Series 22

Data from the 

NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICSSYSTEM Number 12 

Health InsuranceCoverage 

for Maternity Care: 

legitimateliveBirths 

United States =1964-1966 

Statistics an health insurance coverage for maternity care for 

mothers of legitimate live births which occurred during 1964-

1966 in the United States 

geographic region, education 

vious fetal deaths, and other 

geographic characteristics. 

collected in 1964-66 National 

by race of infant, fami Iy income, 

of father, live-birth order presocioeconomic, demographic, and 

The statistics are based on data 

Natality Survey. 

DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-1009 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

Public Health Service 

Health Services and Mental Health Administration 

National Center for Health Statistics 

Rockville, Md. October 1971 
, & 

.+-t 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402- Price 60 cents 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS


THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Director 

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC.D., Associate Director 

OSWALD K. SAGEN, Ph.D., Assistant Director for Health Statistics Development 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M.A., Assistant Director for Research and Scientific Devebpment 

JAMES E. KELLY, D.D.S., Dental Advisor 

EDWARD E. MINTY, Executive Officer 

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer 

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, M.S., Director 

JOHN E. PATTERSON&sistant Di’rector for Demographic Affairs 

ARNE B. NELSON, M.A., Chiej Vital Recor& Survey Branch 

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 22-No. 12 

DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-1009 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 76-608557 
------------------ ------------------ ----------------------

--------------------------- ------------------

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---

------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- -----

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----

-------------------------- ----------------------

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- -----

------- ------- --------------------- ------- -------

-------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

--------------------------- ------------------------

-------------------------------------

-------------------------- ----------

----------------------------------------------

--------------------------- ------------------------- -------

--------- -------------------------- --------------------

----- ------

--------- --------- ------------------------- ----

------------------------- ---

-------------------------- --------------

------- -----------------

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

---------------------------------------------

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -----

-----------

--------- -----

-----------------

-------------------------------------------

----------------- ----------------- --

------------------------

CONTENTS


Page 

Introduction


Sources and Limitations of the Data -------------------------------------


Nature of the Population


Background Information


Extent of Coverage ------.


Race of Infant .------


Family Income


Residence of Mother


Age of Father


Education of Father


Education of Metier


Employment During Pregnancy


Live-Birth Order


Number of Previous Fetal Deaths


Number of Previous Infant Deaths


Birth Weight of Infmt


References


Detailed Tables


Appendix 1. Technical Notes on Methods .,-------------------

Background . . . . . . ..-

Sample Desi~-----------------------------------------------------

Birth Certificate and Survey Questionnaire


Collection of Data --------------------------------------------------

Processing of Data -.-------

Nonresponse and Imputation of Missing Data -s


Estimation --.---- -

Reliabiliq of Estimates


Rounding of Numbers


Appendix II. Definitions of Certain Terms Used in This Report


Terms Related to Data Derived From the Birth Certificate


Terms Related to Data Derived From the Questionnaire


Appendix III. Source Forms


Standard Certificate of Live Birth


1964-66 National Natality Survey Questionnaire


1


2 

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

10 

11 

12 

12 

13 

14 

15 

15 

17 

18 

39 

39 

39 

40 

40 

41 

41 

43 

44 

46 

47 

47 

47 

49 

49 

50 

... ill 
----------------------- ---

------------------

---------------------------

------------------

SYMBOLS 

Data not available 

Category not applicable . . . 

Quantity zero -

Quantity more than Obutless than O.05---- 0.0 

Figure doesnot meet standardsof * reliability or precision 

iv 
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR


MATERNITY CARE


William I. Barton, Division of Vital Statistics 

INTRODUCTION rates of coverage were for mothers who resided 

in the Northeast Region (70 percent) and the 

This report presents statistics on health in- North Central Region (67 percent). The lowest 

surance coverage for maternity care for mothers rate of coverage was in the South (49 percent). 

of legitimate live births during 1964-1966 in the The rate of coverage for mothers who resided 

United States .These statistics are based on data in metropolitan areas (63 percent) was higher 

collected in the 1964-66 National Natality Survey. than the rate for those who resided outside 

Information will be presented on three kinds of metropolitan areas (53 percent). There was a 

health insurance coverage: insurance to help higher rate of coverage for mothers if the 

pay (1) at least part of physician bills for office fathers were college graduates than if the favisits or home calls during pregnancy, (2) at thers had less education. 

least part of physician bills for delivery of The statistics shown in this report do not 

the baby, and (3) at least part of the bills for measure the extent to which health insurance paid 

hospitals care at the time of delivery. For the bills for maternity care. In some cases 

purposes of this report coverage is termed the insurance may have paid in full all bills 

“complete” if there was insurance to pay at for service rendered, and in other cases it may 

least part of the bills for all of these services. have paid only a portion of the total bill for a 

Coverage is termed “partial” if there was in- service. In all cases the insurance had to have 

surance to pay at least part of the bills for one been available to pay at least some of the bills 

or two of these services but not all three. When for the mother to have been classified as having 

there was no health insurance coverage for any coverage. The statistics should accurately reflect 

of these services, the term “without coverage” waether there was insurance coverage for mais used. The general term “with coverage” in- ternity care since respondents to the 1964-66 

cludes both complete and partial coverage. National Natality Survey questionnaire had just 

Fifty-nine percent of the moth~rs had health had a birth. 

insurance coverage to pay at least part of The data presented in this report are national 

the bills for maternity care. Mothers of white estimates which have been calculated by using a 

infants had a much higher rate of coyerage (63 poststratified ratio estimation procedure. This 

percent) than mothers of all other infants (38 procedure takes into account the total number of 

percent). Directly related to the rate of coverage births registered in the United States for 1964, 

for mothers was family income. Only 21 percent 1965, and 1966 according to age of mother, color 

of mothers in families with incomes of less than or mother, and live-birth order of infant. These 

$3,000 ware covered, but 82 percent with incomes figures are published annually by the National 

of $10,000 or more were covered. The highest Center for Health Statistics.1 
SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS 

OF THE DATA 

The basic source document forthe 1964-66 

National Natality Survey was the certificate of 

live birth. From each 1,000 records of births 

occurring during 1964-1966 which were sentby 

54 birth-registration areas in the United States 

to the National Center for Health Statistics, one 

birth certificate was chose at random. Thus 

the sampling rate for the 1964-66 National 

Natality Survey was 1 out of 1,000 registered 

births, There were 11,331 births originally 

selected for the sample; however, since only 

legitimate births were included in the survey, 

the final number of births was 10,395. 

Using the certificate of live birth to derive 

the name of the mother and her home address, 

a questionnaire was sent to each mother of a 

legitimate birth. If legitimacy status was not 

recorded on the birth certificate, it was inferred 

on the basis of indirect evidence. For example, 

if the surname of the father on the birth record 

was different from the surname of the child or 

if the name of the father was not reported, the 

birth was inferred to be illegitimate. There 

were procedures for followup mailings of the 

questionnaire when there was no response to 

the original mailing. The first followup was 

made by certified mail 2 weeks after the original mailing and the second followup by regular 

mail 3 weeks later. When there was still no 

response to the questionnaire, a final followup 

was made by U.S. Bureau of the Census interviewers if the mother was a resident of one of 

the primary sampling units designated by the 

Bureau of the Census. There was an overaIl 

response rate of 89 percent of the 10,395 mothers 

of legitimate births included in the survey. 

In addition to nonresponse to the questionnaire, there were some questionnaires returned 

which were incomplete or inconsistent on some 

questions (item nonresponse). For these cases 

either a special letter was sent or a telephone 

call was made to the mother asking for the 

missing information. There was also provision 

to use Bureau of the Census interviewers if 

either of the two previous actions was unsuccessful or was not carried out and if the mother 

resided in one of the primary sampling units 

designated by the Bureau of the Census. ‘In 

general item nonresponse rates were very low— 

less than 1 percent. 

Since the data in this report are estimates 

based on a sample, they are subject to sampling 

error. The probability design of the sample for 

this survey makes possible the calculation of 

sampling errors, and tables of approximate 

sampling errors for the estimates shown in this 

report are given in appendix I. 

In addition to sampling errors the results 

of any data collection system are subject to 

errors in the conceptual formulation and consequent interpretation of the questionnaire, biases 

due to nonresponse or incomplete response, and 

errors in editing, coding, and tabulation. These 

errors were minimized by the methods used in 

processing and imputation. 

A more complete description of the methodology of the 1964-66 National Natality Survey 

appears in appendix I. Definitions of the’ terms 

used in this report are given in appendix II. 

Facsimiles of the Standard Certificate of Live 

Birth and of the questionnaire sent to mothers 

are shown in appendix III. 

Nature of the Population 

In some ways families with legitimate live 

births during 1964-1966 were similar to the 

general population of the United States. In other 

ways they were not. Some of the similarities 

and differences are described below. 

Table A shows that 87 percent of the annual 

average of 3,480,000 legitimate live births 

during 1964-66 were white. Of the remaining 

13 percent, 88 percent were Negro. In the 

United States about 92 percent of the husbandwife families were white.z 

It was a relatively young population of 

married women who were having live births 

during 1964-1966, with about 75 percent of 

the mothers under 30 years of age, Only 2 

percent of the mothers were 40 years of age 

and over. In comparison, of all women in the 

United States who were under 45 and married 

with husbands present, only 38 percent were 

under 30 years of age.a Within each age cat; 

egor y there was about the same relative pro2 
------------

----------------

------------------

----- --------

---------

--------------

------------------

-----

----------------

------

-------

Table A., Characteristics of legitimate live births: United States, 1964-66


Characteristic


A~~r;;~i.timatelive


Race


White--------------------
 All other


All other------------


Negro--------------------
 Other than white or
 Negro-----------------.-


Age of mother


Under 20 years-----------
 20-24 years--------------
 25-29 years--------------
 30-34 years--------------
 35-39 vears--------------
 40 yea~s and over--------


Education of mother


N~;og; elementary


1-3 years high school----


High school graduate


1-3 years college


College graduate


Number Percent
 in distri­
 thou- bution
 sands


3,480 100.0


3,013 86.6


467 13.4


467 100,0


413 88,4


54 11,6


475 13.6


1,257 36,1


892 25.6


506 14,5


270 7.8


80 2.3


424 12,2


869 25.0


1,522 43.7


424 12,2


242 6.9


Characteristic


Family income


Less than $3,000-------


$3,000-$4,999----------


$5,000-$6,999----------


$7,000-$9,999----------


$10,000 or more--------


Region-of motherls


residence


Northeast


North Central-------y-­


south


West-------------------


Place of mother’s


residence


Metropolitan areas 

Nonmetropolitan areas-­

Age of father 

Under 20 years---------
 20-24 years------------
 25-29 years------------
 30-34 years------------
 35-39 years------------
 40 years and over------


Education of father


N&ho~ elementary


1-3 years high school-­


High school graduate---


1-3 years college


College graduate


Number
 ‘ercent
 in listri­
 thou- mt ion
 sands
 J

691 19.8


779 22.4


889 25.6


716 20.6


406 11.7


817 23.5


991 28.5


1,091 31.4


581 16.7


2,240 64.3


1,241 35,7


130


953 2%:


1,012 :;.;


684


409 11:7


292 8.4


569 16.3


734 21.1


1,262 36.3


422 12,1


493 14,2


portionof mothers of whiteinfants
andmothers


ofotherinfants.


The fathersof the legitimatelivebirths


were olderthanthemothers.Onlyabout60per-


centof the fatherswere under 30years ofage,


while 8 percentwere 40 andover.Of allmen in


theUnitedStateswho hereunder 45 andmarried


with wives present,however, only 32 percent


were under30,


The highestpercentageof birthsoccurred


to mothers who residpdin the South Region


(31 percent),but the Southalsoaccountedfor


about31 percentof thetotalresident
population


in the United States.+The lowestpercentage


of birthsoccurredtomotherswho residedinthe


West (17 percent),where a corresponding17


percentof the totalresidentpopulation
of the


UnitedStateswaa located.
Twenty-ninepercent


of birthswere to mothers who residedin the


North CentralRegionand 24 percenttothosein


theNortheastRegion.IncheUnitedStates28per-


centofthetotalresident population
 residedinthe


NorthCentralRegionand24 percentin
theNorth­


east Region,About 28 percentof whiteinfants


but 50 percentof allotherinfants
were bornto


motherswho residedintheSouth.


3

The percentage of births to mothers residing in metropolitan areas (64 percent) was 

the same as the percentage of husband-wife 

families who lived in metropolitan areas.5 

There were 64 percent of white infants born 

to mothers who resided in metropolitan areas 

and 69 percent of all other infants born to 

mothers who resided in metropolitan areas. 

About 64 percent of white husband-wife families 

resided in metropolitan areas and about 71 

percent of other husband-wife families. 

The median family income of all mothers 

having legitimate live births during 1964-1966 

was $5,609. By color, the median family income 

of mothers of all other infants was $3,189, 

which was only 57 percent of the median family 

income of mothers of white infants ($5,915). 

Data from the Current Population Survey, conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, show 

that the median income of Negro husband-wife 

families in 1964 was $4,4256 and the median 

income of white families was $6,858.7 Families 

with legitimate live births during 1964-66 probably had lower family incomes because a high 

proportion of them were young families in 

which the father had not reached his peak earning 

capacity. 

