991 and 1992, was not a probability sample (see Box 2.4 for further detail on these surveys).

Older studies that examine hospital-based care and outcomes according to insurance status across a range of diagnoses are summarized in Appendix B . The results of these studies are consistent with the findings discussed in text; however, many are based on hospital records that may be less relevant to the current hospital practice environment.

See Leape et al. (1999) for a description of the RAND methodology for determining appropriateness and its application to developing criteria for revascularization procedures.

The American College of Surgeons designates hospital EDs as trauma centers based on qualifying criteria related to staffing, resources, and services. There are four designations: Level 1, the most stringent requirements, for providing tertiary care on a regional basis; Level 2, similar services to a Level 1 center but without clinical research and prevention activities; Level 3, presence of emergency services, often in a rural area, with fewer specialized services and resources than Level 1 or 2 centers; and Level 4, usually in a rural area, describing hospitals and clinics that serve a triage function (Bonnie et al., 1999).

The authors designated an ISS of <16 as “minimal to moderate injury” and >16 as more severe. Overall, 59 percent of transferred patients had an ISS of <9.

The lowest income category included those with a family income of less than $7,000 at the initial interview (1971–1975).

A “major decline” in health was defined as a change from excellent, very good, or good health in 1992 to fair or poor health in 1996, or from fair health in 1992 to poor health in 1996 (Baker et al., 2001).

Cite this Page Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance. Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2002. 3, Effects of Health Insurance on Health.
PDF version of this title (4.6M)

In this Page

Recent activity.

Effects of Health Insurance on Health - Care Without Coverage Effects of Health Insurance on Health - Care Without Coverage

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

< Previous

Home > ETD > OPEN_ACCESS_DISSERTATIONS > 746

Open Access Dissertations

Essays on health insurance.

Amanda C. Cook , Purdue University

Date of Award

Degree type.

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

First Advisor

Stephen Martin

Committee Chair

Committee member 1.

John Barron

Committee Member 2

Ralph Siebert

Committee Member 3

Brigitte Waldrorf

Uninsured individuals receive fewer health care services for at least three reasons: higher prices, responsibility for the entire bill, and potential provider reductions for concern of non-payment. This study isolates differences in service levels between insured and uninsured individuals that are attributed to different effective prices; the uninsured pay the bill without a contribution from an insurance company. I capitalize on Maryland's highly regulated health care system, where prices are set by the state, are uniform across all patients, and hospitals are compensated for free care and bad debt, to isolate the difference in quantity demanded by the uninsured. While the Oregon study compares Medicaid individuals and their low-income uninsured counterparts, this paper considers income variation among the uninsured, quantifies the difference in demand in an environment with uniform prices, and evaluates health outcomes in light of these reductions. A Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition estimates uninsured individuals receive 8.4% fewer services after accounting for differences in characteristics. Compared to insured patients, the uninsured are 74% as likely to be readmitted. This difference in service level and readmission rates is larger for patients residing in low-income zip codes and smaller in wealthy zip codes. This suggests that income is a substantial constraint for uninsured patients, and as this constraint relaxes, more services are demanded. For illnesses with a high risk of mortality, both services demanded and readmission rates are not statistically different for insured and uninsured individuals. Mortality rates are similar for insured and uninsured individuals living in the bottom 75\% of average income by zip code. Differences in the top 25% seem to be attributable to small numbers of uninsured individuals. While this paper analyses Maryland, it provides insight into demand for insured individuals with high-deductible plans country wide. Prior to meeting their deductible, these insured patients face similar conditions to uninsured patients in Maryland — they have access to negotiated rates but are solely paying the bill.

Hospital Insurance bargaining: In addition to risk-sharing, U.S. health insurance companies negotiate rates for services with hospitals. The price of service can vary depending on which entity, if any, is insuring the patient. Insurers (and possibly their customers) benefit from negotiating through lower prices, while hospitals benefit through higher patient volume.

Using Massachusetts' Center for Health Information and Analysis (CHIA) data, we use hospital and insurer characteristics to estimate negotiated prices specific to hospital-insurer pairs. We investigate the relationship between two important quantities: (i) the charged amount that hospitals bill for their services, and (ii) the amount that hospitals are paid for insured patients. These numbers differ because the former is a function only of the services provided and the hospital's ''chargemaster'' prices, while the latter is the result of negotiation.

