Article

Lower-Income Families Pay A Higher Share Of Income Toward National Health Care Spending Than Higher-Income Families Do

Institute of Health Administration at Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 09/2011; 30(9):1637-46. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0712
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT All health care spending from public and private sources, such as governments and businesses, is ultimately paid by individuals and families. We calculated the burden of US health care spending on families as a percentage of income and found that at the national level, lower-income families pay a larger share of their incomes toward health care than do higher-income families. Specifically, we found that payments made privately, such as those for health insurance or out-of-pocket spending for care, and publicly, through taxes and tax expenditures, consumed more than 20 percent of family income for families in the lowest-income quintile but no more than 16 percent for families in any other income quintile. Our analysis provides a framework for considering the equity of various initiatives under health reform. Although many effects remain to be seen, we find that, overall, the Affordable Care Act should reduce inequities in the burden of paying for national health care spending.

Full-text

Available from: Viji Diane Kannan, Apr 14, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
87 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE To compare health insurance coverage and type of coverage for adults with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The data used were from 2,704 adults who self-reported diabetes and 25,008 adults without reported diabetes in the 2009 National Health Interview Survey. Participants reported on their current type of health insurance coverage, demographic information, diabetes-related factors, and comorbidities. If uninsured, participants reported reasons for not having health insurance. RESULTS Among all adults with diabetes, 90% had some form of health insurance coverage, including 85% of people 18-64 years of age and ∼100% of people ≥65 years of age; 81% of people without diabetes had some type of coverage (vs. diabetes, P < 0.0001), including 78% of people 18-64 years of age and 99% of people ≥65 years of age. More adults 18-64 years of age with diabetes had Medicare coverage (14% vs. no diabetes, 3%; P < 0.0001); fewer people with diabetes had private insurance (58% vs. no diabetes, 66%; P < 0.0001). People 18-64 years of age with diabetes more often had two health insurance sources compared with people without diabetes (13 vs. 5%, P < 0.0001). The most common private plan was a preferred provider organization (PPO) followed by a health maintenance organization/independent practice organization (HMO/IPA) plan regardless of diabetes status. For participants 18-64 years of age, high health insurance cost was the most common reason for not having coverage. CONCLUSIONS Two million adults <65 years of age with diabetes had no health insurance coverage, which has considerable public health and economic impact. Health care reform should work toward ensuring that people with diabetes have coverage for routine care.
    Diabetes care 07/2012; 35(11):2243-9. DOI:10.2337/dc12-0257 · 8.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to propose an elective social work course as a means of better preparing social workers entering practice in healthcare to meet the challenges of promoting health and reducing health disparities in minority and underserved communities. Course offerings specifically targeting health or medical social work training vary widely. The additional training provided at places of employment and through continuing education after the master's degree is often inadequate for competently addressing the issues clinicians face in practice.
    Journal of Teaching in Social Work 11/2012; 32(5):471-486. DOI:10.1080/08841233.2012.725458
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: Improvements in some treatment programs for multiple myeloma (MM) are increasing survival. As patients live longer with MM as a chronic disease, the personal financial effects of MM treatment become a serious concern. OBJECTIVE:: The objective of this study was to identify the personal financial effects of MM and its treatment in 5 areas: employment, disability, health/medical and life insurance, retirement, and out-of-pocket expenses. METHODS:: We mailed a questionnaire about financial issues to 1015 patients who had received intensive treatment for MM at the study site. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and comparisons using independent t tests. RESULTS:: Our sample (n = 762; mean age, 61 [SD, 9.26] years) experienced issues with employment (66% employed at diagnosis and treatment; 33% employed at questionnaire time), disability (35% applied), health/medical and life insurance (29% lost coverage and 8% changed coverage), retirement (13% retired during treatment), and out-of-pocket expenses (36% of income in first treatment year and 28% of income during most recent 12 months). CONCLUSIONS:: Issues of employment, disability, health insurance, retirement, and out-of-pocket costs for treatment are major challenges for patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:: In the midst of assessing physical needs during clinical trials for chemotherapy and stem cell transplants, healthcare providers must keep sight of patients' personal financial needs so that we can intervene promptly with referrals to social work, rehabilitation therapy, and other healthcare professions to help patients decrease the personal financial effects of MM and its treatment.
    Cancer nursing 10/2012; 36(4). DOI:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182693522 · 1.93 Impact Factor