The median years of school completed by 

mothers 6f legitimate live births during 1964-66 

(12.3) was somewhat higher than the 11.7 median 

years of school completed by, all females in 

the United States 14 years of age and over} 

Mothers of white legitimate live births had on 

the average about 1 year more of schooling 

(12.4) than mothers of all other legitimate live 

births (1l’.4). Nonetheless, this difference in 

the median level of education between mothers 

of white and mothers of all other legitimate 

live births was less than the difference between 

the median level of education of white females’ 

14 years and over (12.0) and that of all other 

females aged 14 and over (9.8) in the U.S. 

population, a difference of over 2 years. 

The median years of school completed by 

fathers of legitimate live births during 1964-1966 

was 12.3, which was higher than the 11.4 median 

years of school completed by all males in the 

United States 14 years of age and over8 but about 

the same as the 12.1 median years of education 

for husbands in 1965.9 As white males 1.4 years 

‘of age and over in the U.S. population had a 

higher median level of education (11,7) than 

all other males 14 and over (9.3) ,s so fathers 

of white legitimate live births during 1964-1966 

had a higher median level of education (12.4) 

than all other fathers (11.2). 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

The nature of health insurance coverage for 

maternity care is such that in most cases it 

is part of a family health insurance plan. In 

instances where it is not, it is possible for it 

to be attached to the plan as a rider. It is not 

feasible in this report to “go into great detail 

about insurance plans which provide for maternity care since there is a good deal of variation 

in the plans and in the conditions under which 

benefits are paid. 

In interpreting the rates of insurance coverage for maternity care, the following should 

be kept in mind. 

Health insurance plans offered by some 

companies may automatically provide benefits 

for complete coverage at the time of maternity, 

On the other hand, a health insurance policyholder may find at the time of pregnancy that 

the plan provides only partial coverage (as 

defined in this report) or that there is no 

coverage at all. The completeness of health 

insurance coverage for maternity care may 

depend on whether one is aware of, desires, 

or can afford a health insurance plan which 

provides for complete coverage for maternity 

care. Persons with little education may not be 

as aware of the different types’ of insurance 

coverage as persons with more education. 

Some individuals are in occupations where 

the availability of group health insurance coverage does not exist and they may not be able to 

afford an individual health insurance plan which 

provides for maternity care, if they cay afford 

health insurance at all. Those with more education may be employed in professions o~ industries where group health insurance plans 

may be more readily available. Also, persons 

residing in metropolitan areas probably have 

more opportunities to obtain group health insurance policies than do persons in other areas. 

4 
In most health insurance plans with provisions for maternity care benefits the plan 

stipulates that a waiting period is required for 

the policy to be in effect before maternity 

benefits can be paid. The percentages of mothers 

with no coverage at all in this report may not 

always reflect the lack of insurance which 

provides maternity benefits but may reflect the 

fact that the health insurance had not been in 

effect long enough for the benefits to have been 

paid. Data from the 1964-66 National Natality 

Survey show that 22 percent of the legitimate 

first births were to mother who had been 

married less than 8 months. 10 It is probable 

that even if these mothers did have insurance 

for maternity care, the majority of them would 

not have been eligible for payment of benefits 

since the waiting period is longer than 8 months 

for most companies. 

EXTENT OF COVERAGE 

The 1964-66 National Natality Survey covered 

a period of 3 years. For each year there was 

an independent survey. The procedures used 

for each year of the survey were the same, so 

it is possible to combine all 3 years of the 

survey and publish data in the form of annual 

averages as well as separate data for each 

year of the survey. The use of annual averages 

permits more detailed analysis because of the 

larger sample. It is worthwhile to examine, 

however, data for single years to determine what 

changes, if any, were taking place during the 

3-year period. 

Table 1 presents the number and percent 

distribution of mothers by insurance coverage 

for maternity care according to year of birth, 

color of infant, and family income. For. each 

year during 1964-1966 the rate of health insurance coverage for maternity care was approximately the same. The rate of complete 

coverage was also about the same for each 

year. There was little variation in the rate 

of coverage for mothers of white infants during 

1964-66; however, there was some variation in 

the rate of coverage for mothers for all other 

infants during these years. In 1965 the rate of 

coverage for mothers of all other infants (33 

percent) differed from that in 1964 (39 percent) 

and in 1966 (41 percent), 

When considering family income, there were 

few significant differences in the rates of coverage for each income class among the 3 years 

of the survey. The rates of complete coverage 

for each of the income classes also showed few 

significant yearly differences. 

It was expected that there might be some 

annual differences in the rates of insurance 

coverage for maternity care, particularly when 

mothers were classified according to color of 

infant and family income, and some differences 

among the years did occur. Nonetheless, for 

the 3 years of the survey there was much more 

stability shown than differences, even for mothers 

of other than white infants. 

All tables in this report except table 

show data in the form of annual averages. 

Among mothers of legitimate live births 

during 1964-1966 there was an annual average 

of 59 percent of mothers who had insurance 

to pay the physician bills for office visits or 

home calls during pregnancy, the physician bills 

for delivery of the baby, or the bills for hospital care at the time of delivery (table 2). 

This rate of coverage can be indirectly compared with rates of insurance coverage found in 

previous surveys. Estimates from the Health Interview Survey, conducted by the National Center 

for Health Statistics, were that in 1968, 78 percent of women under 65 years of age had hospital 

insurance and 76 percent ha! surgical insurance 

coverage. 11 Previous estimates from the same 

survey were that 77 percent of all females had 

hospital insurance and 75 percent had surgical 

insurance coverage in 1967.12 Othe~ Heal~h Interview Survey estimates were that 66 percent of the females who had been discharged 

from short-stay hospitals during July 1958-

June 1960 had a part of their hospital bills 

paid by insurance. 17These data are not directly 

comparable with data from the 1964-66 National 

Natality Survey, because in this survey mothers 

were defined as having coverage only when they 

had insurance to pay for: doctor’s bills for 

office visits or home calls during their recent 

pregnancy, hospital care at the time of delivery, 

or the doctor’s bill for delivery. Mothers with 

hospital and surgical insurance policies which 

did not provide maternity benefits would not 

have had coverage for their recent delivery. 

5 

1 
The rate of insurance coverage for maternity care estimated from the 1964-66 National 

Natality Survey was probably affected by several 

factors. These include: 

1.	 Manyinsurance companies have a stipulated period of time during which health 

insurance policies must have been in 

effect before benefits for maternity care 

can be forthcomj.ng; some mothers with 

insurance for maternity care may not 

have had it long enough to have been 

eligible for benefits and thus stated that 

they did not have coverage in this survey. 

2.	 Women between the ages of 15-24 have 

lower rates of hospital insurance coverage than women at other ages 14 (approximately 50 percent of the married 

women having babies during 1964-1966 

were under 25 years of age). 

3.	 For some mothers health insurance 

coverage for maternity care might not 

have been included in regular hospitalsurgical insurance packages but involved 

additional costs. 

Race of Infant 

Figure 1, taken from table 2, shows that 

mothers of white infants had a much higher rate 

of coverage (63 percent) than mothers of all 

other infants (38 percent). There are a number of 

possible reasons, all interrelated, for the lower 

rate of coverage for mothers of all other infants; 

they’ include lower incomes, lower levels of 

education, the high percentage of births of 

fifth or higher order, and the large proportion 

of mothers residing in the South Region, where 

there was a low rate of coverage regardless of 

race. 

Figure 1 also shows the rate of insurance 

coverage for maternity care for mothers of 

Negro infants and mothers of infants other than 

white or Negro. This distribution shows the rate 

of coverage for mothers of infants other than 

white or Negro was higher (42 percent) than 

that for mothers of Negro infants (37 percent) 

but not as high as for mothers of white infants 

100 

80 

60 [ 

40 

b. 

o 

5 

u 

L! 

cc 20 w 

L 

0 1 

TOTAL ALL OTHER 

RACE OF INFANT 

Figure 1, Percent distribution of mothersby in­


surance coveragefor maternity care,accordingto


raceof infant: United States, 1964-66 1egitimate


live births,


(63 percent). For the most part, the difference 

in the rate of coverage between mothers of 

infants other than white or Negro and mothers 

of Negro infants was accounted for by the higher 

rate of complete coverage for mothers of infants 

other than white or Negro. Twenty-seven percent 

of these mothers had complete coverage as 

compared with 20 percent of mothers of Negro 

infants. Combining these two groups resulted 

in an overall rate of complete coverage of 21 

percent as compared with 36 percent of mothers 

of white infants with complete coverage. The 

rate of partial coverage for mothers of white 

infants ~as higher (27 percent) than that for 

mothers of all other infants (17 percent). 

When only mothers with coverage are 

considered, however, as in table B, there was 

not a great deal of difference in the kind of 

coverage present between mothere of white infants 
---------

-----

-------

------

Table B. Percent distribution of mothers 

by kind of insurance coverage for maI&nity care, according to r;ce of infant: United States. 1964-66 legitimate 

live births “’ 

Total 

Race of with 

infant coverage 

Total--- 100.0 

White 100.0 

All other 100.0 

Negro 100.0 

Other than 

white or 

Negro 100.0 

100 

0 

Lm Mm 

$1,000 

I 

Com- Partial plete cover - cover - age
 age 

57.3 42.7 

57.5 42.5 

55.4 44.6 

54.2 45.8 T

63.5 36,5 

FAMILY INCOME 

Figure 2. Percentdistributionof mothersby insurance 

coveragefor maternitycare,according to fami1y inCOMS: United States, 196k66 1egi t imate 1ive bit-ths 

and mothers of all other infants. Table B does 

show, though, that among mothers with coverage 

the proportion ofmothers with completecoverage 

was higher for mothers of infants other than 

white or Negro. 

Family Income 

Health insurance coverage for maternity 

care was directly related to family income. 

When family income was higher, there was a 

higher rate of insurance coverage. Figure 2 

shows that only 16 percent of mothers in 

families with incomes of less than $1,000 had 

coverage but 82 percent of mothers in families 

with incomesbetween$ 7,000-$9,999. The rateof 

coverage for mothers in families with incomesof 

$10,000 or more was about the same as for 

mothers in families wirh incomes of $7,000-

$9,999. 

A lower rate of insurance coverage at low 

levels of family income may be partially explained by live-birth order. Table C shows 

that there was a greater percentage of babies 

who were first births or fifth or higher order 

births when family income was less than $3,000 

than at any other income level. When the baby 

was a first birth, it was likely that family 

income would be low since fathers would be 

relatively young. Also, data from the 1964-66 

National Natality Survey show that 38 percent 

of legitimate first births in families with incomes 

of less than $3,000 were to mothers married 

less than 8 months. These mothers, if they 

had policies, would most likely not have been 

eligible for maternity benefits since most insurance companies require a longer waiting 

period than 8 months. When the baby was a 

fifth or higher order birth, there may have 

been less money available for insurance coverage. 

Within all income categories but one the 

rate of coverage for mothers of white infants 

was higher than the rate of . coverage for 

mothers of all other infants. In the income 

category $1,000-$2,999, the rate of coverage 

for mothers of white infants (25 percent) was 

about the same as for mothers of all other 

infants. 

7 
------

--------

Table C. Percent distribution of mothers by live-birth order, according to family in-


come: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


Live-birth order


Family income


Fifth or Total First Second Third Fourth higher 

All incomes 100.0 29.0 25.1 17.8 11.5 16.6 

Less than $3,000------- 100.0 36.0 21.5 12.9 8.6 21.0 

$3,000-$4,999---------- 100.0 29.6 26.3 18.1 11.0 14.9 

$5,000-$6,999---------- 100.0 25,7 28.2 19.7 11.9 14.5 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 100.0 25.7 25.0 19.8 13.6 16.0 

$10,000 or more 100.0 29.0 22.1 17.8 13.1 17.9 

Residence of Mother 

Rep”on.—As can be seen in table 3, there 

was a higher rate of coverage for mothers who 

resided in the Northeast Region (70 percent) 

than for mothers who resided in any other 

region of the country. Rates of coverage were 

lowest in the West (50 percent) and South (49 

percent). In the North Central Region approximately 67 percent of the mothers had coverage. 

A previous survey also found that the Northeast 

Region had the largest percentage of persons 

with hospital and surgical insurance coverage 

and was followed by the North Central Region, 

the West, and the South.15 Lower rates of 

coverage in the West may be partly explained 

by the presence of a high percentage of Arnled 

Forces personnel, whose families are covered 

under the Dependent’s Medical Care Program—a 

plan which is excluded from health insurance 

coverage as defined for the 1964-66 National 

Natality Survey. Also, median family income 

for mothers of legitimate live births during 

1964-1966 was lower in the West ($5,838) than 

in the Northeast ($6,092) or North Central Region 

($6,099). Similarly, the lower rate of coverage 

in the South may be partly explained by the 

lower median family income ($4,491). 

This ordering of regions by rates of coverage remained the same whenconsideringmothers 

of white infants. For mothers of all other infants, 

however, the order changed. The highest rate 

of coverage was in the North Central Region 

(49 percent), where the highest median family 

income was found ($4,407). The lowest rate of 

coverage was in the South, where their median 

family income was lowest ($2,3 11). 

