d

-

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Health Status, Health Insurance, and

Health Services Utilization: 2001

Household Economic Studies

P70-106

f

t

P

t

t

r

n

o

t

e

R

I

U

/

Issued February 2006

Current

Population

Reports

By 

Shailesh Bhandari

This report presents health service utilization rates by economic and demographic characteristics, health insurance

coverage status, and health status.1 The

health service utilization rates are measured by the frequencies of visits to service providers, such as doctors, dentists,

and hospitals, and by whether or not

people are taking prescription medicine.

Self-reported health status is measured

on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1

is “excellent” and 5 is “poor.”

While a majority of people have private

health insurance, employment-based or

self-purchased, and others have

government-provided free health insurance, some remain without health insurance.2 According to the Annual Social an

Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the

Current Population Survey (CPS), 60.4 per

cent of people in 2003 had employmentbased health insurance, 26.6 percent had

government health insurance, and 

15.6 percent were without health insurance for the entire year.3

According to the Survey of Income and

Program Participation’s (SIPP) 1996 panel,

1 The data presented in this report were collected

rom October 2001 through January 2002 in the

hird wave of the 2001 Survey of Income and

rogram Participation. The population presented is

he civilian noninstitutionalized population living in

he United States. All comparisons made in this

eport have undergone statistical testing and are sigificant at the 90-percent confidence level unless

therwise noted. 2 An employer offering health insurance may be

he respondent’s own employer or another person’s

mployer. 3 DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette Proctor, and

obert Mills (2004), Income, Poverty, and Health

nsurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, 

.S. Census Bureau: <www.census.gov/prod

2004pubs/p60-226.pdf>.

8.3 percent of people were without health

insurance coverage for the entire 1997

calendar year.4 Another 13.3 percent of

people were covered during some part of

1997, but they lacked coverage for at

least 1 month.5 Among the 98 million

people who worked for an employer offering health insurance to their employees,

13 million eligible workers chose not to

participate in their employers’ plans in

1997; 3 million cited cost as one of the

reasons, and 10 million had coverage

4 The CPS estimate of uninsured for 1997 was

16.1 percent. The variation between the SIPP and

CPS estimates is due to differences in the survey

techniques used by the two surveys. 5 Bhandari, Shailesh and Robert Mills (2003),

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Health Insurance

1996-1999, U.S. Census Bureau: <www.census.gov

/prod/2003pubs/p70-92.pdf>.

The SIPP—

A Longitudinal Survey

The SIPP is a longitudinal survey in

which respondents are interviewed

every 4 months for 36 to 48

months. Respondents provide

monthly information on several

core areas, such as income,

employment, program participation,

and general demographic characteristics. In addition, respondents provide information on many other

topics included in different modules

known as wave interviews. The

SIPP’s 1996 panel was a 12-wave

panel covering 48 months, and the

SIPP’s 2001 panel was a 9-wave

panel covering 36 months.
through another source.6 Others

were denied or were ineligible for

health insurance coverage.7

This report uses data from the SIPP

2001 panel, Wave 3, administered

between October 2001 and January

2002.8 While most data are contained in the topical module on

medical expenses and utilization,

information on demographic characteristics and health insurance

coverage come from the core

data.9 In the SIPP core survey,

respondents provide monthly information about their health insurance status as well as other information for a 4-month period.10 In

this topical module, respondents

provide information for all 12

months prior to the interview. For

more information on the SIPP, see

the text box “The SIPP—A

Longitudinal Survey.”

2 U.S. Census Bureau

6 Respondents could cite several reasons

for choosing no coverage. Therefore, the

two groups are not mutually exclusive. 7 Bhandari, Shailesh (2002), EmploymentBased Health Insurance: 1997, U.S. Census

Bureau: <www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs

/p70-81.pdf>. 8 For the 2001 SIPP Panel, approximately

40,500 housing units were in sample for

Wave 1. Of the 40,500 eligible units, 35,100

were interviewed. In Wave 2, an approximate

15 percent sample cut was implemented due

to budget constraints. In Wave 2, 28,100

interviews were obtained from 30,500 eligible

units. In Wave 3, 27,500 interviews were

obtained from 30,900 eligible units. In Wave

4, 27,200 interviews were obtained from

31,100 eligible units. In Wave 5, 26,800

interviews were obtained from 31,300 eligible

units. In Wave 6, 26,600 interviews were

obtained from 31,400 eligible units. In Wave

7, 26,500 interviews were obtained from

31,500 eligible units. In Wave 8, 26,000

interviews were obtained from 31,600 eligible

units. In Wave 9, 25,500 interviews were

obtained from 31,700 eligible units. 9 The same topical module was administered in Waves 6 and 9. 10 Although SIPP is essentially a survey

designed to measure the social and economic characteristics of low-income households, its large sample size makes it a reliable data source for medical expense and

service utilization analysis. A brief comparison of SIPP with the Medical Expenditure

Panel Survey is presented in the appendix.

HEALTH STATUS 

In 2001, close to two-thirds of people reported either excellent or very

good health, with the majority of

those two-thirds reporting excellent

health (Figure 1). About 12 percent

of people reported fair or poor

health. Men reported better health

than women did. A higher proportion of women than men reported

fair or poor health, 13 percent and

11 percent, respectively, and a

lower proportion reported excellent

health, 34 percent and 37 percent,

respectively (Table 1).11 A higher

proportion of non-Hispanic Whites

than Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians

11 The percentages of men and women

reporting very good health were not statistically different.

and Pacific Islanders reported excellent health; the proportion reporting

poor health was lower for Hispanics

than for non-Hispanic Whites.12

The estimates in this report are

based on responses from a sample

of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may vary from the

actual values because of sampling

12 Hispanics may be any race. As a

result, estimates for Hispanics in this report

overlap slightly with estimates for the Black

population and the Asian and Pacific Islander

population. Based on Wave 3 of the SIPP’s

2001 panel, 6.3 percent of Blacks and 4.3

percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders were

Hispanic. Statistically, the percentages of

Blacks and Hispanics reporting excellent

health were not different; percentages of

non-Hispanic Whites and of Asian and Pacific

Islanders were not different for very good,

good, fair, or poor health-status groups; and

the percentages of Hispanics and of Asians

and Pacific Islanders reporting poor health

were not different.