We find that payments for privately insured patients are on average 38\% of charges when payments are made on a fee-for-service basis. However this ratio varies greatly by hospital and insurer. Compared to community hospitals without an emergency room, academic medical centers are compensated 15% more for their services, and hospitals with an emergency room are compensated 7% more than those without.

Recommended Citation

Cook, Amanda C., "Essays on health insurance" (2016). Open Access Dissertations . 746. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/746

Since December 04, 2017

Included in

Economic Theory Commons

Advanced Search

Notify me via email or RSS
Purdue Libraries
Purdue University Press Open Access Collections

Links for Authors

Policies and Help Documentation
Collections
Disciplines

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Health Insurance Coverage Essays

The link between wealth and money, cobra benefits for medical insurance, aca and healthcare outcomes and cost, popular essay topics.

American Dream
Artificial Intelligence
Black Lives Matter
Bullying Essay
Career Goals Essay
Causes of the Civil War
Child Abusing
Civil Rights Movement
Community Service
Cultural Identity
Cyber Bullying
Death Penalty
Depression Essay
Domestic Violence
Freedom of Speech
Global Warming
Gun Control
Human Trafficking
I Believe Essay
Immigration
Importance of Education
Israel and Palestine Conflict
Leadership Essay
Legalizing Marijuanas
Mental Health
National Honor Society
Police Brutality
Pollution Essay
Racism Essay
Romeo and Juliet
Same Sex Marriages
Social Media
The Great Gatsby
The Yellow Wallpaper
Time Management
To Kill a Mockingbird
Violent Video Games
What Makes You Unique
Why I Want to Be a Nurse
Send us an e-mail

Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Problem statement, why healthcare should be free, why healthcare should be paid, works cited.

The US government has historically taken a keen interest in the health of its citizens. As far back as the beginning of the 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt declared that “nothing can be more important to a state than its public health: the state’s paramount concern should be the health of its people” (Gallup and Newport 135). Despite these, the United States is classified as the nation with the most expensive, and yet inefficient, health care system among developed nations.

An expensive health care system translates to an increasing proportion of the population being unable to access the much needed medical care. The New York Times reports that according to census survey carried out in the year 2007, an estimated 45.6 million people in the USA were uninsured and hence unlikely to receive comprehensive medical care from hospitals (1). Due to the perceived inefficiencies, there has been agreement that the current health care system is faulty and therefore in need of radical changes to make it better.

Majority of American’s are greatly dissatisfied with the current health care system which is extremely expensive and highly inefficient. While an effective system can be deemed to be one which is efficient, acceptable and at the same time equitable, the current system is lacking in this attributes.

The aim of this paper will be to analyze the effects that free health care system in America would have. This paper will argue that a health care system which guarantees free health care for all Americans is the most effective system and the government should therefore adopt such a system.

Free health care would result in a healthier nation since people would visit the doctors when necessary and follow prescriptions. Research by Wisk et al. indicated that both middle and lower class families were suffering from the high cost of health care (1). Some families opted to avoid going to the doctor when a member of the family is sick due to the high cost of visiting the doctor and the insurance premiums associated with health care.

In the event that they go to the doctor, they do not follow prescriptions strictly so as to reduce cost. Brown reveals that “60 percent of uninsured people skipped taking dosages of their medication or went without it because it cost too much” (6). Such practices are detrimental to a person’s health and they cost more in the long run.

The last few years have been characterized by financial crises and recessions which have negatively affected the financial well being of many Americans. In these economic realities, the cost of health care has continued to rise to levels that are unaffordable to many Americans. This loss of access to health care has led to people being troubled and generally frustrated. A report by Brown indicates that the price for prescription drugs in the US has escalated therefore becoming a financial burden for the citizens (6).

The productivity of this people is thereby greatly decreased as they live in uncertainty as to the assurance of their health and thereby spend more time worrying instead of being engaged in meaningful activities that can lead the country into even greater heights of prosperity. Free health care would lead to a peace of mind and therefore enable people to be more productive.

Since medical care is not free, many people have to make do with curative care since they cannot afford to visit medical facilities for checkups or any other form of preventive medical care. This assertion is corroborated by Colliver who reveals that many people are opting to go without preventative care or screening tests that might prevent more serious health problems due to the expenses (1).

Research shows that approximately 18,000 adults die annually due to lack of timely medical intervention (The New York Times 1). This is mostly as a result of lack of a comprehensive insurance cover which means that the people cannot receive medical attention until the disease has progressed into advanced stages. This is what has made medical care so expensive since “sick patients need more care than relatively healthy ones” (Sutherland, Fisher, and Skinner 1227).