Overall, the rates of complete coverage 

by region ranged from a high of 42 percent in 

the Northeast Region to a low of 27 percent 

in the South. In the Northeast Region 43 percent 

of mothers of white infants and 28 percent of 

mothers of all other infants had complete 

coverage. In the South 31 percent of mothers of 

white infants and 15 percent of mothers of all 

other infants had complete coverage. These 

rates of complete coverage by color reprpsent 

the highest and lowest rates for regions of the 

United States. 

Another way to look at complete coverage 

is to consider mothers with complete coverage 

as a proportion of only those mothers with insurance coverage for maternity care. Then differences among regions regarding the presence 

or absence of coverage do not affect the proportion of mothers with a specified kind of 

coverage. Table D shows the proportion of 

mothers with complete coverage and the proportion with partial coverage by region of residence and color of infant. 
-------------------------------

--- - -- --- -- -- --- - --- -- - -- - -- - ----- --- --

---------------------------------------

---------------------------------

-------------------- ------------- ----------

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------

------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

------------------- ------------------

------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Table D. Percent distribution of mothers by kind of insurance coverage for maternity 

care, according to region of mother’s residence and color of infant: United States, 

1964-66 legitimate live births 

Region of mother’s residence Total 

with Complete Partial 

and color of infant 

coverage coverage coverage 

All regions 100.0 57.3 42.7 

White - .- _ 100.0 57.5 42.5 

All other 100.0 55.4 44.6 

Northeast 100.0 59.5 40.5 

White 100.0 59.1 40.9 

All other 

North Central 

White


All other


South 

White


All other


West 

White


All other


As seen in table D, among mothers with 

insurance coverage the proportion of mothers 

with complete coverage was highest in the 

Northeast Region (60 percent) and lowest in 

the South (55 percent). Similarly thecolor group 

with the largest proportion of mothers with 

complete coverage were mothers of “another” 

infants in the Northeast Region (65 percent), 

and the smallest proportion of mothers with 

complete coverage were mothers of this same 

group in the South (48 percent). 