Figure 1.

Percentage Distribution of Perceived Health Status 

by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2001

Note: Numbers below bars represent the total number of people in thousands. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

October 2001−January 2002.

Hispanics

(any race)

(36,871)

Asians and

Pacific

Islanders

(11,398)

Blacks

(35,855)

Non-Hispanic

Whites

(196,821)

All

people

(281,113)

Poor

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

2.9

35.6

29.9

22.7

8.2

3.6

37.1

30.2

21.4

7.7

3.6

31.3

27.6

25.6

10.9

4.6

33.4

32.3

24.3

7.0

3.0

32.2

29.4

26.3

9.2
variation or other factors. Further

information on the source and

accuracy of the estimates is available at <www.sipp.census.gov

/sipp/sourceac/S&A01_w1tow6

_cross_puf.pdf>.

Data suggest that aging is associated with diminishing perceived

health status. For example, 

57 percent of people under 18

reported having excellent health

(Table 1). Among older age

groups, the percentage of people

reporting excellent health was

lower and the percentage reporting

good, fair, or poor health was

higher than for the younger age

groups reporting the same health

conditions, respectively.

There was no direct relationship

between income and perceived

health status unless the income was

at least 250 percent of the poverty

line—people living in a family with

income at least 250 percent of their

poverty threshold had better health

status than other income groups.

People in families with incomes less

than 100 percent of the poverty

threshold had the same health status as those in families with

incomes of 100 to 149 percent of

the poverty threshold.13 The second

income group (100 to 149 percent

of the poverty threshold) and the

third income group (150 to 199 percent of the poverty threshold) in

Table 1 had statistically the same

percentages of people with excellent health, very good health, or

good health. The third income

group and the fourth income group

(200 to 250 percent of poverty

threshold) had similar distributions

U.S. Census Bureau 3

13 For definitions and a detailed discussion of poverty and poverty thresholds, see

DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Mills (2004)

<www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs

/p60-226.pdf>.

of people with very good health,

good health, or poor health.

HEALTH STATUS AND

MEDICAL SERVICES

UTILIZATION14

The way people report their health

status is directly related to their use

of medical services, which include

visits to doctors or dentists, hospital stays, and prescription medicine.

For example, compared with other

health-status groups, those in progressively better health-status categories visited doctors less frequently, stayed fewer nights in

hospitals, and took prescription

medicine less frequently (Table 2).

However, no clear evidence links

reported health status and visits to

the dentist.

14 Since the institutionalized population is

not part of the SIPP sample, this analysis

does not include service utilization by that

population.

Table 1.

Perceived Health Status by Selected Characteristics: 2001

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

Total number

Health status (percent)

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

All people. ................................ 281,113 35.6 29.9 22.7 8.2 3.6

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137,361 37.4 30.1 21.8 7.4 3.4

Women . .......................................... 143,752 33.9 29.7 23.5 9.0 3.8

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White ................................ 196,821 37.1 30.2 21.4 7.7 3.6

Black . . . .......................................... 35,855 31.3 27.6 25.6 10.9 4.6

Asian and Pacific Islander ........................... 11,398 33.4 32.3 24.3 7.0 3.0

Hispanic (any race). ................................ 36,871 32.2 29.4 26.3 9.2 2.9

Age

Under 18 years . ................................... 72,659 56.5 27.2 13.8 2.1 0.4

18 to 24 years ..................................... 27,022 43.7 32.5 19.2 3.9 0.8

25 to 44 years ..................................... 82,980 34.8 34.2 22.5 6.5 2.0

45 to 64 years ..................................... 64,710 23.0 31.2 28.0 11.9 5.9

65 years and over .................................. 33,742 10.5 20.5 34.7 22.3 12.1

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Less than 100 percent .............................. 40,230 28.9 26.8 24.8 12.8 6.7

100 percent to less than 150 percent . ................ 26,309 29.3 26.2 25.5 12.6 6.5

150 percent to less than 200 percent . ................ 27,770 31.1 28.4 25.7 10.5 4.4

200 percent to less than 250 percent . ................ 27,999 33.7 29.5 24.1 8.8 3.9

250 percent or higher ............................... 158,423 39.5 31.6 20.9 5.9 2.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, October 2001−January 2002.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Health Services Utilization Rates by Health Status: 2001

(Numbers in thousands)

Health service

Total number

Health status

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Population under 18 years ................. 72,659 41,029 19,787 10,036 1,554 253

Percent Distribution

Doctor visit ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No visit........................................ 34.4 35.3 33.5 35.3 19.2 13.0

Visited once . . . ................................ 18.3 21.1 16.4 12.6 6.8 0.0

Visited twice ................................... 18.2 18.4 19.4 15.5 14.1 15.4

More than twice ................................ 29.2 25.2 30.6 36.7 59.9 71.6

Dentist visit ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No visit........................................ 45.5 42.8 47.4 51.9 51.2 37.4

Visited once . . . ................................ 17.9 18.2 17.0 17.4 19.5 28.9

Visited twice ................................... 25.6 27.8 24.7 19.5 19.5 19.8

More than twice ................................ 11.1 11.1 10.9 11.2 9.9 14.0

Hospital stay. ...................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No hospital stay ................................ 94.7 95.4 95.3 93.5 83.2 70.8

1 to 7 nights ................................... 4.7 4.4 4.4 5.4 12.0 15.7

8 to 30 nights .................................. 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.0 3.9 5.5

31 to 90 nights. . ............................... 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.6 1 91 nights or more ............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.5