This is an opinion shared by Sebelius who reveals that 85% of medical costs incurred in the country arise from people ailing from chronic conditions (1). She further notes that if screened early, these diseases such as diabetes and obesity can be prevented thus saving the medical cost to be incurred in their treatment. It therefore makes sense to have a health care system that makes it possible for everyone to access preventive care thus curbing these conditions before they are fully blown.

While most people assume that free health care will result in better services as more people will be able to access health care, this is not the case. The increase in people who are eligible for health care will lead to an increase in the patients’ level meaning that one may have to wait for long before receiving care due to shortage of medical personnel or the rationing of care.

A European doctor, Crespo Alphonse, reveals that when health care is free, people start overusing it with negative implications for the entire system (AP). In addition to this, free health care would invariably lead to cost cutting strategies by hospitals.

This would lead to scenario where finding specialized care is hard and the rate of medical mistakes would increase significantly. As a matter of fact, a survey on Switzerland hospitals found that medical errors had jumped by 40% owing to the introduction of mandatory health insurance (AP). While it is true that free health care will increase the number of people visiting the doctor, this may be a positive thing since it will encourage preventive care as opposed to the current emphasis on curative care.

Free health care is a move towards a socialistic system. As it is, the US is a nation that is built on strong capitalistic grounds. This is against the strong capitalistic grounds on which the United States society is build on. While detractors of the private insurance firms are always quick to point out that the firms make billions of dollars from the public, they fail to consider the tax that these firms give back to the federal government (Singer 1).

Free health care would render players in the health industry such as private insurance companies unprofitable. Free health care will bring about a shift from a profit oriented system to a more people oriented system. Without money as a motivation, research efforts will plummet thereby leading to a decrease in the medical advancement as investment in research will not be as extensive (Singer 1).

The Associate Press reveals that doctors may also lack to be as motivated if they are no incentives and thereby the quality of their work may weaken (1). As such, a free health care system would have far reaching consequences for the economy of the nation since the health care industry is a profitable industry for many.

The Healthcare system is one of the most important components of the U.S. social system since full productivity cannot be achieved without good health. This paper has argued that a free health care system would be the most effective system for America. To reinforce this assertion, the paper has articulated the benefits that the country would accrue from free health care.

With free health care, all Americans would be able to access health services when they need it leading to increased quality of life. In addition, many people would make use of preventive healthcare services, therefore reducing the financial burden that the expensive curative services result in.

The paper has taken care to point out that free health care has some demerits, most notably of which is overloading the health services with a high number of patients. Even so, the observably advantages to be reaped from the system far outweigh the perceived risks. As it is, decades of reform on the US health care system have failed to provide any lasting solution to the problem.

Making health care free for all may be the strategy that will provide a solution for the ideal health care system that has thus far remained elusive. From the arguments presented in this paper, it can irrefutably be stated that free health care will result in a better health care system for the country.

Associate Press. (AP). Europe’s free health care has a hefty price tag . 2009. Web.

Brown, Paul. Paying the Price: The High Cost of Prescription Drugs for Uninsured Americans. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, 2006.

Colliver, Victoria. “Jump in middle-income Americans who go without health insurance,” San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate), 2006.

Gallup, Andrew, and Newport Francis. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion . Gallup Press, 2005. Print.

Sebelius, Kathleen. Health Insurance Reform Will Benefit All Americans . 2009. Web.

Singer, Peter. Why We Must Ration Health Care . 2009. Web.

Sutherland, Jason., Fisher Elliott, and Skinner Jonathan. “Getting Past Denial – The High Cost of Health Care in the United States” . New England Journal of Medicine 361;13, 2009).

The New York Times. The Uninsured . 2009. Web.

Wisk, Lauren. High Cost a Key Factor in Deciding to Forgo Health Care . 2011. Web.

Hospice – Dying with Comfort and Dignity
Assessing the Role of Conflict in the Health Care Environment
The Epidemiology of Human Malaria in Africa
Africa Regional Conference: Should Democracy Be Promoted in Africa?
Why did Tunisia and Egypt’s governments fall? Will they become democracies?
The Spread of Democracy
Trustee vs. Delegate Models of Representation
The United States Constitution
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 12). Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/

"Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/free-health-care-in-america/.

Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling their Core Components and Significance

This essay about FICA deductions explains their role in the U.S. tax system. FICA deductions are mandatory withdrawals from workers’ paychecks to fund critical public programs like Social Security and Medicare. These deductions ensure financial stability for retirees and disabled individuals. The essay highlights the importance of understanding FICA deductions for both workers and employers emphasizing the universal impact and the necessity of compliance with regulatory requirements to support federal programs essential for economic security and healthcare access.

How it works

Fédéral insurance holding operate (Fica) deductions – integral elements U.S. tax system moves obligatory abandonments from a worker’ pipe aimed in financing public critical programs. These deductions serve financial basis for a confidence and public medical help sticks to retired types forming group and assures a scope healthcare substantial part.

Portion deductions Fica majeure is distributed for holding public confidence that obligate methods pensions and confidence inability. Holding calculated based on a benefit repairs theme despite an agricultural year politique only.

Holding medicare identically divided between employers and worker stick to benefactions healthcare for aîné and types certain with inabilities.

Understanding seriousness possessions deductions Fica above all both for types so and businesses. Weigh a worker we these deductions to assure one in arrives financial stability and to direct he despite payments healthcare while employers are due diligently to calculate and not to accept in holding Fica to provide confirmation with regulative requests and to confirm financing for these fédéraux critical program.

In difference from holding income that at a case have liberations and thresholds well-assorted deductions Fica direct he universally approximately despite whole repairs distinguishes their vast influence through labour force. Understanding deductions Fica perfect delegates mediators for navigate their financial responsibilities and to optimize payments in borders landscape U.S causes the complex of inferiority. tax settlements.

In essence deductions Fica outstrip abandonments mere expecting list; put them above all holding to public programs that lean safety and access healthcare the American citizens économique basic. Shrewdness their above all components and importance types and businesses can better navigate their roles in borders U.S. tax skeleton encourages confirmation decision and informed confirmation.

Cite this page

Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling Their Core Components and Significance. (2024, Jul 06). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/decoding-fica-deductions-unveiling-their-core-components-and-significance/

"Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling Their Core Components and Significance." PapersOwl.com , 6 Jul 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/decoding-fica-deductions-unveiling-their-core-components-and-significance/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling Their Core Components and Significance . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/decoding-fica-deductions-unveiling-their-core-components-and-significance/ [Accessed: 10 Jul. 2024]

"Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling Their Core Components and Significance." PapersOwl.com, Jul 06, 2024. Accessed July 10, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/decoding-fica-deductions-unveiling-their-core-components-and-significance/

"Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling Their Core Components and Significance," PapersOwl.com , 06-Jul-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/decoding-fica-deductions-unveiling-their-core-components-and-significance/. [Accessed: 10-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

More From Forbes

You could pay more for healthcare with insurance than without.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

Chelsi Ross was insured when she had to go to the ER for chest pain. Yet even after the "negotiated ... [+] discount" from her insurer was applied to her bill, it was still higher than what uninsured patients were charged. She is still paying off the bill four years later.

My 34-year-old friend Chelsi Ross went to the emergency department of Methodist Hospital in Richardson, Texas four years ago for sudden onset of chest pain and shortness of breath. Fortunately, she was not diagnosed with any serious condition and her symptoms resolved. The blood tests, X-ray, EKG and CT scan during her four-hour ER visit totaled $11,300.75. She had health insurance but, paradoxically, it cost her more than she would have paid had she not been insured.

Hospital bill from Methodist for ER visit totaling $11,300.75.

We’ve all heard about massively inflated healthcare charges . In this case, though, I want to focus on how our healthcare and insurance system is built irrationally, in a way that sometimes surprisingly disadvantages patients who are insured.

But, as more than 50% of privately insured Americans now have, the Aetna insurance plan that she had was a high-deductible plan. This means until she had spent her $5,000 deductible plus her co-insurance amount, her insurance would not kick in. As a result, she was essentially a self-pay, or cash, patient until then.

Hospitals that contract with insurance companies have an “allowed amount,” or “negotiated rate,” that they accept. This means that rather than requiring insurance companies to pay the “sticker price,” hospitals give them a discount. So in this case, the “sticker price” of $11,300.75 was not what Aetna or Ross was expected to pay. Methodist Hospital gave a “discount” to Aetna of $3,503.23 for Ross’ services, so the “allowed amount” that they expected from Ross or her insurer was still almost $8,000. While Aetna paid the hospital $2,192.03, she was left with $5,605.49 to pay out of pocket.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

A flowchart shows what Ross would have paid as an uninsured patient compared with her insured ... [+] status.