Table 4 shows that when mothers were 

classified according to family income as well 

as region of residence, those residing in the 

Northeast or North Central Region had the 

highest rates of coverage for maternity care 

in all income categories except the one of less 

than $1,000. For this category there was about 

the same rate of coverage for mothers in the 

100.0 65.3 34.7 

100.0 57.0 43.0 

100.0 57.1 42.9 

100.0 54.8 45.2 

100.0 55.4 44.6 

100.0 56.6 43.4 

100.0 48.3 51,7 

100.0 57.0 43.0 

100.0 56.4 43.6 

100.0 62.8 37.2 

~~~e~t as for those in the Nortieast and North 

Central Regions. I\’ith theexception ofthis income 

category the rate of coverage for mothers in 

the West was lower than for mothers in each 

of the other regions in the corresponding income 

categories. 

Place of residence. -Table 5 shows that 

mothers who resided in metropolitan areas had 

a higher rate of insurance coverage for maternity care (63 percent) than mothers who resided 

in nonmetropolitan areas (53 percent). This 

difference in the rate of coverage might be 

expected for several reasons. First, families 

having legitimate live births during 1964-66 

living in metropolitan areas hadatigher median 

family income ($6,002) than families living in 

nonmetropolitan areas($4,864).Secondly,persons 

living in metropolitan areas had higher levels 

of educational attainment than persons living in 

9 
nonmetropolitan areas, Data from the Current 

Population Survey show that in 1965 the median 

number of years of school completed for persons 

14 years of age and over in metropolitan areas 

was 12.0, but in nonmetropolitan areas it was 

10.7.16 Data from the National Natality Survey 

show a higher rate of insurance coverage for 

maternity care for persons with higher levels 

of educational attainment. In addition, families 

living in metropolitan areas were more likely 

to have members employed in occupations where 

group health insurance was available than 

families living in nonmetropolitan areas. 

At each level of family income, mothers 

who resided in metropolitan areas had higher 

rates of coverage than mothers who resided in 

nonmetropolitan areas. 

For the most part when mothers of white 

infants were compared with mothers of all 

other infants, there were higher rates of coverage for mothers of white infants than for mothers 

$2,252 

19.6 

K!l 

of all other infants regardless of family income 

or place of residence. 

Age of Father 

Health insurance coverage for maternity 

care was related to age of father at the time 

of the child’s birth. Figure 3, taken from table 

6, shows that as fathers became older the rate 

of coverage for mothers was higher. When 

fathers were under 20 years of age, there was 

\	 a very low rate of coverage (20 percent). When 

fathers were 20-24 years of age, however, 47 

percent of mothers had coverage, and this rate 

of coverage increased to about 70 percent when 

fathers were 30-34 years of age. When fathers 

were 40 years of age and over, the rate decreased slightly to where about 64 percent of 

the mothers had coverage. Two possible reasons 

for this decline in the rate of coverage for 

fathers 40 years of age and over are (1) the 

$10,000


Mothers with Medion fomily


coveroge !z Income 1


I 

I 

i 

1


+	 2,000 

I 

Under 20 yeors 20-24 yeors 25-29 yeors 30-34 yeors 35-39 years 40 years and over 

AGE OF FATHER 

Figure 3. Percent of mothers with insurance coverage for maternity care and median famiIy income, by age of 

father: Un ited States, 1964-66 1eg it imate 1ive births 

10 
median family income for fathers of this age 

was less than the median family income for 

fathers 35-39 years of age (figure 3), and (2) 

wives of these husbands likely to be past the 

peak childbearing ages when they have more 

need for insurance coverage for maternity care 

might not have had coverage for maternity care. 

Figure 3 shows that fathers who were older 

at the time of the child’s birth had higher median 

family incomes than fathers under age 30. Consequently, it might be supposed that income was 

a primary component variable behind rate of 

coverage as it related to age of father. Table 6, 

however, shows a trend toward a higher rate of 

coverage when fathers were older even when 

family incomes of younger and older fathers 

were the same. For example, for the income 

category $5,000-$6,999, 59 percent of mothers 

had coverage when fathers were under 20 years 

of age, 64 percent when fathers were 20-24, 74 

100 — 

00 — 

60 —


40.3
 40 —


20 —


o_


percent when fathers were 25-29, and about 80 

percent when fathers were above 30. 

Education of Father 

It has been seen that health insurance coverage for maternity care was related to family 

income. Since, as shown in figure 4, median 

family income was associated with education of 

fathers, it would be expected that when fathers 

had more education the rate of coverage for 

mothers would be higher. ‘Table 7 (and figure 4) 

shows this to be true. Among families in which 

the father had not gone beyond elementary school, 

only about 40 percent of mothers had insurance 

coverage for maternity care. In contrast, 65 

percent of mothers were covered when fathers 

were high school graduates and 76 percent were 

covered when fathers were college graduates. 

+10,000 

Mothers with pieione family 

coveroge IZZZl $8.802 

1 

Izn i 

674


— Jo 

None or elementary 1-3 years High school 1-3 years College 

school high school graduote college graduote 

EDUCATION OF FATHER 

Figure 4. Percent of mothers with insurance coverage for maternity care and median fami 1y inccme, by education


of father: United States, 1964-66 legitimate 1ive births


11

As previously shown in this report, even 

when family income was the same, the rate of 

coverage for mothers of white infants was higher 

than it was for mothers of all other infants. It 

would therefore be expected that mothers of 

white infants would have higher rates of coverage than mother of all other infants even when 

education of fathers was the same. This second 

expectation was also true. For example, 67 

percent of mothers of white infants had coverage 

when fathers were high school graduates but only 

49 percent of the mothers of all other infants. 

When fathers were college graduates, 76 percent 

of mothers of white infants but only 64 percent 

of mothers of all other infants were covered. 

Table 8 shows that when mothers were 

classified according to education of fathers and 

level of family income it was not always true 

that the rate of coverage for mothers was higher 

when fathers had more education. For example, 

when family income was $5,000-$6,999,75 percent 

of mothers had coverage when fathers had not 

gone beyond an elementary school education, 

but only 69 percent had coverage when fathers 

had 1-3 years of high school or were college 

graduates. For most other income levels, however, a trend towards higher rates of coverage 

with higher levels of education of fathers was 

apparent. 

Since it was generally true at each level 

of education that when family income was high 

the rate of coverage for mothers was high but 

not as true at each level of income that the 

rate of coverage was high when the father had 

more education, it would appear that of the two 

variables, education of father and family income, 

the latter was a more consistent variable affecting 

the rate of insurance coverage for maternity 

care. Consequently, while education of father 

was related to the rate of coverage, family income 

coupled with education of father was a more discriminating measure of coverage than education 

of father alone. 

Education of Mother 

Talie 9 shows the rate of insurance coverage 

for maternity care according to the level of 

education of mother. Among mothers who had 

not gone beyond elementary school, the rate 

of coverage was approximately 38 percent. For 

mothers who were - high school graduates, the 

rate of coverage was about 67 percent, and for 

mothers who were college graduates, 73 percent. 

Thus it is noted that rates of coverage for 

maternity care were higher for higher levels 

of education whether the education was that of the 

mother or the father. 

At each level of mother’s education there 

were higher rates of coverage for mothers of 

white infants than for mothers of other infants. 

For example, among mothers who were high 

school graduates the rate of coverage for mothers 

of white infants was 70 percent as compared 

with 45 percent for mothers of all other infants. 

Table 10 shows that while overall there 

were higher rates of coverage for mothers 

with higher levels of education, this was not 

consistent for all levels of family income. For 

example, among mothers in families with incomes 

of $5,000-$6,999, 70 percent of mothers who 

had not gone beyond elementary school had 

coverage but only 60 percent of mothers who 

were college gradua~es. The income levels which 

most clearly indicate a trend towards higher 

rates of coverage for mothers with higher levels 

of education are “less than $3,000” and “$10,000 

or more. ” 

Employment During Pregnancy 

Among mothevs who had legitimate live bivths 

dwing 1964-1966, 30 percent were employed 

at some time dwing pregnancy. A slightly 

lower percentage of mothers of white infants 

(30 percent) weve employed than of mothevs 

of all othev infants (33 percent). The percentage of mothevs who weve employed at 

some time during pregnancy was highev when 

family income was higher. During 1964-66 

theve were 24 pevcent of mothe-rs in families 

with incomes of less than $3,000 employed at 

some time dwing pregnancy, 28 pevcent with 

incomes of $’3,000-$4,000, 30 percent with incomes of $5,000-$6,999, 35 pevcent with incomes of $7,000-$9,999, and 37 pevcent with 

incomes of $10,000 OY move. That the percentage of employed mothers incveased as 

family income incveased is to be expected 

since wovking mothevs wowld have contrib12

uted towards highev famity incomes. Data 

JYom the Cuwent Population Survey indicate 

that as income in husband-wife families with 

wovking wives increased, the proportion of 

family income t@zt the wives contributed also 

incveased.17 Whenfamily income was $3,000-

.$4,999, the wife’s eavnings accounted for 14 

pe~cent of the family income, 18 parcent 

when family income was $5,000-$6,999, 24 

pement when family income was +T7,000-

$9,999, and 29 Percent when jizmily income 

was $io, 000-$14,999.16 

Table 11 shows that 63 percent of the mothers 

who were employed during pregnancy as compared with 58 percent of the mothers who were 

not employed during pregnancy had insurance 

to pay for maternity care. For both mothers 

of white infants and mothers of all other infants, there was a higher rate of coverage 

for mothers who were employed at some time 

during pregnancy. Among mothers who were 

employed during pregnancy, mothers of white 

infants had a higher rate of coverage (66 percent) than mothers of all other infants (42 

percent). Among mothers who were not employed during pregnancy, there was also a 

higher rate of coverage for mothers of white 

infants (61 percent) than for mothers of all 

other infants (36 percent). 

Contributing to the higher rate of coverage 

for employed mothers was the higher median 

family income in families where the mother 

was employed during pregnancy ($6,!378) corn. 

pared with families where the mother was not 

employed during pregnancy ($5,410). It is also 

possible that mothers who were employed during 

pregnancy would have been included in a group 

health insurance plan which provided benefits 

for maternity care through their place of work. 

The rate of coverage for employed mothers 

might have been still higher were it not for the 

fact that they had a higher percentage of first 

births (51 percent) than did mothers not employed (20 percent). As this report shows, there 

were lower rates of coverage when the infant 

was a first birth. 

Table 12 presents rates of insurance coverage for maternity care according to level of 

family income as well as to employment during 

pregnancy. Differences in coverage rates by 

family income between mothers who were employed and mothers not employed during pregnancy were not consistent. When family income 

was less than $5,000, rates of coverage were 

higher for mothers who were employed than 

for mothers not employed during pregnancy; 

however, when family income was $5,000-$9,999, 

mothers who were not employed during pregnancy had higher rates of coverage than mothers 

who were employed during pregancy. When fam ­

ily income was .$10,000 or more, employed 

mothers again had a higher rate of coverage, 

The overall lower rate of coverage for 

mothers not employed during pregnancy was 

apparently the result of the larger proportion 

of these mothers in famiIies with low incomes 

where there were correspondingly low rates 

of coverage. 

Live-Birth Order 

Table 13 shows that the lowest rate of coverage occurred when infants were first births. The 

next lowest rate of coverage was when infants 

were fifth or higher order births. 

Figure 5 shows that mothers of first births 

may have the lowest rate of coverage because 

median family income for mothers of first births 

was lowest. However, the rate of coverage for 

mothers of first births can probably be attributed 

also to the fact that 22 percent of these births 

occurred within the first 8 months of marriagel 

and ‘it is Iikely that most of the mothers would not 

have been covered even if they had insurance for 

maternity care because of the waiting periods. 

The lower rate of coverage for mothers of fifth or 