Prescription medicine ............................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Never taken ................................... 64.7 69.5 62.6 55.6 28.6 19.4

Ever taken, not always .......................... 25.2 24.1 26.5 27.4 23.5 24.2

Taken whole year .............................. 10.2 6.4 11.0 17.1 47.9 56.3

Population 18 years and over .............. 208,454 59,065 64,241 53,701 21,622 9,826

Percent Distribution

Doctor visit ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No visit........................................ 24.2 32.0 25.2 22.2 13.0 6.7

Visited once . . . ................................ 17.0 24.3 19.0 13.6 6.6 3.0

Visited twice ................................... 15.7 18.4 18.0 14.7 9.1 4.9

More than twice ................................ 43.0 25.4 37.8 49.6 71.3 85.5

Dentist visit ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No visit........................................ 40.0 31.7 35.9 44.6 53.6 61.6

Visited once . . . ................................ 20.1 22.9 21.0 19.0 15.5 13.0

Visited twice ................................... 25.7 32.0 27.9 22.0 16.3 13.6

More than twice ................................ 14.3 13.4 15.3 14.5 14.6 11.8

Hospital stay. ...................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No hospital stay ................................ 90.1 95.4 93.7 90.0 78.4 60.8

1 to 7 nights ................................... 7.9 4.4 5.9 8.4 15.3 22.8

8 to 30 nights .................................. 1.7 0.2 0.4 1.5 5.1 12.8

31 to 90 nights. . ............................... 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 2.8 1 91 nights or more ............................. 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7

Prescription medicine ............................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Never taken ................................... 45.2 62.2 48.7 39.4 18.6 9.6

Ever taken, not always .......................... 14.1 15.3 17.1 13.2 8.5 3.9

Taken whole year .............................. 40.8 22.5 34.2 47.4 72.8 86.5

1 The universe for the SIPP excludes the institutionalized population, so this table underestimates the percentage of the total population

with long hospital stays.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, October 2001−January 2002.
Among children (individuals under health (50 percent), fair health 

18 years old), 25 percent of those (71 percent), and poor health (86

with excellent health status visited percent). People with excellent

a doctor more than twice in the pre- health had the lowest proportion of

vious 12 months. The correspon- people reporting more than two

ding figures for those with very visits to doctors.

good health, good health, fair

health, and poor health were About 95 percent of people with

31 percent, 37 percent, 60 percent, excellent or very good health did

and 72 percent, respectively. not spend any nights as a patient in

Among adults (those 18 and older), a hospital in the 12 months prior to

25 percent of those reporting excel- the interview. The corresponding

lent health visited a doctor more numbers were successively lower

than twice. The corresponding fig- for other health-status groups. The

ures were higher for those reporting corresponding figures for good

very good health (38 percent), good health, fair health, and poor health

groups were 94 percent, 83 percent, and 71 percent, respectively,

among children; and 90 percent, 

78 percent, and 61 percent, respectively, among adults. The chances

of a hospital stay were successively

higher for those in each lower

health-status group.

Sixty-five percent of children and

45 percent of adults did not take

prescription medicine over the previous 12 months. The rates were

highest for people with excellent

health (69 percent among children

and 62 percent among adults), and

successively lower for other

health-status groups. They were

lowest among those with poor

health status (19 percent of children and 10 percent of adults with

poor health did not take prescription medicine).

Ten percent of children and 41 percent of adults took prescription

medicine for the entire 12 months.

The rates were lowest for people

reporting excellent health (6 percent among children and 23 percent among adults); they were successively higher for other

health-status groups and highest

among those with poor health status (56 percent among children

and 87 percent among adults).

MEDICAL SERVICES

UTILIZATION BY

CHARACTERISTIC

Doctor Visits

The frequency of visits to doctors

or dentists depends on, among

other things, health status, health

insurance status, and the economic

status of the individuals. It also

varies by age, income, and other

characteristics of individuals 

(Figure 2). Among all people, 

27 percent never saw a doctor in

the past 12 months, while 31 percent of people visited doctors

more than three times (Table 3).

U.S. Census Bureau 5

Figure 2.

Percentage Distribution of Frequency of 

Doctor Visits Over the Previous 12 Months by 

Selected Characteristics: 2001

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

October 2001−January 2002.

Aged 65 and above

Aged 45 to 64

Aged 25 to 44

Aged 18 to 24

Aged 0 to 17

Hispanics (any race)

Asians and Pacific Islanders

Blacks

Non-Hispanic Whites

Female

Male

All people

Never 1 to 3 times More than 

3 times

26.9 42.7 30.5

32.5 42.5 25.0

21.4 42.9 35.6

22.5 44.2 33.4

33.0 40.9 26.1

33.5 42.8 23.7

43.0 35.9 21.1

34.4 45.2 20.4

35.3 43.3 21.4

29.6 43.9 26.5

20.5 43.2 36.4

9.3 33.0 57.7
A higher proportion of women than

men reported poor health as well as

visits to doctors—21 percent of

women never saw a doctor in the

previous 12 months, while 36 percent visited doctors more than three

times in the same period.

Compared with women, a larger

proportion of men did not see a

doctor (33 percent) and a smaller

proportion visited doctors more

than three times (25 percent).

Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest and Hispanics had the lowest

doctor-visit rates. During the 12

months prior to the interview, 

23 percent of non-Hispanic Whites

never visited a doctor. The corresponding rates for Blacks, Asians

and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics

were 33 percent, 34 percent, and

43 percent, respectively.15 About 

33 percent of non-Hispanic Whites

visited doctors more than three

times, which was higher than the

rates of Blacks (26 percent), Asians

and Pacific Islanders (24 percent),

and Hispanics (21 percent). The difference in doctor-visit rates between

Blacks and Hispanics is consistent

with their reported health status—

while equal proportions of them

reported excellent health, a lower

proportion of Hispanics than Blacks

reported fair or poor health.