Methodist does offer a “cash” discount of 45% off the sticker prices on its website. So, for example, the hospital charge of $6,229 for a CT scan of the chest is $3,426 if you want to pay in cash. That means her total bill, had she not provided her insurance information and asked to pay in cash, would have been $6,215. Given that the average annual health insurance premium is $8,345 for an individual, she would have saved over $7,700 by not having insurance with this episode.

Wait, you say, don’t you get a fine if you don’t purchase insurance? The answer is no, as Congress eliminated the tax penalty for not having insurance in 2019. But wait again, she only would have saved money if she didn’t have other healthcare costs that year, right? And that’s correct—if Ross had ended up needing a big surgery or having another expensive ER visit that year, her insurance would have kicked in after she met her deductible and co-pay.

But the fact that the average American must pay at a minimum more than $8,000 a year for insurance that may not be used—and then has a deductible and copay on top of that—seems to illustrate one of the ways our current healthcare system fails us. Insurance also fails us because you’d think they would be able to negotiate a lower price than not having insurance. After all, isn’t one of the purported benefits of insurance that companies have more bargaining power and can negotiate better prices? And to add further injury, the “discount” that Aetna received didn’t really help Ross. After she had reached her out-of-pocket maximum, she would have paid the same regardless of the “discount” that Aetna had negotiated with Methodist.

I’m certainly not advocating that people be uninsured—healthcare costs can be catastrophically high. But even having insurance doesn’t mean people are off the hook for medical debt. In fact, 61% of people with medical debt have insurance, per a Kaiser Family Foundation and New York Times report . And this has real consequences. That same report revealed that 75% of insured patients who have difficulty paying their medical bills end up reducing their spending on food, clothing, or necessities. Whether insured or uninsured, 62% of people facing medical bill problems have difficulty paying other bills, too, and can trigger an avalanche of financial instability for not just them but their families, too.

Numerous policies have been proposed or even adopted at the state and federal levels in recent years to start to address the financial catastrophes that Americans have suffered from receiving healthcare. But these wouldn’t have helped Ross. For example, the federal Price Transparency Act required hospitals to publish pricing information online starting in January 2021, but patients in emergency situations, like Ross, don’t have the time to shop around for information to make decisions about where they should seek care. The same goes for the Transparency in Coverage Act , implemented in January 23, which requires health insurers to post price information for covered services. And the No Surprises Act, implemented in January 2022, to prevent people from surprise emergency bills, wouldn’t have applied to Ross’ case since the hospital did have an agreement with her insurance company.

If it’s not an emergency, you can choose not to disclose that you are insured if you want to pay cash. Hospitals may tell you differently since they often prefer to bill your insurer and get more reimbursement, but it is within your rights to tell them you don’t want them to contact your insurer, as protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act . But it’s nearly impossible to have enough information to make that decision before you receive healthcare services since, most of the time, you aren’t sure what exact services you’ll need, what the hospital will charge or what your health insurance company will pay until after the fact.

We wrote to the hospital three times in 2021 and asked if she could receive the cash discount given her situation. There was no response. Methodist also did not respond when asked for comment. There was someone, however, who called Ross during that month and asked her, “How much can you pay?” Even a few weeks ago, she also got another call asking if she wanted to “settle” her bill, dangling her a 25% discount if she could settle that day. These phone calls are reminiscent more of flea market bargaining rather than a functioning healthcare system.

One of the building blocks of a basic health system, as defined by the World Health Organization, often known for its work in low-income countries, is one that “ensure[s] people can use needed services and are protected from financial catastrophe or impoverishment with having to pay for them.” Yet that is exactly what we face here in the United States, one of the richest countries in the world. There are potential ways to reform the system—including big ones like single-payer to reduce the inefficiencies of thousands of different health plans, whether that be on a federal or state level, or less dramatic ones, like a “public option,” which is a government-established healthcare plan that Americans can opt into if they so choose. But it requires us to move beyond recognizing there are problems to being willing to have these conversations.

Meanwhile, Ross, like so many other Americans, is still on a monthly payment plan for healthcare that she received while she was insured.

