OBJECTIVE: To understand the effects of Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) income eligibility thresholds and premium contribution requirements on health insurance coverage outcomes among children. DATA SOURCES: 2002-2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplements of the Current Population Survey linked to data from multiple secondary data sources. STUDY DESIGN: We use a selection correction model to simultaneously estimate program eligibility and coverage outcomes conditional upon eligibility. We simulate the effects of three premium schedules representing a range of generosity levels and the effects of income eligibility thresholds ranging from 200 to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Premium contribution requirements decrease enrollment in public coverage and increase enrollment in private coverage, with larger effects for greater contribution levels. Our simulation results suggest minimal changes in coverage outcomes from eligibility expansions to higher income families under premium schedules that require more than a modest contribution (medium or high schedules). CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation results are useful counterpoints to previous research that has estimated the average effect of program expansions as they were implemented without disentangling the effects of premiums or other program features. The sensitivity to premiums observed suggests that although contribution requirements may be effective in reducing crowd-out, they also have the potential, depending on the level of contribution required, to nullify the effects of CHIP expansions entirely. The persistence of uninsurance among children under the range of simulated scenarios points to the importance of Affordable Care Act provisions designed to make the process of obtaining coverage transparent and navigable.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective:
This study examined the early developmental context of children in immigrant families (CIF), measured by the frequency with which parents share books with their children.
Trends in the frequency with which parents report book sharing, defined in this analysis as reading or sharing picture books with their young children, were analyzed across immigrant and nonimmigrant households by using data from the 2005, 2007, and 2009 California Health Interview Survey. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression assessed the likelihood that CIF shared books with parents daily.
In this study, 57.5% of parents in immigrant families reported daily book sharing (DBS), compared with 75.8% of native-born parents. The lowest percentage of DBS was seen in Hispanic families with 2 foreign-born parents (47.1%). When controlling for independent variables, CIF with 2 foreign-born parents had the lowest odds of sharing books daily (odds ratio [OR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.68). When stratified by race/ethnicity, separate multivariate logistic regressions revealed CIF status to be associated with lower odds of DBS for Asian (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38-0.81) and Hispanic CIF (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.42-0.58).
There is an association between the lower odds of DBS and parental immigrant status, especially for Hispanic and Asian children. This relationship holds after controlling for variables thought to explain differences in literacy-related practices, such as parental education and income. Because book sharing is central to children's development of early literacy and language skills, this disparity merits further exploration with the aim of informing future interventions.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Both Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which are run by the states and funded by federal and state dollars, offer health insurance coverage for low-income children. Thirty-three states charged premiums for children at some income ranges in CHIP or Medicaid in 2013. Using data from the 1999-2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, we show that the relationship between premiums and coverage varies considerably by income level and by parental access to employer-sponsored insurance. Among children with family incomes above 150 percent of the federal poverty level, a $10 increase in monthly premiums is associated with a 1.6-percentage-point reduction in Medicaid or CHIP coverage. In this income range, the increase in uninsurance may be higher among those children whose parents lack an offer of employer-sponsored insurance than among those whose parents have such an offer. Among children with family incomes of 101-150 percent of poverty, a $10 increase in monthly premiums is associated with a 6.7-percentage-point reduction in Medicaid or CHIP coverage and a 3.3-percentage-point increase in uninsurance. In this income range, the increase in uninsurance is even larger among children whose parents lack offers of employer coverage.
Health Affairs 08/2014; 33(8):1353-60. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0182 · 4.97 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Following the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in 2009, fifteen states raised their CHIP income eligibility thresholds to further reduce uninsurance among children. We examined the impact of these expansions on uninsurance, public insurance, and private insurance among children who became newly eligible for CHIP after the expansions. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we estimated that the expansions reduced uninsurance by 1.1 percentage points among the newly eligible, cutting their uninsurance rate by nearly 15 percent. Public coverage increased by 2.9 percentage points, with variations in take-up among the states. A better understanding of these state-level differences in take-up could inform efforts to enroll children who remain uninsured but are eligible for CHIP. CHIP is up for reauthorization in 2015, and further funding will be needed to maintain the program, which provides insurance to children who might not have access to affordable private coverage.
Health Affairs 09/2014; 33(10). DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0208 · 4.97 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.