Compared with younger people,

older people reported not only

6 U.S. Census Bureau

15 The percentages of Blacks and of

Asians and Pacific Islanders reporting zero

visits to a doctor were not statistically

different.

worse health but also greater

frequencies of doctor visits.16

About 35 percent of those under

25, 30 percent of those 25 to 44,

21 percent of those 45 to 64, and

9 percent of people aged 65 and

over never visited a doctor during

the 12 months prior to the survey.

In the same age groups, about 

20 percent, 27 percent, 36 percent, and 58 percent, respectively,

visited doctors more than three

times over the same period.

Income played a role in the percentage with at least one doctor

visit but did not play a role in the

percentage with more than three

16 The doctor-visit rates of people aged 0

to17 years and 18 to 24 years were not statistically different and are combined to show

the population under 25 years.

Table 3.

Medical Services Utilization Rates by Selected Characteristics: 2001

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic Total

number

Doctor visits Dentisit visits Hospital nights Prescription medicine

0

More

than 3 0

More

than 3 0

More

than 30 Never Regularly

All people......................... 281,113 26.9 30.5 41.4 8.2 91.3 0.3 50.2 32.9

Sex

Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137,361 32.5 25.0 44.2 7.5 93.1 0.3 56.2 27.1

Women. . .................................. 143,752 21.4 35.6 38.7 8.8 89.6 0.3 44.5 38.4

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White......................... 196,821 22.5 33.4 36.1 9.3 91.0 0.3 44.6 37.4

Black...................................... 35,855 33.0 26.1 53.1 5.0 91.2 0.2 59.1 26.8

Asian and Pacific Islander ................... 11,398 33.5 23.7 43.8 7.6 93.1 0.1 62.7 21.5

Hispanic (any race) ......................... 36,871 43.0 21.1 58.5 5.2 92.5 0.2 67.8 17.4

Age

Under 18 years. ............................ 72,659 34.4 20.4 45.5 7.2 94.7 0.1 64.7 10.2

18 to 24 years ............................. 27,022 35.3 21.4 43.1 5.6 92.6 0.1 65.9 16.9

25 to 44 years ............................. 82,980 29.6 26.5 39.8 6.8 92.2 0.1 56.0 25.2

45 to 64 years ............................. 64,710 20.5 36.4 35.4 11.1 90.9 0.3 37.7 50.9

65 years and over . . . ....................... 33,742 9.3 57.7 46.6 9.9 81.3 1.2 16.3 78.6

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Less than 100 percent ...................... 40,230 35.9 28.4 58.4 4.7 88.9 0.4 56.3 28.3

100 percent to less than 150 percent ......... 26,309 32.4 31.4 57.0 5.9 89.4 0.3 52.3 32.7

150 percent to less than 200 percent ......... 27,770 31.8 29.4 51.6 5.8 90.1 0.5 52.0 32.1

200 percent to less than 250 percent ......... 27,999 27.5 29.2 46.3 7.5 91.1 0.3 51.5 32.2

250 percent or higher ....................... 158,423 22.6 31.3 31.8 9.9 92.4 0.2 47.7 34.3

Note: Subtracting the columns representing ‘‘zero’’ or ‘‘never’’ from 100 percent will produce a new category called

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, October 2001−January 2002.

‘‘at least once.’’
visits.17 Dividing the population

into five categories based on their

income-to-poverty ratio reveals

that people in higher-income

groups were less likely not to have

U.S. Census Bureau 7

17 Proportions of people with family

income of 100 to 150 percent and 150 to

199 percent of poverty thresholds who did

not visit a doctor were not statistically different. The percentage who reported at least

one doctor visit was derived by subtracting

from 100 the percentage who had zero doctor visits.

visited a doctor during the 12

months. People with higher

incomes did not differ from people

with lower incomes in visiting doctors more than three times,

although they had a higher rate of

at least one visit.

Dentist Visits

Dentist-visit rates varied by sex,

race, Hispanic origin, age, and

income (Table 3). Over the previous

12 months, 39 percent of women

and 44 percent of men never saw a

dentist; and another 9 percent of

women visited dentists more than

three times compared with 8 percent of men. Non-Hispanic Whites

visited a dentist the most, based on

more than three visits, and

Hispanics visited a dentist the least,

based on zero visits.

People under 18 and those aged

65 and over visited a dentist at

least once in equal proportions—

about 54 percent of both groups

visited a dentist at least once over

the last 12 months. For other age

groups, a higher proportion of

older people than younger ones

visited a dentist at least once.

People aged 45 to 64 had the highest proportions who visited dentists at least once and more than

three times. The lowest proportions of people who visited a dentist more than three times were

those under 45.

Dentist-visit rates were directly

related to family income. People

living in families with incomes less

than 150 percent of their poverty

threshold had the lowest rate of at

least one visit to a dentist.18 For

other income groups, as the

income-to-poverty ratio increased,

so did the rates of at least one

visit or more than three visits to a

dentist. Those with a 250 percent

or higher income-to-poverty ratio

had the highest proportions of

people with at least one visit or

more than three visits to dentists.

18 The percentages of people with family

income of less than 100 percent of their

poverty threshold and 100 to 149 percent of

their poverty threshold visiting a dentist at

least once were statistically not different and

were combined for the comparison. The

percentages of people with family income of

100 to 149 percent of their poverty threshold and 150 to 199 percent of their poverty

threshold visiting a dentist more than three

times were statistically not different.

Figure 3.

Percentage With No Hospital Stays Over the Previous 

12 Months by Selected Characteristics: 2001

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

October 2001−January 2002.