higher order births is probably because of several 

factors; among these are (1) the large proportion 

of all fifth or higher order births occurring to 

mothers of “all other” infants, for whom it has 

been shown there were generally lower rates of 

coverage, (2) mothers of fifth or higher order 

births during 1964-66 had less education then 

other nfothers }Sand (3) mothers of fifth or higher 

order births had a lower median family income 

than mothers of second, third, or fourth births. 

Table 14 shows mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care according to family income as well as Iive-birth order. For the most 

13 
100 +10,000 

Mothers with Median family 

coveroge m income 

80 $8,000 

u 

w 

a 

g 66.1 

0 

v 

60 $6,000	 ~ 

z 

7 

D 

z 

7 

40 $4,000 ~


z


m 

2.0 $2,000 

0 — 0 

First Second Third Fourth Fifth or higher 

LIVE BIRTH ORDER 

Figure 5. Percent of mothers with insurance coverage for maternity care and median family income, by live-birth


order: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


part, at each income level, mothers of first 

births had the lowest rates of coverage. At each 

income level, mothers of fifth or higher order 

births generally had lower rates of coverage 

than mothers of second, third, or fourth births 

but not as low as mothers of first births. 

Number of Previous Fetal Deaths 

Among mothevs with legitimate live births 

duving 1964-66, 77 pwcent had no pvevious 

fetal deaths. Approximately 16 percent had 

one p~evious fetal death and 7’percent two 

ov move. A slightly higher percentage of 

mothers of all other infants (27 pevcent) 

had one or move fetal deaths than did 

m~thers of white infants (22 percent). 

Although it cannot directly be determined 

from the 1964-66 National Natality Survey whether a mother’s previous birth history was related 

to insurance coverage for maternity care, table 

15 (and figure 6) does show that there was a 

significant difference in the rate of coverage 

between mothers with no previous fetal deaths 

(58 percent) and those with one previous fetal 

death (65 percent). The rate of coverage for 

mothers with two or more fetal deaths was 

60 percent, only slightly higher than the rate 

for mothers with no fetal deaths. For ‘both 

mothers of white infants and mothers of all 

other infants the highest rate of coverage occurred for those with one previous fetal death. 

Table 16 shows that when mothers were 

classified by level of family income as well as 

by number of previous fetal death, mothers 

with one previous fetal death showed a higher 

rate of coverage than did mothers with no fetal 

deaths at each level of family income. Mothers 

with two or more fetal deaths generally had 

lower rates of coverage than did mothers with 

one earlier fetal death, but these rates of cover14

100 Previous fetal deoth experience and ]Freviou s infant death experience I Birth weight of infant amj rI-IeCM” income 

median income and medion income I 

80


[

I I 65.3 

59,7 

I 

I 

I I 

I 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

0 L -1 -_ None Ohe Two or None One or 2,500 2,501- 3,001- 3>501- 4,001 -

more more grams 3,000 3,500 4,000 groins 

or less groins groins grams or more 

FETAL DEATHS INFANT DEATHS BIRTH WEIGHT 

Figure 6. Percent of mothers with insurance coverage for maternity care, by number of previous fetal deaths,


previous infant deaths, birth weight of child, and median femi1y income: United States, 196&66 legitimate 1ive


births


age were still generally higher than the rates 

of coverage for mothers with no fetal deaths. 

Number of Previous Infant Deaths 

Table 17 (and figure 6) shows that about 

60 percent of mothers with no previous infant 

deaths (children dying under 1 year) had insurance coverage for maternity care as compared 

with 54 percent with at least one previous inf&t 

death. One reason for the lower rate of coverage 

for mothers with at least one previous infant 

death was that about one-fourth of these mothers 

were mothers of “all other” infants, who had a 

low rate of coverage. Mothers of white infants 

with at least one previous infant death had about 

the same rate of coverage as mothers of white 

infants with no previous infant deaths. 

Table 18 shows that when mothers were 

classified by level of family income as well 

as by whether they had previous infant deaths, 

mothers with no previous infant deaths had a 

higher rate of coverage only when family income was less than $5,000. Otherwise these 

mothers had about the same or lower rates of 

coverage than did mothers with at least one 

previous infant death. 

Contributing to the overall low7er rate of 

coverage when mothers had at least one previous 

infant death was probably that about one-half 

of these mothers were in families with low incomes and corresponding low rates of coverage. 

Birth Weight of infant 

Table 19 (and figure 6) shows that there 

were higher rates of coverage for mothers 

whose babies weighed more at birth than for 

mother whose babies weighed less. There were 

54 percent of the mothers with coverage when 

15 
--------------

------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

------------------

babies weighed 2,500 grams or less but 64 

percent with coverage when babies weighed 

4,001 grams or more. 

Among mothers of white infants there were 

higher rates of coverage when babies weighed 

more at birth, but among mothers of other infants there was no clear-cut indication of a 

trend towards higher rates of coverage when 

babies weighed more at birth. For instance, 

only about 29 percent of these mothers had 

coverage when babies weighed 4,001 gr~ms or 

more, but 37 percent of them had covkrage 

when babies weighed 2,500 grams or less, For 

each category of birth weight there was a higher 

rate of coverage for mothers of white infants 

than for mothers of all other infants. 

Table E shows that mothers without coverage had a higher proportion of low-birth-weight 

babies than did mothers with coverage. Data 

from the 1963 National Natality Survey show that 

mothers who first received medical care late 

in pregnancy 19 and who made fewer visits to 

a physician or medical facility during the 12-month 

period before birth 20 also had a higher proportion of low-birth-weight babies than did 

mothers who first received medical care early 

in pregnancy and who made more visits to a 

physician or medical facility during the 12-month 

period. Unfortunately no data are available from 

surveys which relate coverage for maternity 

care with time of first visit for medical care 

or with number of visits to a physician or medical 

facility during the 12-month period before birth; 

however, since coverage for maternity care and 

amount and timing of medical care appear to be 

related independently to the proportion of lowbirth-weight babies, it can be proposed that the 

amount and timing of medical care are related 

to coverage for maternity care. 

Figure 6 shows that when birth weight of 

child was higher, median family income also 

was higher. Data from the 1963 National Natality 

Survey support this finding. 21 However, higher 

median family incomes for families having babies 

weighing more at birth do not explain fully the 

differences in the rates of coverage between 

mothers whose babies weighed more at birth 

and mothers whose babies weighed less. Table 

20 shows that, on, the average, mothers whose 

babies weighed more at birth had higher rates 

of coverage than mothers whose babies weighed 

less at birth even when level of family income 

was the same. 

Table E. Percent distribution of moth$rs by weight of infant at birth, according to 

insurance coverage for maternity care: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births 

1 \ 1 

Birth weight


All birth weights


2,500 grams or less 

2,501-3,000 grams 

3,001-3,500 grams 

3,501-4,000 grams 

4,001 grams or more 

With coverage 

All Jithout 

mothers 

Total	 Complete Parti~l :overage 

coverage coverage 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

7.8 7.1 6.8 7.5 8.8 

18.4 17.8 18.2 17.2 19.4 

39.0 38.7 38.4 39.0 39.6 

26.2 27.3 27.7 26.7 24.6 

8.6 9.2 9.0 9.5 7.7 

16

REFERENCES


lNational Center for Health Statistics: Vital Sfafisticso~ 

the United State.s for the years 1964, 1965, and 1966, VO1. I. 

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1966, 1967, 1968. 

‘U.S. Bureau of the Census: Household and family 

characteristics, March 1965. CrmrentPoptdationReports, Series 

P-20, No. 153. Washington. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 

Aug. 5, 1966. table 4, p. 15. 

3U.S. Bureau of the Census: Marital status and family 

status, March 1965. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, 

No. 144. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Nov. 

10, 1965. table 5, p. 18. 

4u.s. Bmeau of the Census: Estimates of the population 

of States, July 1, 1967. Current Poprdation Reports, Series 

P-25, No. 414. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Jan. 28,1969. table 3, p. 12. 

5U.S. Bureau of the Census: Household and family 

characteristics, March 1964 and 1963. Current Popukzfion 

Reports, Series P-20, No. 139. Washington. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, June 11, 1965. table 6, p. 19. 

6u.s. Bureau of the Census: Negro population, March 

1965. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 155. 

Washington. U. S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 27,1966. 

table 16, p. 28. 

7ibid. table 10, p. 23.


8U.S) Bureau of the Census: Educational atta~ment,


March 1966 and 1965. Current Population Reports, Series 

P-20, No. 158. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Dec. 19, 1966. table 4, p. 18. 

9Reference 2, table 10, p. 25. 

10Nation~ Center for He~th Statistics: Intew~ be~een 

first marriage and legitimate first birth, United States, 1964-66. 

&fontkly Vital .Statistics Reports, VoL18, No.12, Supplement. 

Public Health Service. Rockville, Md. Mar. 27, 1970. 

llNationd Center for Health Statistics: Hospital and 

surgical insurance coverage among persons under 65 years of 

age in the United States, 1968. MorztMy Vital Statistics 

Reports, Vol. 18, No. 11, Supplement 2. Public Health Service. 

Roe!-de, Md., Feb. 2, 1970. table 1, p. 2. 

00 0 

12Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Hospital and 

mrgical insurance coverage in the United States, July-December 

1967. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 18, No. 3, 

Supplement., Public Health Service, Roclde, Md., Jurq 23, 

1969. table 1, p. 2. 

13Nation~ He&h Survey: Proportion of hospital bill paid 

by &urance, patients discharged from short-stay hospitals, 

United States, July 1958-June 1960. Health Statistics. PHS 

Pub. No. 584-B30. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Nov. 1961, table 1, p. 13. 

141bid. table A, p. 2. 

15Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Family hospital 

and surgical insurance coverage, United States, July 1962-June 

1963. Vital and Health Stutitstics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 

1O-NO. 42. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Nov. 1967, table 5, pp.21-24. 

16Reference 8. table 5, pp. 20-22. 

1?’u.s. Department of Labor: Marital and Family 

Characteristics of WJorkers,March 1966. Special Labor Force 

Report No. 80. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

1967. table U, p. A-23. 

18Nation~ Center for He~th Statistics:, Educations 

attainment of mothers having live legitimate births in the 

United States, 1964-66. Monthly Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 

18, No. 8, Supplement. Public Health Service. Rockville, Md., 

Nov.	 3,1969. table 4, p. 6. 

19Nation~ Center for He~th Statistics: Variations in 

birth weight, legitimate live births, United States, 1963. Vital 

and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 22-No. 8. 

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Nov. 1968, table E, p. 8. 

201bid. table F, p. 9.


21 Ibid. table D, p. 6.


22 Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Replication, an


approach to the analysis of data from complex surveYs. Vital 

and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 14. 

public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Apr. 1966. 

17

LIST OF DETAILED TABLES 

Table 1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10. 

11. 

12.


13.


14.


15.


16.


17.


18.


19.


20. 

Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to year of birth, color of infant, and family income: United


States, 1964-66 legitimate live births------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to race of infant and family income: United States, 1964-66 le­


gitimate live births------------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, accordingto colorof infant and regionofmother’s residence: United Statea,


1964-66 legitimate live births--------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care,according to region of mother’s residence and family income: United States,


1964-66 legitimate live birtha--------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant,place ofmother’s residence,and family income:


United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births-----------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to age of father and family income: United States, 1964-66 le­


gitimate live births------------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant and education of father: United States, 1964-


66 legitimate live births-------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to education of father and family income: United Statea, 1964-66