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
Content that otherwise violates our site's terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
Actions that otherwise violate our site's terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

Stay on topic and share your insights
Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
Protect your community.
Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

It Shouldn’t Be This Easy to Lose Your Health Insurance

By Danielle Ofri

Dr. Ofri is a primary care doctor in New York City.

A few days before New Year’s Eve, an unfamiliar health insurance card for me arrived in the mail. I assumed there must have been an error and called the human resources department of the medical center where I’m employed as a doctor.

“No,” the representative replied, “it’s not a mistake. You didn’t enroll this year, so you automatically got put on the basic plan.”

“That’s … that’s impossible,” I stammered. “I’ve always signed up my family for the same health plan.”

“I’m sorry, Dr. Ofri,” the representative said, rechecking her records, “but you didn’t enroll this year.”

Could that be? Could I have somehow forgotten? Or missed the notification? “But don’t worry,” she said. “We’ve put you on the basic plan.”

“OK,” I said, starting to relax and thinking out loud. “I guess my kids will get to meet some new doctors.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

Health insurance should be free Essay Example
The Basic Elements of Health Insurance
Health Insurance
The Basic Elements of Health Insurance
Health Insurance Essay
The Market for Health Insurance Essay Example

VIDEO

Travel Insurance vs Health Insurance Explained
Myth 1 about Health Insurance
Does health insurance cover pre existing conditions? #healthinsurance #insurance #employeebenefits
My Life my Health Essay/Essay on My Life my Health/Essay Writing on My Life my Health
APPLY: Heirs Insurance Essay Championship 2024
Good Health Essay

COMMENTS

131 Health Insurance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Looking for a good essay, research or speech topic on Health Insurance? Check our list of 131 interesting Health Insurance title ideas to write about!
Health Insurance Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
View our collection of health insurance essays. Find inspiration for topics, titles, outlines, & craft impactful health insurance papers. Read our health insurance papers today!
Health Insurance Reform Has Little Impact on Actual Health
The key to improving health is far more complex than health insurance reform, write Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein.
Importance of Health Insurance: [Essay Example], 665 words
Importance of Health Insurance. Health insurance is a crucial component of the healthcare system, providing individuals and families with financial protection against high medical costs. It covers services ranging from routine check-ups and preventive care to emergency treatments and surgeries. The significance of health insurance cannot be ...
PDF Essays on Public Health Insurance
Essays on Public Health Insurance Citation Wettstein, Gal. 2016. Essays on Public Health Insurance. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.
Report: The Importance of Health Coverage
Find out why health insurance is important and what the importance of medical insurance coverage in the United States is to Americans. U.S. health insurance facilitates access to care and is associated with lower death rates, better health outcomes, and improved productivity. Why is it important to have health insurance?
The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation
Background Expanding public health insurance seeks to attain several desirable objectives, including increasing access to healthcare services, reducing the risk of catastrophic healthcare expenditures, and improving health outcomes. The extent to which these objectives are met in a real-world policy context remains an empirical question of increasing research and policy interest in recent ...
Health Insurance in the USA
Health insurance has become an important form of security in the modern world. In a country like the United States, health insurance is sought part of being a US citizen and has become a basic necessity for the population. With this thought, there are still millions of people that are uninsured and form one of the biggest social and public ...
Essays on health insurance
ESSAYS ON HEALTH INSURANCE A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Amanda C. Cook In Partial Ful llment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2016 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana
PDF THREE ESSAYS IN HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
In the ﬁnal essay, I examine the relative inﬂuence of the elements of a health plan's "price" on the probability that it is selected from the set of plans oﬀered by one'semployer.
Why Health Insurance Is Important
Having health insurance is important for several reasons. Uninsured people receive less medical care and less timely care, they have worse health outcomes, and lack of insurance is a fiscal burden for them and their families. Moreover, the benefits of expanding coverage outweigh the costs for added services. Safety-net care from hospitals and clinics improves access to care but does not fully ...
Effects of Health Insurance on Health
This chapter presents the Committee's review of studies that address the impact of health insurance on various health-related outcomes. It examines research on the relationship between health insurance (or lack of insurance), use of medical care and health outcomes for specific conditions and types of services, and with overall health status and mortality. There is a consistent, positive ...
Essay On Importance Of Health Insurance
Health insurance can either reimburse the insured for expenses incurred from illness or injury or pay the care provider directly. Health insurance is often included in employer benefit packages as a means of enticing quality employees (Investopedia, 2008). Health insurance is important because it alleviate the impact of illnesses and accidents ...
Health Insurance Really Is Important, and Here's Why
It's free, simple and secure. Health insurance helps to reduce medical costs, making health care more affordable and thus more accessible. Having health insurance also facilitates access to care, resulting in lower death rates and better health care outcomes. On a basic level, health insurance can mean the difference between sickness and health ...
"Essays on health insurance" by Amanda C. Cook
Cook, Amanda C., "Essays on health insurance" (2016). Open Access Dissertations. 746. Uninsured individuals receive fewer health care services for at least three reasons: higher prices, responsibility for the entire bill, and potential provider reductions for concern of non-payment. This study isolates differences in service levels between ...
Health Insurance
26 essay samples found. Health insurance is a pivotal mechanism that enables individuals to access necessary medical care without facing financial ruin. Essays could delve into the intricacies of health insurance systems, exploring the various models adopted by countries to provide healthcare coverage to their populations.
Health Insurance Essay Examples
Searching for Health Insurance essay examples? ️ Check it in our sample's database. 📚 Find plenty of high-quality samples from professional writers.
Health Insurance Essay
Health Insurance Essay. Decent Essays. 572 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. The main function for health care financing is to pay for health insurance premium and reimburse health providers for services delivered. Still, there is a crucial challenge when creating health insurance plans, provide coverage for "health care needs without ...
Health insurance Essays
Private Health Insurance and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act In 1900, the average American spent about $5-$147 per person a year on health care and did not require the use of health insurance (Blumberg & Davidson, 2009). Today, the average American spends about $10,000 per person per year (Munro, 2015).
Health Insurance Coverage Essay Examples
COBRA Benefits for Medical Insurance After qualifying circumstances that would otherwise result in the termination of coverage, individuals can continue their employer-sponsored group health insurance coverage for a short time under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), federal legislation.
Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America
Looking for free healthcare essay? This paper focuses on advantages disadvantages of American medical system, giving reasons why health care 💉 should be free or paid for everyone.
PDF Harvard University
Harvard University
Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling Their Core Components and
Essay Example: Fédéral insurance holding operate (Fica) deductions - integral elements U.S. tax system moves obligatory abandonments from a worker' pipe aimed in financing public critical programs. These deductions serve financial basis for a confidence and public medical help
You Could Pay More For Healthcare With Insurance Than Without
Health insurance is supposed to save us money when we need healthcare services, especially for emergency care. But in some cases it can cost us more.
It Shouldn't Be This Easy to Lose Your Health Insurance
For employer-based health insurance, this would be relatively simple, as most ineligibility stems from no longer working at the company, something that employers surely know.