250% or higher

200% to less than 250%

150% to less than 200%

100% to less than 150%

Less than 100%

Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Aged 65 and above

Aged 45 to 64

Aged 25 to 44

Aged 18 to 24

Aged 0 to 17

Hispanics (any race)

Asians and Pacific Islanders

Blacks

Non-Hispanic Whites

Female

Male

All people

92.4

91.3

93.1

89.6

91.0

91.2

93.1

92.5

94.7

92.6

92.2

90.9

81.3

88.9

89.4

90.1

91.1
Hospital Stays

While 91 percent of all people did

not spend any nights in a hospital

as a patient, the proportion for

people aged 65 and over was 

81 percent (Figure 3).19 People

under 18 years had the highest,

and those aged 65 and over had

the lowest proportions of people

with zero nights in a hospital.

The likelihood of at least one night

in a hospital varied across sex,

race, and Hispanic origin.

However, the likelihood of more

than 30 nights of hospital-stay was

uniform across those characteristics. While a higher proportion of

women than men spent at least

one night in the hospital, an equal

proportion of them spent more

than 30 nights. A lower proportion of Asians and Pacific Islanders

than non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks,

and Hispanics spent at least one

night in a hospital.20 However,

about equal proportions of all

groups spent more than 30 nights

in hospitals.

Older people had higher rates than

younger ones of at least one night

of hospital-stay. People 65 years

and older had the highest proportions who spent at least one night

or over 30 nights in a hospital.21

Except for people aged 65 and

over, other age groups showed no

differences in the proportions of

people staying more than 30

nights in the hospital.

Prescription Medicine

One-half of all people never took

prescription medicines, while

another one-third regularly took

prescription medicines over the

previous 12 months (Figure 4). A

higher proportion of women than

men took prescription medicine at

least once (56 percent compared

with 44 percent) or during the

entire 12 months (38 percent compared with 27 percent).22

Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest proportions and Hispanics had

the lowest proportions of people

taking prescription medicine at

least once or regularly during the

entire 12 months prior to the interview. While 55 percent of nonHispanic Whites took prescription

medicine at least once, 41 percent

of Blacks, 32 percent of Hispanics,

and 37 percent of Asians and

Pacific Islanders did so. Similarly,

while 37 percent of non-Hispanic

8 U.S. Census Bureau

19 People in institutions, which include

nursing homes, are not included in the SIPP.

Therefore, this analysis does not represent

their service utilization. 20 The percentage of non-Hispanic Whites

staying zero nights in a hospital was not statistically different from that of Blacks; and

the percentage of Asians and Pacific

Islanders staying zero nights was not different from that of Hispanics. 21 The percentage of people aged 18 to

24 staying zero nights in a hospital was not

different from that of people aged 25 to 44.

22 The percentage who reported taking pre- reported never taking prescription medicine.

scription medication at least once was derived In Figure 4, at least once is the sum of ever,

by subtracting from 100 the percentage who not regularly and regularly.

Figure 4.

Percentage Distribution of Frequency of Prescription 

Medicine Over the Previous 12 Months 

by Selected Characteristics: 2001

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

October 2001−January 2002.

Aged 65 and above

Aged 45 to 64

Aged 25 to 44

Aged 18 to 24

Aged 0 to 17

Hispanics (any race)

Asians and Pacific Islanders

Blacks

Non-Hispanic Whites

Female

Male

All people

Never Ever, not regularly Regularly

78.6

50.2 16.9 32.9

56.2 16.7 27.1

44.5 17.2 38.4

44.6 17.9 37.4

59.1 14.1 26.8

62.7 15.7 21.5

67.8 14.8 17.4

64.7 25.2 10.2

65.9 17.2 16.9

56.0 18.8 25.2

37.7 11.4 50.9

16.3 5.2
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 4.

Health Insurance Coverage Rates by Health Status and Selected Characteristics: 2001

(Numbers in thousands. Health insurance type [percent])

Health status

Characteristic Total

number Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

All people. ................................... 281,113 100,094 84,028 63,736 23,176 10,079

Covered by any health insurance. . . ................. 85.3 87.1 85.1 82.5 84.4 87.7

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.0 78.0 75.1 68.0 55.9 47.8

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 15.1 19.5 31.2 53.6 71.1

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 12.9 14.9 17.5 15.6 12.3

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137,361 51,307 41,286 29,930 10,218 4,620

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.8 85.6 83.6 80.7 83.1 86.4

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.7 77.1 74.5 67.7 56.8 45.4

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 14.0 17.5 28.0 51.1 70.3

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 14.4 16.4 19.3 16.9 13.6

Women . ............................................. 143,752 48,787 42,742 33,806 12,958 5,459

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.7 88.7 86.5 84.1 85.5 88.8

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 78.9 75.7 68.2 55.3 49.8

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 16.4 21.4 34.1 55.6 71.8

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 11.3 13.5 15.9 14.5 11.2

Race and Hispanic Origin

Non-Hispanic White ................................... 196,821 73,016 59,420 42,155 15,220 7,010

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.7 90.9 89.6 88.0 88.4 90.0

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.9 85.0 82.5 76.7 65.3 56.4

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 12.1 18.2 32.3 56.0 72.9

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 9.1 10.4 12.0 11.6 10.1

Black . . . ............................................. 35,855 11,231 9,894 9,182 3,900 1,647

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.7 83.0 79.5 78.4 80.7 84.6

Covered by private health insurance. . ............... 55.3 61.7 60.5 54.6 37.9 26.3

Covered by government health insurance ............ 33.4 27.0 25.3 33.8 55.2 72.9

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 17.0 20.5 21.7 19.3 15.4

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,398 3,801 3,686 2,766 800 344

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.5 84.1 83.8 80.8 87.0 87.9

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.0 75.5 73.5 69.8 54.7 43.3

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 13.4 16.3 21.3 42.1 54.4

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 15.9 16.2 19.2 13.0 12.1

Hispanic (any race).................................... 36,871 11,881 10,846 9,693 3,384 1,068

Covered by any health insurance. . . ................. 66.3 69.0 65.3 61.9 69.0 78.8