legitimate live births----------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant and education of mother: United States, 1964-


66 legitimate live births-------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to education of mother and family income: United States, 1964-66


legitimate live births----------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant and employment of mother during pregnancy:


United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births-----------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care,according to employment of mother during pregnancy and family income:United


States, 1964-66 legitimate live births------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant and live-birth order: United States, 1964-66


legitimate live births----------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to live-birth order and family income: United States,1964-66 le­


gitimate live births------------------------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant and number of previous fetal deaths: United


States, 1964-66 legitimate live births------------------------------------------


Page 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

30 

31 

32 

33 

Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for mat~ner;;~


care, according to number of previous fetal deatha and family income:


States, 1964-66 legitimate live births------------------------------------------ 34


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant and number of previous infant deaths: United


States, 1964-66 legitimate live births------------------------------------------ 35


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for mat;ner~;~


care, according to number of previous infant deaths and family income:


States, 1964-66 legitimate live births------------------------------------------ 36


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to color of infant and birth weight: United States, 1964-66 le­


gitimate’live births------------------------------------------------------------ 37


Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity


care, according to birth weight and family income: United States, 1964-66 le­


gitimate live births------------------------------------------------------------ 38


18

-------

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

---

--

-----

-----

-----

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

-------

--

-----

-----

Table 1. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to


year of birth, color of infant, and fsmily income: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Partial coverage


Year of birth, Percent


color of infant, Number without


and family income Percent Total Complete :::~i:ta~ Iospital Iospital coverage


:ho;~ands coverage


:are and care
 physician Ielivery alone
 visits


1964-1966


Total 10,446 100.0 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

Less than $1,000 -- 796 100.0 15.8 5.8 2.1 84.2 

$1,000 -$2,999 ----- 1,275 100.0 24.6 12:; 1::1 6.9 3.8 75.4 

$3,000 -$4,999 ----- 2,341 100.0 44.8 22.7 22.1 13.2 55.2 

$5,000 -$6,999 ----- 2,669 100.0 73.1 42.4 30.7 20.3 ;:; 26.9 

$7,000 -$9,999 ----- 2,147 100.0 82.5 50.1 32.4 22.4 8.5 17.5 

$10,000 or more--- 1,217 100.0 81.6 49.5 32.1 21.0 8.9 18.4 

White 9,047 100.0 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3 

Less than $1,000 471 100.0 18.6 10.3 1.1 2.1 81.4 

$1,000 -$2,999 931 100.0 24.5 1::: 11.9 M ::; 3.4 75.5 

$3,000 -$4,999 2,012 100.0 45.4 22.4 23.0 13.9 54.6 

$5,000 -$6,999 2,432 100.0 73.7 43.3 30.4 1.8 20.1 ::: 26.3 

$7,000 -$9,999 2,037 100.0 83.1 50.3 32.8 1.4 22.7 8.7 16.9 

$10,000 or more--- 1,163 100.0 82.4 49.4 33.0 2.3 21.5 9.2 17.6 

All other 1.399 100.0 37.9 20.9 17.0 1.9 10.1 5.0 62.1


Less than $1,000 325 100.0 11.7 1.0 1.9 88.3 

$1,000- 2,999 345 100.0 25.1 1::: 1::: 1.8 2:; 74.9 

$3,000- !4>999----- 329 100,0 41.2 24.1 17.1 2:: 58.8 

$5,000 -$6,999 237 100.0 67.0 33.5 33.4 ::2 2?:: 7.4 33.0 

$7,000 -$9,999 109 100.0 70.3 46.7 23.6 1.7 16.6 29.7 

$10,000 or more--- 54 100.0 65.1 51.8 13.3 10.8 ;:2 34.9 

J96J 

Total 3,303 100.0 60.7 35.1 25.6 1.4 16.6 7.6 39.3 

Less than $1,000 242 100.0 16.9 8.9 0.4 6.3 2.2 83.1 

$1,000 -$2,999 

$3,000 -$4,999 ----: 

319 

651 

100.0 

100.0 21.5 

41.3 

1!:: 

21.5 

10.0 

19.8 

1.6 

1.3 

4.8 

12.5 ::: 

78.5 

58.7 

$5,000 -$6,999 

$7.000 -$9.999 

841 

768 

100.0 

100.0 70.3 

83.3 

40.8 

50.1 

29.5 

33.2 

1.7 

1.2 

18.3 

22.7 

9.5 29.7 

16.7 

$10,000’or more--- 481 100.0 82.1 48.7 33.4 1.7 22.8 ::: 17.9 

White 2,859 100.0 63.8 36.6 27.1 1.6 17.7 7.9 36.2 

Less than $1,000--

$1,000 -$2,999 -----

$3,000 -$4,999 -----

143 

241 

542 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

17.6 

21.6 

42.6 

1!:: 

21.7 

1;:: 

20.8 

0.7 

2.1 

1.5 

6.3 

4.7 

13.4 

2.2 

M 

82.4 

78.4 

57.4 

$5,000 -$6,999 ----- 757 100.0 70.4 40.7 29.7 1.8 18.1 9.7 29.6 

$7,000 -$9,999 ----- 720 100.0 84.1 50.5 33.6 1.1 23.1 9.3 15.9 

$10,000 or mOre--- 456 100.0 82.8 47.9 35.0 1.8 24.0 9.1 1.7.2 

All other--- 444 100.0 40.8 25.0 15.9 0.2 9.7 6.0 59.2 

Less than $1,000 99 100.0 15.9 7.4 8.5 6.2 84.1


$1,000 -$2,999----- 100.0 21.0 10.9 10.1 N 79.0


$3,000 -$4,999 1:: 100.0 35.3 20.3 14.9 ::: 64.7


$5,000 -$6,999 84 100.0 69.5 41.9 27.6 19.5 ::;8 30.5


$7>ooo-$9,999----- 48 100.0 71.4 44.5 26.9 1.7 15.7 9.5 28.6


$10,000 or mOre--- 25 100.0 69.2 63.7 5.5 5.5 30.8


19

-------

-----

-----

-----

-----

-------

-----

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

-------

-----

-----

-----

-------

-----

-----

-----

---

--

-----

-----

Table 1. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to
 year of birth, color of infant, and family income: United States, ,1964-66 legitimate live births-Con.


All mothers Percent with coverage


Percent


Year of birth, aithout
 color of infant, Partia 1 coverage coverage
 and family income Number 

Percent Total Complete
 in


thousands coverage Hospital


care and Hospital Hospital


Total care and care
 physician delivery alone
 visits


1965


Total 3,40C 100.0 58.4 32.9 25.5 1.3 17.1 7.1 41.6 

Less than $L,OOO--

$1,000 -$2,999 

264 

417 

100.0 

100,0 

12.0 

22.6 1::: 5.4 

10.1 ;:: H ;:; 88.0 

77.4 $3,000 -$4,999 758 LOO .1 43.6 19.7 23.9 1.4 14.0 8.6 56.4 $5,000 -$6,999 891 LOO .0 74.1 42.1 32.0 1.8 22.0 8.2 25.9 $7,000 -$9,999 691 LOO .0 8L.7 49.6 32.2 1.2 23.7 7.2 18.3 $10,000 or more--- 378 LOO .0 80.0 47.9 32.1 1.6 20.3 10.2 20.0 

White 2,949 100.0 62.2 35.2 27.0 1.3 18.3 7.4 37.8 

Less than $L,OOO-- 159 100.0 15.4 8.5 1.3 5.3 1.9 84.6 $1,000 -$2,999 300 100.0 23.1 L;:; 76.9 $3,000 -$4,999 645 100.0 44.4 19.7 2::; 1.; 1;:! k:; 55.6 

$5,000 -$6,999 814 100.0 75.3 43.1 32.2 1.5 22.4 8.3 24.7 

$7,000 -$9,999 663 100.0 82.0 49.6 32,4 1.3 23.8 18.0 $10,000 or more--- 367 100.0 80.8 48.6 32.2 1.6 20.1 li:i 19,2 

All other--- 451 100.0 33.4 17.4 16,0 1.3 9.1 5.6 66.6 

Less than $1,000 105 100.0 6.8 5.9 0.9 ;:.; 

$1,000 -$2,999 117 100.0 21.2 L!:; 1.8 6.; 

$3,000- 4,999 113 100.0 39.3 18:; 19.6 1$:? 8.9 60:7 $5,000- $6,999 iOO.O 61.5 31.1 30.4 5.2 17.3 38.5 $7,000 -$9,999 

$10,000 or more---

;; 

11 

100.0 

100.0 

75.1* 48.0 +< 27.1 +; ?t 23.2 9t R >!< 24.9 * 

1964


Total 3,743 100.0 59.1 34.1 25.0 2.6 15.8 6.7 40.9


Less than $L,OOO-- 291 100.0 18.3 6.3 12.0 81.7 $L,000-$2,999----- 539 100.0 28.1 12.6 15.5 ;:: 71.9 $3,000 -$4,999 932 LOO .0 48.2 25.9 22.3 13.1 51.8 $5,000 -$6,999 937 LOO ,0 74.6 44.1 30.4 20.5 25.4 $7,000 -$9,999 687 LOO .0 82.3 50.6 31.6 20.6 17.7 $10,000 or more--- 358 100.0 82.6 52.2 30.4 19.5 17.4 

White 3,239 LOO .0 62.2 36.2 26.0 2.4 16.5 37.8 

Leas than $L,OOO-- 169 LOO .0 22.5 12.9 9.4 77.5 $L,000-$2,999----- 390 100.0 27,3 12:: 15.3 72.7 

$3,000 -$4,999 825 100.0 48.1 25.0 23.0 Li:? 51.9 

$5,000 -$6,999 860 100.0 75.0 45.7 29.3 19.8 25.0 

$7,000 -$9,999 655 100.0 83.1 50.7 32.4 21.0 16.9 $10,000 or more--- 340 100.0 83.5 52.3 31.1 19.6 16.5 

All other 504 100.0 39.4 20.6 18.9 3.9 11.3 60.6


Less than $1,000 

$1,000 -$2,999 

122 

149 

100.0 

100.0 

12.5 

30.2 J:: 10.7 

15.8 

2.8 

2.8 

4.7 3.3 

3.9 

87.5 

69.8 

$3,000 -$4,999 Lo7 100.0 49.4 32.8 16.6 4.7 ::: 50.6 $5,000 -$6>999----- 77 100.0 69.7 26.8 42.9 8.0 28.8 ;:: 30.3 

$7,000 -$9,99 !)-----

$10,000 or mOre---

32 

18 

100.0 

100.0 

64.3 -2 48.8 .~. 15.5 $, 3.4,,< 12.1 >k * 35.7>.< 

20

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

---

--

-----

-----

-----

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

------

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

Table 2. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to


race of infant and family income: United States, 1964-66 legitimatelive births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Race of infant Partial coverage Percent
 and without
 Number
 family income in ercent Total Complete


thousands coverage Hospital Hospital Hospital 

coverage


Total care and care and care


Total


Less than $1,000


$1,000~$2,999-----


$3,000-$4,999


$5,000-$6,999


$7,000-$9,999


$10,000 or more---


White-------


Less than $1,000


$1,000-$2,999


$3,000-$4,999


$5,000-$6,999


$7,000-$9,999


$10,000 or more---


All other


Less than $1,000


$1,000-$2,999-----


$3,000-$4,999


$5,000-$6,999


$7,000-$9,999


$10,000 or mOre---


Negro


Less than $1,000


$1,000-$2,999-----


$3,000-$4,999


$5,000-$6,999


$7,000-$9,999


$10,000 or more---


Other than


white or


Negro


Less than $1,000


$1,000-$2,999


$3,000-$4,999


$5,000-$6,999


$7,000-$9,999


$10,000 or more---


physician delivery alone
 visits


3,480 — 100.0 59.4 — 34.0 25.4 — 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

265 100.0 15.5 6.8 8.8 1.0 5.7 2.0 84.5 

426 100.0 24.7 12.4 12.4 1.6 6.8 3.9 75.3 

77~ 100.0 44.8 22.6 22.2 2.0 13.2 7.0 55.2 

885 100.0 73.1 42.5 30.6 2.0 20.2 8.4 26.9 

716 100.0 82.4 50.1 32.4 1.4 22.4 8.5 17.6 

40( 100.0 81.7 49.5 32.1 2.1 21.1 8.8 18.3 

3,01: 100.0 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3 

157 100.0 18.5 8.3 10.2 1.0 7.0 2.1 81.5 

311 100.0 24.5 12.6 11.9 1.6 6.9 3.4 75.5 

669 100.0 45.4 22.4 23.0 2.0 13.9 7.0 54.6 

809 100.0 73.7 43.3 30.4 1.8 20.1 8.5 26.3 

680 100.0 83.1 50.2 32.9 1.4 22.7 8.7 16.9 

388 100.0 82.5 49.5 33.0 2.2 21.6 9.1 17.5 

467 100.0 37.9 21.0 16.9 ~ 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1 

108 100.0 11.3 4.6 6.7 1.0 3.8 1.9 88.7 

115 100.0 25.3 11.7 13.6 1.8 6.7 5.1 74.7 

110 100.0 41.4 24.0 17.4 1.6 9.0 6.8 58.6 

80 100.0 66.9 33.9 33.0 4.2 21.3 7.5 33.1 

37 100.0 70.3 47.2 23.1 1.8 16.5 4.9 29.7 

18 100.0 63.8 51.2 12.5 10.7 1.9 36.2 

41:	 100.0 37.4 20.3 17.1 2.2 10.1 4.8 62.6
 -.


9: 100.0 10.5 4.3 6.2 1.1 3.4 1.7 89.5 

107	 100.0 26.C 12.3 13.8 1.9 7.0 4.9 74.0


97 100.0 42.4 24.2 18.3 1.8 9.5 6.9 57.6


65 100.0 68.: 35.7 32.6 4.8 21.1 6.7 31.7


2[ 100.0 72.7 46.7 26.0 2.3 18.7 5.0 27.3


12 100.0 58.E 40.5 18.3 15.5 2.8 41.2


5[ 100.0 42.2 26.8 15.4 9.0 6.4 57.8 

9 100.0 .,,,. -.’; .:. .: 

8 100.0 :’! .: .> ;,: 

13 100.0 33.4 11.0 5.7 66.6 

11 100.0 58.0 35.3 12.6 42.0 

8 100.0 ~,: .2 .:. .~. 

6 100.0 .: .,,: -~. -> 

21

-------

-----

-------------

--------------

-------

-----

-------------

--------------

---

---------

-----

-------------

--------------

Table	 3. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to color of infant and region of mother! s residence: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births 

Color of infant


and region


of mother’s


residence


Total


Northeast ---------


North Central


South


West


White


Northeast ---------


North Central


South


West


All other


Northeast


North Central


South


West


All mothers Percent with coverage


Partial coverage


Number


in Percent Total Complete


thousands coverage Hospital


care and Hospital
 Total care and
 physic ian delivery
 visits


3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 

817 100.0 70.2 41.8 28.4 1.8 19.5 

991 100.0 67.3 38.4 28.9 1.7 20.4 

1,091 100.0 49.3 27.3 22.0 1.6 13;8 

581 100.0 49.5 28.2 21.3 2.1 10.5 

3,013 100.0 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 

735 100.0 73.3 43.3 29.9 1.9 20.5 

911 100.0 68.9 39.4 29.5 1.6 20.9 

856 100.0 54.1 30.6 23.5 1.5 15.1 

511 100.0 50.8 28.7 22.2 2.3 10.9 

467 100.0 37.9 21.0 16.9 1.9 10.0 

81 100.0 42.9 28.0 14.9 1.3 10.9 

80 100.0 49.3 27.0 22.3 3.5 14.9 

235 100.0 31.7 15.3 16.4 1.8 8.8 

70 100.0 40.0 25.1 14.9 1.1 7.4 

I


Percent


without


coverage


Hospital


care


alone


7.1 40.6


7.1 29.8


6.8 32.7


6.6 50.7


8,7 50.5


7.4 37.3


7.6 26.7


7.0 31.1


6.8 45.9


9.0 49.2


I 

T

5.0 62.1


2.7 57.1


4.0 50.7


5.8 68.3


6.4 60.0


22

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

---

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

Table 4. Number and percent distributionof mothers by insurancecoverage for maternity care, accordingto


region of mother’s residence and family income: United States, 1964-66 legitimatelive births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Region of


mother’s Partial coverage ‘ercent


residence, and Number rithout


family income in Percent Total Complete overage


thousands coverage Hospital


care and Iospital Hospital
 rotal :are and care -
 physician ielivery alone
 visits


All regions- 3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

Less than $1,000 265 100.0 15.5 6.8 8.8 1.0 5.7 2.0 84.5 

$1,000-$2,999 426 100.0 24.7 12.4 12.4 1.6 6.8 3.9 75.3 

$3,000-$4,999 779 100.0 44.8 22.6 22.2 2.0 13.2 7.0 55.2 

$5,000-$6,999 889 100,0 73.1 42.5 30.6 2.0 20.2 8.4 26.9 

$7,000-$9,999 716 100.0 82.4 50.1 32.4 1.4 22.4 8.5 17.6 

$10,000 or more--- 406 100.0 81.7 49.5 32.1 2.1 21.1 8.8 18.3 

Northeast 817 100.0 70.2 41.8 28.4 1.8 19.5 7.1 29.8 