Health Insurance Reform Has Surprisingly Little Impact on Actual Health

More Must-Reads from TIME

Importance of Health Insurance

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Health Insurance

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Interpretation

Introduction

Participants

Intervention

Control group

Outcome measures

Types of studies

Databases and search terms

Screening and data extraction

Assessment of study quality

Results of the search

Utilisation of health care

Financial protection

Health status

Type of insurance and countries

Overall effect

Possible explanation of heterogeneity

Uncovered essential items.

Methodological differences.

Duration of health insurance.

Moral hazard.

Study limitations.

Supporting information

S2 Table. Study characteristic and reported effect from the included studies (N = 68).

S3 Table. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late.

3 Effects of Health Insurance on Health

Disparities Among Population Groups

Extensiveness of Insurance Benefits

Negative Findings

Breast Cancer

Cervical Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Prostate Cancer

Cardiovascular Disease

End-Stage Renal Disease

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection

BOX 3.8 HIV Infection

Access to a Regular Source of Care

Receipt of Drug Therapies

Clinical Outcomes and Mortality

Mental Illness

Depression and Anxiety Disorders

Severe Mental Illness

Emergency and Trauma Care

Coronary Procedures

Loss of Coverage and Changes in Health Status Over Time

Cross-Sectional Studies of Health Status

The RAND Health Insurance Experiment

Negative Results

BOX 4.1 Conclusions

In this Page

Open Access Dissertations

Date of Award

Degree Name

First Advisor

Committee Chair

Committee Member 2

Committee Member 3

Recommended Citation

Included in

Links for Authors

Health Insurance Coverage Essays

Should Healthcare Be Free? Essay on Medical System in America

Introduction

Decoding FICA Deductions: Unveiling their Core Components and Significance

Cite this page

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

More From Forbes