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.7 51.5 48.4 41.7 34.5 25.1

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 23.1 21.6 25.9 41.4 64.3

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.7 31.0 34.7 38.1 31.0 21.3

Family Income-to-Poverty Ratio

Incomes less than 100 percent of poverty threshold ....... 40,230 11,634 10,773 9,969 5,165 2,689

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.1 73.7 67.0 65.8 72.1 79.2

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 41.7 36.0 29.0 20.2 16.6

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.2 38.3 38.1 45.2 61.2 72.4

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 26.3 33.0 34.2 27.9 20.9

Incomes 100 to 199 percent of poverty threshold. . ........ 54,080 16,320 14,769 13,831 6,227 2,932

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.8 76.7 74.4 74.3 82.1 89.8

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.9 60.6 57.3 54.2 47.7 48.0

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.5 24.1 28.8 39.5 61.7 77.8

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 23.4 25.6 25.7 17.9 10.2

Incomes 200 or more percent of poverty threshold ........ 186,803 72,141 58,485 39,936 11,784 4,459

Covered by any health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.0 91.6 91.1 89.5 91.0 91.5

Covered by private health insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.1 87.8 86.8 82.5 75.9 66.4

Covered by government health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 9.4 13.7 24.9 46.0 66.0

Not covered by any health insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 8.4 8.9 10.5 9.0 8.5

Note: Some people are covered by more than one source of health insurance. Therefore, the percentage covered by private health

insurance and that by government health insurance add up to more than any coverage. Any coverage may easily be obtained by subtracting

from 100 the ‘‘not covered.’’

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, October 2001−January 2002.
Whites took prescription medicine

regularly during the entire previous

12-month period, 27 percent of

Blacks, 17 percent of Hispanics,

and 22 percent of Asians and

Pacific Islanders did so.

By age, people under 18 years had

the lowest proportion and those

aged 65 and over had the highest

proportion of people taking prescription medicine at least once or

regularly during the entire 12

months prior to the interview.

About 35 percent of people under

25 years and 84 percent of those

aged 65 and over took prescription

medicine at least once. In the age

groups 25 to 44 years and 45 to

64 years, the percentages taking

prescription medicine regularly for

the entire 12 months prior to the

interview were about one-fourth

and one-half, respectively.

People with family incomes of less

than 100 percent of their poverty

thresholds had the lowest and

those with at least 250 percent of

their poverty threshold had the

highest proportions of people taking prescription medicine at least

once or regularly for the entire 12

months prior to the interview.

Among people with family incomes

of less than 100 percent of their

poverty thresholds, 44 percent

took prescription medicine at least

once and 28 percent took prescription medicine regularly for the

entire 12 months. Among those

with incomes at least 250 percent

of the poverty threshold, 52 percent took prescription medicine at

least once and 34 percent took

prescription medicine regularly for

the entire 12 months. Among

those with family incomes 100 to

250 percent of the poverty threshold, about one-half took prescription medicine at least once, and

one-third took it regularly for the

entire 12 months.23

HEALTH STATUS AND

HEALTH INSURANCE

COVERAGE24

People with excellent health had the

highest rate of private health insurance and the lowest rate of having

government-provided health insurance coverage (Table 4). An estimated 78 percent of people with

excellent health were covered by

private health insurance and 

10 U.S. Census Bureau

23 The consumption rates of prescription

medicine were not statistically different

among the three income-to-poverty ratio

groups: 100 to 149 percent, 150 to 199 percent, and 200 to 249 percent of the 

poverty line. 24 Health insurance status in this section

is that in the fourth month of the reference

period.

15 percent were covered by government health insurance. The lower

health-status groups had successively lower private health insurance coverage rates and higher

government health insurance rates.

People reporting poor health status

had the lowest private health insurance coverage rates and the highest

government health insurance

coverage rates.

When the two types of coverage are

considered together, people with

excellent health and those with

poor health had health insurance

coverage rates that were not statistically different (nearly 88 percent).

Similarly, people with very good

health and those with fair health

had health insurance coverage rates

that were not statistically different

Figure 5.

Health Insurance Coverage for All People 

by Health Status: 2001

Note: Numbers below the bars represent the total number of people in thousands. 

Percentages add to more than 100 percent because of overlaps in coverage.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

October 2001−January 2002.

Poor

(10,079)

Fair

(23,176)

Good

(63,736)

Very good

(84,028)

Excellent

(100,094)

78.0

15.112.9

75.1

19.5

14.9

68.0

31.2

17.5

55.9 53.6

15.6

47.8

71.1

12.3

Private health 

insurance

Government health 

insurance

No health 

insurance
(85 percent). People with good

health (the middle category) had the

highest percentage of people without any health insurance coverage,

at 18 percent (Table 4 and 

Figure 5).25

U.S. Census Bureau 11

25 Some people are covered by more than

one source of health insurance. Therefore,

the percentage covered by private health

and that by government health insurance

add up to more than any coverage. Any

coverage may easily be obtained by subtracting from 100 the no coverage. 

Men and women who reported

good health had the highest

uninsured rates of all health-status

groups—19 percent of men and 

16 percent of women reporting

good health had no health insurance (Table 4).26 In almost all

health-status groups, compared

26 The uninsured rates among women

with good health and fair health were not

statistically different.

with men, women had higher rates

of any kind of health insurance coverage as well as of government

health insurance coverage.27 Private

health insurance coverage rates

27 Among those with poor health status,

the government health insurance coverage

rates were not statistically different for men

and women; among the poor health-status

group, the overall health insurance coverage

rates were not statistically different for men

and women.

Table 5.