Less than $1,000 42 100.0 18.3 7.1 11.1 0.8 9.6 0.8 81.7 

$1,000-$2,999 67 100.0 28.2 16.6 11.5 0.5 7.6 3.5 71.8 

$3,000-$4,999 173 100.0 53.0 28.2 24.9 2.9 15.4 6.5 47.0 

$5,000-$6,999 233 100.0 81.0 47.1 33.9 1.9 22.2 9.8 19.0 

$7,000-$9,999 186 100.0 89,0 56.1 32.8 1.3 24.5 7.1 11.0 

$10,000 or more--- 117 100.0 87.1 55.5 31.7 2.0 22.9 6.8 12.9 

North


Central 991 100.0 67.3 38.4 28.9 1.7 20.4 6.8 32.7


Less than $1,000 52 100.0 17.6 9.1 8.5 1.9 4.6 1.9 82.4 

$1,000-$2,999 87 100.0 29.1 15.3 13.8 2.3 7.3 4.2 70.9 

$3,000-$4,999 203 100.0 47.8 24.9 22.8 1.8 15.0 6.0 52.2 

$5,000-$6,999 280 100.0 77.0 44.9 32.1 1.7 23.0 7.3 23.0 

$7,000-$9,999 255 100.0 85.2 49.6 35.6 1.3 25.7 8.7 14.8 

$10,000 Or mOre--- 115 100.0 90.0 51.9 38.0 2.1 29.0 7.0 10.0 

South 1,091 100.0 49.3 27.3 22.0 1.6 13.8 6.6 50.7 

Less than $1,000 130 100,0 12.5 5.5 7.0 0.3 4.9 1.8 87.5 

$1,000-$2,999 203 100.0 24.2 10.1 14.1 1.8 7.9 4.3 75.8 

$3,000-$4,999 286 100.0 44.0 20.2 23.8 2.0 13.8 8.0 56.0 

$5,000-$6,999 227 100.0 68.7 39.8 28.9 2.3 19.1 7.6 31.3 

$7,000-$9,999 156 100.0 78.1 49.4 28.7 1.1 19.9 7.8 21.9 

$10,000 or more--- 90 100.0 77.0 50.7 26.3 1.1 15.4 9.8 23.0 

West-------- 581 100.0 49.5 28.2 21.3 2.1 10.5 8.7 50.5 

Less than $1,000 42 100.0 19.7 7.5 12.2 2.5 5.6 4.0 80.3 

$1,000-$2,999 69 100.0 17.4 11.1 6.3 1.4 2.5 2.4 82,6 

$3,000-$4,999----- 118 100.0 29.6 16.5 13.1 0.8 5,4 6.8 70.4 

$5,000-$6,999 149 100.0 59.9 34.7 25.2 2.3 13.4 9.5 40,1 

$7,000-$9,999 120 100.0 72.0 42.7 29.4 2.5 15.4 11.4 28.0 

$10,000 or more--- 84 100.0 67.7 36.8 30.9 3.6 14.2 13.1 32.3 

23

-------------

-------------

----

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

---------------

-------------

Table 5. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity c’are, according to colot of
 infant, place of mother’s residence, and family income: United Statea, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage I


Color of infant, place of Paftial coverage Percent
 mother’s residence and Number without


family income Percent Total Complete Hoapita”l Hospital Hospital co~erag<


:ho~ands coverage care arid rotal care and care physician delivery alone visita ti I 

Total


Leas than 

All areas 

$3,000------------

3.k80 

691 

100.0 

100.0 

59.4 

21.2 

34.0 

10.2 

25.4 

11.0 

1.8 

1.4 

16,5 =-&= 3.2 78.8 $3,000-$4,999--------------- 779 100.0 44.8 22.6 22.2 1$:; 7,0 55.2 “$5,000-$6,999--------------- 889 100,0 73.1 42.5 30.6 ;:: 20;2 8.4 26.9 $7,000-$9,999--------------- 716 100.0 82.4 50.1 32.4 22.4 8.5 17,6 

$10,000 or mOre 406 100.0 81,7 49.5 32.1 i- ;:: 21.1 8;8 18.3 

Metropolitan areas 2,240 100.0 63.1 37.1 25.9 2.1 I 16.3 7.6 36.9 

Less than $3,000------------ 371 100.0 22.6 12.2 10.4 77.4 $3,000-$4,999--------------- 457 100.0 45.2 24.3 20.9 ;:; 54.8 

$5,000-$6,999--------------- 584 100.0 74.3 43.3 31.0 25.7 

$7,000-$9,999--------------- 515 100.0 83.3 51.4 31.9 9:2 16,7 

$10,000 or mOre 313 100.0 82.6 50.2 32.4 T 9.0
 17.4

Nonmetropolitan areas- 1,241 100.0 52.7 28.4 24.3 1.2 I 16.8 

Less than $3,000------------ $3,000-$4,999--------------- $5,000-$6,999---------------

320 

322 

305 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

19.6 

44.2 

70.6 2;:; 

40.9 

11.6 

24.1 

29,8 

1.0 

::: J:: 

21.1 

3.2 

;:’~ 

80,4 

55,8 

29.4 $7,000-$9,999--------------- 201 100.0 80.1 46.7 33.4 25,3 6.8 19.9 $10,000 or mOre 93 100.0 78.6 47.4 31,2 ::? 22.2 8,3 21.4 

White


All area~------------- 3,013 100.0 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 -J4-L= Less than $3,000----------~- 467 100.0 22.5 11.2 11.3 1.4 3.0 77.5 $3,000-$4,999--------------- 669 100.0 45.4 22.4 23.0 2.0 1$:: 54.6 $5,000-$6,999--------------- 809 100.0 73.7 43.3 30.4 1.8 20,1 i:; 26.3 $7,000-$9,999--------------- 680 100.0 83.1 50.2 32.9 1.4 22.7 8.7 16.9 $10,000 or mOre 388 100.0 82.5 49.5 33.0 T2,2 21.6 9.1 17.5 

Metropolitan areaa---- 1,919 100.0 66.3 39.1 27.2 2.1 I 17.1 8.1 33<.7 

Less than $3,000------------ 246 100.0 23.1 13.1 10.0 1.7 2.8 76.9 

$3,000-$4,999--------------- 375 100.0 46.2 24.0 22.2 2.7 12:: 53.8 $5,000-$6,999--------------- 517 100.0 75.2 44.3 30.9 19.5 ;:: 24,8 

$7,000-$9,999--------------- 483 100.0 84.1 51.8 32.3 ;:? 21.4 9.4 15.9 $10,000 or mOre 297 100.0 83,4 50.0 33.3 2.7 21,3 9,3 16.6 

4.6


+ 

Nonmetropolitan areas- 1,095 100.0 56.3 30.7 25.6 1.2 I 18.1 6.3 I 43.7 

Leaa than $3,000------------ $3>000-$4,999--------------- 221 

294 100.0 

100.0 21.8 

44.3 9.1 

20.3 12.7 

24.0 ;:i 1::: 3.2 

6,9 78.2 55.7 $5,000-$6,999--------------- 292 100.0 70.9 41.5 29.4 1.5 21.0 6.9 29.1 

$7,000-$9,999--------------- 197 100.0 80.6 46.5 34.1 25.8 19.4 

,$10,000 or mOre------------- 90 100.O 79.6 47.5 32.1 ;:: 22.8 ::: 20,4 

All other 

All ar-a~---__-------- 467 100.0 37.9 21.0 16.9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1 

Leaa than $3,000------------ 223 100.0 18.5 8.2 10.3 1.4 5.3 3.6 81.5 

$3,000-$4,999--------------- 110 100.0 41.4 24.0 17.4 6.8 58.6 

$5,000-$6,999--------------- 80 100.0 66.9 33.9 33.0 ::; 2?:: 33,1 

$7,000-$9,999--------------- 100.0 70.3 47.2 23.1 1.8 16.5 ::; 29.7 

$10,000 or mOre ?; 100.0 63.8 51.2 12.5 10.7 1.9 36.2 

Metropolitan areaa---- 321 100.0 43.4 25.2 18.2 2.2 11.4 T56.6 

Less than $3,000------------ $3,000-$4,999---------------

124 

81 100.0 

100.0 

21.7 

40.6 10.5 

25.8 

11.2 

14.8 

1.7 

2.2 5.9 3.7 

3.9 

78.3 

:;.: $5,000-$6,999--------------- 67 100.0 67.4 35.3 32.2 3.9 2!:; $7,000-$9,999 33 100.0 72.0 46.1 25.9 2.0 18.5 ;:; 28:0 

$10,000 or mOre 15 100.0 67.3 52.7 14.6 12.4 2.2 32.7 

Nonmetropolitan areas- 146 100.0 26.0 11,8 14.2 1.2 7.0 6.0 74.Q


Leas than $3,000------------ 100.0 14.5 9.1 1.0 4.6 85,5 

$3,000-$4,999--------------- % 100.0 43.5 24.9 9.8 J:: 56,5 

$5,000-$6,999--------------- 13 100.0 63.9 37.2 5,; 22.9 8.5 36.1 *
 $7,000-$9,999--------------- 4 100.0 9<


$10,000 or mOre------------- 3 100.0 ?. - *


24 
-- -----

-----

-----

------

-- -----

-----

-----

-- -----

-----

-----

-- -----

-----

-- -----

-----

-----

-- -----

-----

-----

---

-- -----

-----

-----

Table 6. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insmance coverage fcm maternity care, according to


age of father and family income: United States, 1964-66 legitimatelive births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Age o~ather


family income Number 

Percent Total Complete
 in


thousands coverage


All ages---- 59.4 34.0


+ 

Less than $3,000 691 100.0 21.2 10.2 

$3,000-$4,999 779 100.0 44.8 22.6 

$5,000-$6,999 889 100.0 73.1 42.5 

7,000-$9,999 716 100,0 82.4 50.1 

i10,000 or more--- 406 100.0 81.7 49.5 

Under 20


years 130 100.0 19.6 10.3


Less than $3,000 100.0 10.4


$3,000-$4,999 ;: 100.0 23.6 1?:?


$5,000-$6,999 13 100.0 59.1 33.5


$7,000-$9,999 5 100.0 ;,< -2


$10,000 or more---T4 100.0 9: f.­

Partial coverage	 ‘erc
ent


,ithout


overage


Hospital Iospital iospital
 care and
 rotal physician :are and care


visits ielivery alone


25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6


11.0 3.2 78.8


22.2 i $ 122 ;:.;
 30.6 2.0 20.2 ;::
 32.4 22.4 8.5 17:6


32.2 ;:: 21.1 8.8 18.3
 IL9.3 2.5
 4.0 2.8 80.4 

89.6


12: ::! ::: 76.4 

25.6	 2.6 15.3 40.9
 >’r %- .:. *.


.?; 

20-24 years- 953 100.0 46.9 29.2 17.7 1.6 11.0 53.1
 —


Less than $3,000 269 100.0 21.8 13.1 1.3 78.2


$3,000-$4,999 278 100.0 39.8 23.1 J:; 1.6 1::: 60.2


$51,000 

$7,000-$9,999 116 100.0 74.7 48.8 25.9 16.9 25.3 

$10,000 or more--- 39 100.0 75.7 47.9 27.7 i : 17.4 24.3 

t {} 

25-29 years- 1,0121 100.0 63.7 37.4 26.3II 2.1 16.7 36.3 

-$6,999 251 100.0 64.0 41.1 23.0 1.8 14.4 36.0


Less than $3,000 146 100.0 24.5 10.7 13.8 8.2 3.9 75.5


$3,000-$4,999 223 100.0 49.1 25.8 23.4 ;:: 14.1 50.9


$5,000-$6,999----- 296 100.0 74.4 43.2 31.2 2.4 19.6 ‘H 25.6


$7,000-$9,999 239 100.0 81.4 51.1 30.3 2.1 20.7 7.5 18.6


$10,000 or more--- 108 100.0 78.7 51.6 27.1 2.6 17.1 7.5 21.3


30-34 years- 684 100.0 69.7 38.2 31.6 1.7 20.8 9.0 30.3 

Less than $3,000 

$3,006-$4,999 

$5,000-$6,999 

1:: 

175 

100.0 

100.0 

Loo.o 

24.9 

46.2 

79.7 

J:: 

43.9 

15.2 

27.9 

35.8 

1::; 

23.9 ;:2 

10.4 

75.1 

53.8 

20.3 

$7,000-$9,999 187 100.0 88.2 52.2 36.0 24.9 9.8 11.8 

$10,000 or more---T112 100.0 84.1 49.9 34.2 22.9 8.9 15.9

35-39 years- 409 I 100.0 69.7 37.8 31.9 1.6 21.7 8.6 30.3


Less than $3,000 

$3,000-$4,999 

$5,000-$6,999 

55 

69 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

19.9 

52.8 

79.6 

6.8 

23.7 

43.3 

13.1 

29.1 

36.3 

i:: 

2.3 1;::

26.2 

5.4 

7.7 

80.1 

47.2 

20.4 

$7,000-$9,999 1% 100.0 84.1 47.6 36.4 0.6 25.8 1::: 15.9 

$10,000 or more--- 83 100.0 87.3 51.4 35.9 0.8 24.6 10.6 12.7 

40 years 

and over 64.1 33.4 21.3 8.0 35.9 

Less than $3,000 56 100.0 20.1 13.8 0.6 79.9 

$3,000-$4,999 55 100.0 50.8 2?:i? 29.2 1.2 l::; 49.2 

$5,000-$6,999 60 100.0 77.8 41.0 36.9 1.7 28.5 22.2 

$7,000-$9,999 62 100.0 84.0 48.7 35.4 26.9 16.0 

$10,000 or more--- 60 100.0 83.0 46.2 36.8 ;:; 24.3 17.0 

25

-------

-----------

-----------

---------

--

-------

-----------

-----------

---------

--

-----------

-----------

---------

--

Table 7.	 Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to


color of infant and education of father: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Color of infant Part ial coverage Percent


and education without
 Number
 of father in Percent rotal ;omplete Hospital coverage


thousands :overage care and Hospital Hospital


Total and


Total


None or elementary
 ~chOOl


1-3 years high


school


High school


graduate


1-3 years college-


College graduate


Wbite


None or elementary


school


1-3 years high


school


High school


graduate


1-3 years cOllege -


College graduate


All other---


None or elementary


school


1-3 years high


school


High school


graduate


1-3 years college -


College graduate


care care
 physician delivery alone
 visits


3,480 100.C 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7,1 40.6


569 100. C 40.3 18.9 21.4 1.4 14.9 5.1 59.7 

734 100. c 48.9 26.4 22.5 1.8 14.3 6.4 51.1 

1,262 100. C 65.0 38.0 27.1 2.1 17.7 7.3 35.0 

422 100. C 67.4 41.9 25.5 2.0 15.6 7.9 32.6 

493 100.c 75.7 45.9 29.7 1.2 19.2 9.4 24.3 

3,013 100.C 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3


432 100.C 44.4 21.2 23.2 1.6 16.3 5.3 55.6 

604 100.C 52.8 28.6 24.2 1.9 15.6 6.7 47.2 

1,126 100.C 67.0 39.2 27.8 2.0 18.2 7.6 33.0 

383 100.C 69.7 42.7 27.0 2.0 16.8 8.2 30.3 

468 100.c 76.3 46.4 29.9 1.0 19.6 9.3 23.7 

467 100.C 37.9 21.0 16.9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1 

137 100.C 27.4 11.7 15.6 0.5 10.5 4.6 72.6 

131 100.C 31.1 16.3 14.8 1.3 8,1 5.3 68.9 

136 100.0 48.6 28.1 20.5 3.2 13.0 4.3 51.4 

38 100.c 44.0 33.8 10.2 1.8 3.7 4.6 56.0 

25 100.C 64.5 38.2 26.3 5.8 10.4 10.1 35.5 

26

--------

--------

----------

--------

--------

--------

--------

Table 8. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to edu­
 cation of father and family income: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Education of father Partia1 coverage ?ercent 

and family income rithout Number ?ercent Cotal COmpletG :overage 

:ho;ands coveragf 

Total Hospital Hospital care and care ana 

Hospital care physician delivery alone visits 

All levels of
 education-------- 3,480 100.0 59.4 34.( 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6


Less than $3,000------- 691 100.0 21.2 10.: 11.0 1.4 6.4 3.2 78.8 

$3,000-$4,999---------- 779 100.0 44.8 22.t 22.2 2.0 13.2 7.( 55.2 

$5,000-$6,999---------- 889 100.0 73.1 42.! 30.6 2.0 20.2 8.[ 26.9 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 716 100.0 82.4 50.1 32.4 1.4 22.4 8.5 17.6 

$10,000 or mOre 406 100.0 81.7 49.: 32.1 2.1 21.1 8.Z 18.3 

None or


elementary
 school---------- 569 100.0 40.3 18.$ 21.4 1.4 14.9 5.1 59.7


Less than $3,000------- 249 100.0 16.2 5-5 10.4 0.9 6.5 3.C 83.8 

$3,000-$4,999---------- 152 100.0 43.9 19.[ 24.9 2.4 15.6 6.9 56.1 

$5,000-$6,999---------- 104 100.0 74.7 38.5 36.2 1.6 27.6 7.C 25.3 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 46 100.0 72.5 40.7 31.9 26.0 5.9 27.5 

$10,000 or mOre 18 100.0 63.0 30.[ 33.1 25.7 7.4 37.0 

l;~h= high 

734 100.0 48.9 26.4 22.5 1.8 14.3 6.4 51.1 

Less than $3,000------- 204 100.0 20.2 8.t 11.4 2.0 5.2 4.3 79.8 

$3,000-$4,999---------- 210 100.0 40.5 21.5 19.0 1.6 12.2 5.2 59.5 

$5,000-$6,999---------- 182 100.0 68.8 39.1 29.7 1.5 20.7 7.5 31.2 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 106 100.0 77.5 42.~ 34.7 2.9 22.6 9.1 22.5 

$10,000 or mOre 33 100.0 78.1 43.5 34.6 1.1 21.6 11.9 21.9 

High school graduate-------- 1,262 100.0 65.0 38.0 27.1 2.1 17.7 7.3 35.0 

Less than $3,000------- 167 100.0 26.7 14.9 11.7 1.4 8.6 “1.8 73.3 

$3,000-$4,999---------- 304 100.0 46.3 23.9 22.4 2.2 12.5 7.7 53.7 

$5,000-$6,999---------- 387 100.0 75.4 44.4 31.0 2.6 20.1 8.2 24.6 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 298 100.0 85.7 52.2 33.5 1.6 23.3 8.7 14.3 

$10,000 or mOre 105 100.0 83.5 51.2 32.2 2.2 22.4 7.6 16.5 

1-3 years cOllege--------- 422 100.0 67.4 41.9 25.5 2.0 15.6 7.9 32.6 

Less than $3,000------- 45 100.0 23.6 15.3 8.3 2.3 2.3 3.7 76.4 

$3,000-$4,999---------- 73 100.0 48.2 26.0 22.2 1.3 13.0 7.9 51.8 

$5,000-$6,999---------- 125 100.0 73.5 46.7 26.8 1.1 14.9 10.8 26.5 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 117 100.0 82.0 53.1 28.9 2.0 20.4 6.5 18.0 

$10,000 or mOre 62 100.0 81.2 48.7 32.5 4.4 20.2 7.9 18.8 

College graduate- 493 100.0 75.7 45.9 29.7 1.2 19.2 9.4 24.3 

Less than $3,000------- 26 100.0 37.5 24.7 12.8 8.9 3.9 62.5 

$3,000-$4,999---------- 40 100.0 53.3 26.3 27.0 1.7 1.5.9 9.3 46.7 

$5,000-$6,999---------- 90 100.0 69.4 39.6 29.8 2.0 18.4 9.5 30.6 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 150 100.0 82.7 51.4 31.3 0.2 20.9 10.2 17.3 