Percentage of People Seeking Health Services Without Health Insurance by

Health Status: 2001

(Numbers in thousands)

Health service Total

number

Health status

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

All people............................................ 281,113 100,094 84,028 63,736 23,176 10,079

Uninsured at least 1 month of 4 previous months1 ................. 46,468 14,910 14,077 12,174 3,947 1,359

Visited doctor/dentist while uninsured ............................ 21.4 12.0 18.3 25.4 41.6 63.2

Received service (out of those who visited)................... 75.3 59.7 70.7 75.3 90.2 93.8

Received free (out of those who received service)......... 33.2 52.5 30.0 31.7 23.4 37.6

Received discount (out of those who received service)..... 29.2 31.1 27.2 32.4 30.2 20.5

Did not receive service (out of those who visited).............. 24.7 40.3 29.3 24.7 9.8 6.2

Visited hospital while uninsured ................................. 2.6 0.9 1.5 3.5 6.2 15.7

Visited emergency room while uninsured ......................... 3.3 1.3 2.7 4.1 8.6 8.6

Obtained routine check-ups .................................... 10.2 6.2 8.5 11.8 17.0 36.2

People in poverty............................................. 40,230 11,634 10,773 9,969 5,165 2,689

Uninsured at least 1 month of 4 previous months1 ................. 13,079 3,448 3,884 3,640 1,492 615

Visited doctor/dentist while uninsured ............................ 23.3 12.3 17.8 27.2 39.1 58.4

Received service (out of those who visited)................... 76.7 59.4 68.9 74.6 89.6 97.2

Received free (out of those who received service)......... 40.2 61.3 39.4 42.9 23.8 45.2

Received discount (out of those who received service)..... 34.2 28.6 26.0 42.9 41.3 20.8

Did not receive service (out of those who visited).............. 23.3 40.6 31.1 25.4 10.4 2.8

Visited hospital while uninsured ................................. 3.6 1.0 1.5 4.6 7.4 16.3

Visited emergency room while uninsured ......................... 3.8 1.1 2.1 4.5 9.7 10.9

Obtained routine check-ups .................................... 10.5 6.6 8.0 12.3 13.2 31.4

People with incomes 100 to 199 percent of poverty threshold . . . 54,080 16,320 14,769 13,831 6,227 2,932

Uninsured at least 1 month of 4 previous months1 ................. 13,723 4,309 4,096 3,771 1,231 316

Visited doctor/dentist while uninsured ............................ 21.3 11.1 18.2 25.4 41.8 72.3

Received service (out of those who visited)................... 78.9 65.0 74.7 80.4 89.7 91.5

Received free (out of those who received service)......... 25.0 41.9 23.8 20.6 19.8 30.3

Received discount (out of those who received service)..... 28.8 40.9 31.3 28.8 21.1 21.0

Did not receive service (out of those who visited).............. 21.1 35.0 25.3 19.6 10.3 8.5

Visited hospital while uninsured ................................. 2.1 0.4 1.3 3.1 4.7 12.8

Visited emergency room while uninsured ......................... 3.7 1.4 3.2 5.6 5.8 7.9

Obtained routine check-ups .................................... 9.7 5.1 7.8 11.0 21.5 36.9

1 The 4 months included are the four preceding the interview month, which range from June to September 2001, through September to

December 2001.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, October 2001−January 2002.
among men and women were generally not statistically different.28

Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest overall health insurance coverage rates as well as private health

insurance rates in all health-status

groups. Even among those with

good health status (the most uninsured group), 12 percent of nonHispanic Whites, 22 percent of

Blacks, 38 percent of Hispanics, and

19 percent of Asians and Pacific

Islanders lacked health insurance.

Among non-Hispanic Whites and

Blacks, nearly 73 percent of those

with poor health, about 56 percent

of those with fair health, and about

33 percent of those with good

health had government health

insurance.29 Asians and Pacific

Islanders had lower government

coverage rates—20 percent overall

and 54 percent of those with 

poor health.30

Compared with people in poverty

(those with incomes less than 100

percent of the poverty threshold),

a larger proportion of people with

higher incomes had some kind of

health insurance. Those in poverty

had higher proportions of people

with government health insurance

and a lower proportion with private health insurance coverage

than those not in poverty.

UTILIZING HEALTH

SERVICES WITHOUT

HEALTH INSURANCE

COVERAGE

Among people with at least 1

month of no health insurance coverage in the 4 months preceding

12 U.S. Census Bureau

28 Among those with excellent health status, women had a higher private health

insurance coverage rate than men. 29 Among people reporting good, fair, or

poor health, the government health insurance rates for non-Hispanic Whites and

Blacks were not statistically different. 30 The proportions of Asians and Pacific

Islanders with poor health status had government health insurance rates not statistically different from that of Hispanics.

the interview, 21 percent had visited a doctor or a dentist while

they were uninsured (Table 5). Of

those who visited, three-fourths

received services. Among those

who received services, nearly onethird received the service free of

cost. Among uninsured people,

those in poverty and those with

incomes 100 to 199 percent of

their poverty threshold had statistically the same proportions of people who visited a doctor or a dentist, received service, and got a

discounted price for the service. 

A higher proportion of people in

poverty than the latter group

received that service for free.

Among people with at least 1

month not covered by health insurance, those reporting excellent

health had the lowest rates of visiting a doctor, a dentist, a hospital,

or an emergency room during the

uninsured month. In addition, the

proportion of people receiving routine check-ups during uninsured

months was lowest among the

excellent-health group. The lower

health-status groups generally had

successively higher rates of obtaining routine check-ups and visiting

a doctor, a dentist, a hospital, or

an emergency room when not

insured.31 There was no clear pattern regarding the relationship

between health status and receiving free health service from a doctor or a dentist.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

The population represented (the

population universe) in the 2001

SIPP is the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United

States. The SIPP is a longitudinal

survey conducted at 4-month intervals. The data used in this report

31 The percentages of emergency room

visits by people in the fair health group were

not statistically different from those of people in the poor health group.

were collected from February

through May 2003. For the 2001

SIPP panel, approximately 40,500

housing units were in sample for

Wave 1. Of those 40,500 eligible

units, 35,100 were interviewed. In

Wave 3, 27,500 interviews were

obtained from 30,900 eligible

units. The institutionalized population, which is excluded from the

population universe, is composed

primarily of the population in correctional institutions and nursing

homes (91 percent of the 4.1 million institutionalized population in

Census 2000).

ACCURACY OF THE

ESTIMATES

Statistics from surveys are subject

to sampling and nonsampling

errors. All comparisons presented

in this report have taken sampling

error into account and are significant at the 90-percent confidence

level unless otherwise noted. This

means the 90-percent confidence

interval for the difference between

the estimates being compared does

not include zero. Nonsampling

errors in surveys may be attributed

to a variety of sources, such as how

the survey is designed, how respondents interpret questions, how able

and willing respondents are to provide correct answers, and how

accurately the answers are coded

and classified. The U.S. Census

Bureau employs quality control procedures throughout the production

process, including the overall

design of surveys, the wording of

questions, review of the work of

interviewers and coders, and statistical review of reports to minimize

these errors.

The SIPP weighting procedure uses

ratio estimation, whereby sample

estimates are adjusted to independent estimates of the national

population by age, race, sex, and

Hispanic origin. This weighting
partially corrects for bias due to or contact Dennis Sissel of the Search for health insurance data by

undercoverage, but biases may still Census Bureau’s Demographic clicking on the “Subjects A-Z” link

be present when people who are Statistical Methods Division via and selecting “health insurance

missed by the survey differ from email <charles.d.sissel@ data” under “H.” Additional tables

those interviewed in ways other census.gov>. presenting health insurance inforthan age, race, sex, and Hispanic mation from the SIPP are also avail- Additional information on the SIPP origin. How this weighting proce- able on the Internet site. can be found at the following Web dure affects other variables in the

sites: <www.sipp.census.gov survey is not precisely known. All CONTACTS

/sipp/> (main SIPP Web site), of these considerations affect com- Health insurance issues: <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp parisons across different surveys Sharon Stern /workpapr/wp230.pdf> or data sources. Chief, Poverty and (SIPP Quality Profile), and

Health Statistics Branch For further information on statisti- <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp

Housing and Household Economic cal standards and the computation /usrguide/sipp2001.pdf> 

Statistics Division and use of standard errors, go to (SIPP User’s Guide).

301-763-3213 <www.sipp.census.gov

/sipp/sourceac/S&A-2_SIPP2001 MORE INFORMATION

_w1tow9_20050214.pdf> The report is available on the

Internet at <www.census.gov>.

U.S. Census Bureau 13
14 U.S. Census Bureau

APPENDIX

Comparative Description of the

Survey of Income and Program

Participation and the Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey

The Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) and the Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)

are both longitudinal surveys. The

two surveys have different scopes

and techniques, but they cover

some areas in common, such as

health insurance and health service

utilization. SIPP is broader in

nature than MEPS, which is primarily designed to collect data on

usage and cost of health services.

The SIPP core (the questions asked

during every interview) collects

information on sources and amount

of income, labor force participation,

program participation, health insurance coverage, and general demographic characteristics.

Additionally, SIPP topical modules

(with questions that vary among the

interview waves) collect information

on several topics, such as personal

history, child care, child support,

wealth, disability, health service utilization, school enrollment, and so

forth. On the other hand, MEPS is

designed to collect data only about

health care use and costs in the

United States. MEPS consists of

four components: a household

component, a nursing home component, a medical provider component, and an insurance component.

Due to their differences in scope

and techniques, the two surveys

sometimes provide divergent estimates for similar concepts. Table

A shows some comparable statistics from the surveys. For more

detailed comparisons on the two

surveys, including sample design,

operational issues, and statistics,

readers may visit their respective

Web sites: <www.meps.ahrq.gov <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp

/whatismeps/overview.htm> and /overview.html>.

Table A.

Percentage Distribution of Selected Characteristics in the

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS): 2001

Characteristic SIPP MEPS

All people . ..............................

Sex

100.0 100.0

Male ............................................ 48.9 48.8

Female ..........................................

Age

51.1 51.2

Under 18 years ................................... 25.8 25.7

18 to 24 years. . . ................................. 9.6 9.6

25 to 44 years. . . ................................. 29.5 29.2

45 to 64 years. . . ................................. 23.0 23.0

65 years and over ................................

Perceived Health Status

12.0 12.6

Not ascertained................................... 1

NA 0.1

Excellent. . ....................................... 35.6 29.9

Very good. ....................................... 29.9 34.1

Good ............................................ 22.7 25.5

Fair ............................................. 8.2 7.6

Poor ............................................

Not Covered by Any Health Insurance

3.6 2.8

All people ........................................ 6.8 11.7

Not ascertained................................... 1

NA 19.4

Excellent. . ....................................... 5.4 10.1

Very good. ....................................... 6.5 11.1

Good ............................................ 9.0 13.9

Fair ............................................. 8.2 13.6

Poor ............................................

Never Visited Doctors

6.4 9.6

All people ........................................ 26.2 27.5

Not ascertained................................... 1

NA 52.9

Excellent. . ....................................... 33.2 33.7

Very good. ....................................... 26.1 27.9

Good ............................................ 23.5 25.3

Fair ............................................. 13.1 14.8

Poor ............................................

Never Visited Dentists

6.6 8.7

All people ........................................ 40.3 57.4

Not ascertained................................... 1

NA 97.6

Excellent. . ....................................... 34.6 53.8

Very good. ....................................... 37.4 54.7

Good ............................................ 44.8 60.1

Fair ............................................. 53.2 67.7

Poor ............................................ 60.7 73.4

1 SIPP does not have this category since it imputes for nonresponse.

Sources: SIPP: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation,

October 2001−January 2002; MEPS: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2001

Full Year Consolidated Data File (HC-060). Released May 2004. Medical Expenditure Panel

Survey.
U.S. Department of Commerce

FIRST-CLASS MAIL Economics and Statistics Administration POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300