$10,000 or mOre 187 100.0 83.2 51.8 31.4 1.8 20.2 9.4 16.8 

27 
-------

-----------

-----------

---------

-------

-----------

-----------

---------

--

---

-----------

-----------

---------

Table 9.	 Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to
 color of infant and education of mother: United Statea, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Color of infant Partial coverage Percent
 and education Number with out
 of mother in Percent rota1 Complete Hospital coverage


thousands coverage care and Iospital Hospital
 Total :are and care
 )hysician ~elivery alone
 visits


Total 3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

None or elementary 

school 424 100.0 37.5 17.0 20.6 1.9 13.4 5.2 62.5 

1-3 years high 

school 869 100.0 46.4 25.7 20.7 1.4 12.5 6.7 53.6 

High school 

graduate 1,522 100.0 67.1 39.4 27.7 2.0 18.8 7.0 32.9 

1-3 years cOllege- 424 100.0 72.2 41.7 30.5 2.1 19.9 8.5 27.8 

College graduate-- 242 100.0 73.2 46.4 26.7 1.0 15.6 10.2 26.8 

White 3,013 100.0 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3 

None or elementary 

achool 320 100.0 42.3 19.3 23.0 2.1 15.0 5.8 57.7 

1-3 years high 

school 706 100.0 49.7 28.0 21.7 1.5 13.2 7.0 50.3 

High school 

graduate 1,373 100.0 69.5 40.8 28.7 1.9 19.6 7.2 30.5 

1-3 years cOllege- 390 100.0 72.7 41.1 31.6 2.0 20.7 8.9 27.3 

College graduate 224 100.0 73.7 47.4 26.2 0.7 15.4 10.2 26.3 

All other 467 100.0 37.9 21.0 16.9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1 

None or elementary 

achool 104 100.0 22.8 9.8 13.0 1.0 8.5 3.5 77.2 

1-3 years high 

school 163 100.0 32.2 15.9 16.3 1.2 9.5” 5.6 67.8 

High school 

graduate 149 100.0 45.2 26.9 18.3 2.4 10.7 5.2 54.8 

1-3 years cOllege- 34 100.0 65.7 48.4 17.3 4.4 9.7 3.2 34.3 

College graduate-- 17 100.0 66.5 33.3 33.2 4.1 18.9 10.2 33.5 
--------

--------

-----

------------

---------

--------

----

------

---------

-----------

--------

-----------

---------

---------

--------

-----------

-----------

-----------

---------

----------

--------

---------

--------

-----------

-----------

-----------

---------

Table 10. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to
 education of mother and family income: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Partial coverage Percent
 Education of mother
 without
 and family income Number


in Percent rotal lnnplete Hospital coverage


thousands :overage care and Hospital Hospital
 Petal care and


All levels of


education


Less than $3,000


$3,000-$4,999-------”----


$5,000-$6,999-J----”


$7,000-$9,999


$10,000 OrmOfe”
 .


None or ekmentary 

school----------­
 ,, . . .. .


Less than $3,000


$3,000-$4,999 -’---:-:


$5,000%6,999-..-..-=.


$7>000-$9,999------”


$10,000 or more


li~h~~a high


Less than $3,000


$3,000-$4,999-----=--=.


$5,000-$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999-----------


.$10,000cm more


High school


graduate


Less than $3,000


$3,000 -$4,999


$5,000 -$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or more


1-3 years
 college


Less than $3,000


$3,000-$4,999:----------


$5,000 -$6,999---’1---=


$7’,000-$.9,,
 999=-”:-:----


$10,000 or more
 ,,


College graduate-­


‘..


Less than $3,000


$3,000 -$4,999


$5,000-$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or nmre


care
 )hysician delivery alone
 visits


3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0 25,4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 — 

691 100.0 21.2 10.2 11.0 1.4 6.4 3.2 78.8 

779 100.0 44.8 22.6 22.2 2.0 13.2 7.0 55.2 

889 100.0 73.1 42.5 30.6 2.0 20.2 8.4 26.9 

716 100.0 82.4 50.1 32.4 1.4 22.4 8.5 17.6 

406 100.0 81.7 49.5 32.1 2.1 21.1 8.8 18.3 

624 100.0 37.5 17.0 20.6 1.9 13.4 5.2 62.5 

194 100.0 15.2 4.9 10.3 1.9 5.6 2.8 84.8 

118 100.0 41.3 16.7 24.6 3.0 15.2 6.4 58.7 

68 100.0 69.5 38.0 31.5 0.5 25.2 5.8 30:5 

35 100.0 81.3 38.9 42.4 0.9 26.4 15.1 18.7 

9 100,0 53.7 34.8 18.9 18.9 46.3 

869 100.0 46.4 25.7 20.7 1.4 12.5 6.7 53.6 

261 100.0 17.9 8.7 9.2 1.3 5.4 2.5 82.1 

249 100.0 40.0 21.3 18.7 1.1 10.3 7.3 60.0 

208 100.0 70.5 41.4 29.1 1.4 18.3 9.3 29.5 

114 100.0 75.1 43.0 32.1 2.6 20.4 9.1 24.9 

37 100.0 68.3 34.9 33.4 1.8 20.8 10.8 31.7 

1,522 100.0 67.1 39.4 27.7 2.0 18.8 7.0 32.9 

191 100.0 27.0 14.3 12.8 0.9 8.0 3.9 73.0 

327 100.0 48.6 24.9 23.7 2.3 14.6 6.9 51.4 

463 100.0 76.0 44.1 31.9 2.4 21.0 8.5 24.0 

375 100.0 85.1 54.4 30.6 1.5 22.4 6.7 14.9 

167 100.0 83.9 49.7 34.2 2.2 24.8 7.2 16.1 

424 100.0 72.? 41.7 30.5 2.1 19.9 8.5 27.8 

34 100”.0 38.9 25.7 13.2 2.1 7.0 4.0 61.1 

65 100.0 45,.7 23.4 22.2 1.6 13.5 7.2 54.3 

110 100.0 72.2 42;6 29.6 2.8 19.8 7.0 27.8 

117 100.0 85.7 49.3 36.3 0.8 25.6 9.9 14.3 

98 100.0 85.2 47:2 35.9 3.4 21.7 10.8 14.8 

242 100.0 73.2 46.4 26.7 1.0 15.6 10.2 26.8 

11 100.0 50.6 23.6 27.0 3.2 14.9 8.8 49.4 

20 100.0 60.2 34.7 25.6 3.4 15.3 6.8 39.8 

39 100.0 60.3 36.1 24.2 12.9 11.3 39.7 

75 100.0 75.8 45.5 30.3 0.5 18.6 11.2 24.2 

96 100.0 81.7 56.5 25.3 1.0 14.5 9.7 18.3 

29 
Table 11. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care,according to color


of Lnfant and employment of mother during pregnancy: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Color of infant and Partisl coverage ?ercent
 employment of mother Number rithout


during pregnancy in Percent otal Complete


coverage Hospital +ospital iospital >overage


thousands T Total care and xre and care )hyaician ielivery alone
 viaita


Total------------ 3>480 100.0 59.4 34.0 2.5.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

Employed during
 pregnancy------------- 1,045 100.0 62.7 36.8 26.0 1.9 16.7 7.3 37.3 Not employed during pregnancy------------- 2,436 100.0 57.9 32.8 25.1 1.7 16.3 7.0 42.1 

Wbite------------ 3,013 100.0 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3 

Employed during
 pregnancy------------- 890 100.0 

I

66.4 39.3 27.1 2.0 17.9 7.3 33.6 Not employed during pregnancy------------- 2,124 100.0 61.2 34.7 26.5 1.7 17.3 7.5 38.8 

All other-------- 467 100.0 37.9 21.0 16.9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1 

Employed during pregnancy------------- 155 100.0 41.7 22.4 19.3 1.6 10.3 7.3 58.3 Not employed during pregnancy------------- 312 100.0 36.1 20.3 15.8 2.0 9.8 3.9 63.9 i 

Table 12. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to em­


ployment of mother during pregnancy and family income: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live birtha


All mothers Percent with coverage


Employment of mother Partial coverage ?ercent


during pregnancy and Number ~ithout
 family income Percent ota1 :omplete :overage


:ho;ands :overage Iospital iospital
 rotal :are and care
 ielivery alone


All mothers------ 3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

Less than $3,000------- 691 100.0 21.2 10.2 11.0 6.4 3.2 78.8 

$3,000- 4,999---------- $5,000-t6,999---------- $7,000-$9,999---------- $10,000 or mOre--------

779 

889 

716 

406 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

44.8 

73.1 

82.4 

81.7 

22.6 

42.5 

50.1 

49,5 

22.2 

30.6 

32.4 

32.1 

13.2 

20.2 

22.4 

21.1 

H 

8.5 

8.S 

;5.: 

17:6 

18.3 

Employed during pregnancy--------- 1.045 100.0 62.7 36.8 26.0 1.9 16.7 7.3 37.3 

Lesa than $3,000------- $3,000-$4,999---------- $5,000-$6,999----------

165 

214 

265 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

25.9 

49.9 

68.8 

13.1 

26.9 

38.4 

12.9 

23.0 

30.4 

8.9 

14.2 

17.2 

2.9 

1::; 

74.1 

50.1 

31.2 

$7,000-$9,999---------- 250 100.0 78.8 48.3 30.4 21.1 8.0 21.2 

$10,000 or mOre-------- 150 100.0 84.1 54.8 29.3 20.9 6.2 15.9 

Not employed 

during pregnancy- 2.436 100.0 57.9 32.8 25.1 1.7 16.3 7.0 42.1 

Less than $3,000------- $3,000-$4,999----------

$5,000-$6,999----------

$7,000-$9,999---------- $10,000 or mOre--------

525 

564 

624 

467 

255 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

19.7 

42.9 

74.9 

84.4 

80.2 

2::: 

44.2 

51.0 

46.5 

10.4 

21.9 

30.7 

33.4 

33.8 

5.6 

2.1 

1.5 

;:; 

3.2 

12,9 

21.5 

23.1 

21.3 

80.3 

57.1 

25.1 

15.6 

19.8 

30 
-------

-------------

------------

-------------

------------

-------

-------------

------------

-------------

------------

---

------------

-------------

------------

---

Table 13. Number and percent distributionof mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, accordingto


color of infant and live-birthorder: United States, 1964-66 legitimatelive births


All mothers Percentwith coverage


Color of infant


and Number
 live-birth order in Percent ?otal ;omplete


thousands :overage


Total 3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0 

First 1,010 100.0 51.0 32.0 

Second 873 100.0 63.0 36.0 

Third 619 100.0 66.1 37.6 

Fourth 401 100.0 65.4 34.8 

Fifth or higher--- 578 100.0 57.0 30.1 

White 3,013 100.0 62.7 36.0 

First 911 100.0 52.7 33.0 

Second 773 100.0 65.8 37.6 

Third 544 100.0 69.2 39.1 

Fourth 351 100.0 69.8 37.3 

Fifth or higher 434 100.0 64.3 34.7 

All other--- 467 100.0 37.9 21.0 

First------------- 98 100.0 35.8 22.4 

Second 100 100.0 41.3 24.2 

Third 75 100.0 44.0 26.8 

Fourth 50 100.0 34.6 16.9 

Fifth or higher 143 100.0 35.0 16.2 

Partial coverage	 Percent


without


coverage
 Hospital Hospital Hospital
 care and
 Total care and care
 physician delivery alone
 visits
 T 25.4
 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6

:F 

19.0 

16.9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1 

13.4 2.4 6.4 4.6 64.2 

17.1 2.5 8.0 6.7 58.7 

17.2 1.9 12.1 

1.8 11.2 6.0 49.0 

27.0 1.9 17.2 7.8 37.0 

28.5 1.7 18.7 8.1 33.9 

30.6 r 1.6 19.2 9.9 34.6 

26.9 II 1.6 20.2 5.1 43.0 

26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3 

19.7 1.8 11.8 6.2 47.3 

28.3 1.9 18.4 8.0 34.2 

30.1 1.7 19.6 8.8 30.8 

32.5 1.5 20.7 10.3 30.2 

29.6 1.8 22.5 5.2 35.7 

3.2 56.0 

8.8 6.7 65.4 

13.2 4.5 65.0 

31

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

------

--

-----

-----

-----

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

------

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

Table 14. Number and percent distributionof mothers by insurancecoverage for maternity care, accordingto


live-birth order and family income: United states, 1964-66 legitimatelive births


All mothers Percentwith coverage


Live-birthorder Partial coverage Percent


and uithout


family income Number 

Percent Total Complete :overage


in


thousands coverage Hospital Hospital Hospital


Total care and care and care
 physician delivery alone
 visits


All birth 

ordera 3,480 100.0 59./ 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

Less than $3,000 691 100.0 21.2 10.2 11.0 1.4 6.4 3.2 78.8 

$3,000-$4,999 779 100.0 44.E 22.6 22.2 2.0 13.2 7.[ 55.2 

$5,000-$6,999 889 100.0 73.1 42.5 30.6 2.0 20.2 8.L 26.9 

$7,000-$9,999, 716 100.0 82.4 50.1 32.4 1.4 22.4 8.: 17.6 

$10,000 or mOre--- 406 100.0 81.7 49.5 32.1 2,1 22.1 8.E 18.3 

First 1,010 100.0 51.C 32.0 19.1 1.8 11,2 6.C 49.0 

Less than $3,000 249 100.0 18.6 11.0 7.6 1.2 4.4 2.C 81.4


$3,000-$4,999 231 100.0 41.6 22.7 18.8 2.0 10.9 5.9 58.4


$5,000-$6,999 229 100.0 62.7 39.6 23,1 2.7 12.0, 8.4 37.3


$7,000-$9,999 184 100.0 75.0 48.9 26.1 1.6 16.6 7.9 25.0


$10,000 or more--- 118 100.0 78.0 53.1 24.9 1.4 16.4 7.1 22.0


Second 873 100.0 63.0 36.0 27.0 1.9 17.2 7.8 37.0


Less than $3,000 148 100.0 27.7 14.2 i3.5 1.8 7.3 4.4 72.3 

$3,000-$4,999 205 100.0 46.1 22.8 23.3 2.3 13.3 7.6 53.9 

$5,000-$6,999 251 100.0 76.5 44.2 32.4 “1.2 22.1 9.0 23.5 

$7,000-$9,999 179 100.0 83.1 50.8 32.3 2.3 23.2 6.9 16.9 

$10,000 or more--- 90 100.0 82.2 50.0 32.2 2.7 17.0 12.5 17.8 I 

Third 619 100.0 66.1 37.6 28.5 1.7 18.7 8.1 33.9 

Less than $3,000 89 100.0 22.1 8.8 13.3 1.5 7.6 4.1 77.9 

$3,000-$4,999 141 100.0 51.7 25.9 25.9 1.2 17.9 6.8 48.3 

$5,000-$6,999 175 100.0 77.4 43.7 33.7 2.5 21.2 9.9 22.6 

$7,000-$9,999 142 100.0 85.C 49.7 35.3 1.2 24.1 10.0 15.0 

$10,000or more--- 72 100.0 84.4 57.6 26.7 2.2 17.3 7.2 15.6 

Fourth 401 100.0 65.4 34.8 30.6 1.6 19.2 9.9 34.6 

Less than $3,000 59 100.0 22.2 8.0 14.2 1.7 8.6 3,9 77.8 

$3,000-$4,999 86 100.0 41.5 18.6 22.8 1.5 12.7 8.6 58.5 

$5,000-$6,999 105 100.0 77.5 43.8 33.7 2.2 22.3 9.1 22.5 

$7,000-$9,999 97 100.0 88.9 52.4 36.5 0.3 23.0 13.2 11.1 

$10,000 or more--- 53 100.0 85.3 40.6 44.6 2.5 28.2 13.9 14.7 

Fifth or higher 578 100.0 57.0 30.1 26.9 1.6 20.2i 5.1 43.0 

Less than $3,000 145 100.0 18.0 6.6 11.5 1.1 7.3 3.0 82.0 

$3,000-$4,999 116 100.0 43.1 21.1 21.9 2.5 12.4 7.0 57.0 

$5,000-$6,999 129 100.0 75.2 4i.4 33.8 1.4 27.8 4.6 24.8 

$7,000-$9,999 114 100.0 84.6 .,. 

4:.2 35.4 1.2 27.9 6.3 15.4 

$10,000 or more--- 73 100.0 81.6 41.7 39.9 2.3 32.7 4,9 18.4 

32

-------

-----------

-------

----------

----------

-----------

----------

Table 15. Number and percent distributionof mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according tO


color of infant and number of previous fetal deatha: United Statea, 1964-66 legitimatelive birtha


All �others Percent with coverage 

Color of infant Partial coverage ‘ercent
 and number of tithout
 previous Number


fetal deatha in ?ercent ‘otal :omplete


thousands :overage Ii:i:i;ta~ tospital Hospital 

:overage


rotal :areand


Total 3,480 100.0 59.4


No previous feta1 

deaths 2,696 100.0 58.1 

One fetal death--- 540 100.0 65.3 

Two fetal deaths or more---------- 245 100.0 59.8 

White 3;013 100.0 62.7 

N;e~W&Ua feta1 

2,355 100.0 61.1 

One fetal death--- 458 100.0 69.4 

TWO fetal deaths or mOre 201 100.0 65.7 

All other--- 467 100.0 37.9 

No previous fetal 

deaths 341 100.0 37.4 

One fetal death--- 82 100.0 42.9 

Two fetal deaths or more 44 100.0 32.9 

care
 hysician Ielivery alone
 viaits


34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.3. 40.6


33.9 24.3 1.8 15.4 7.0 41.9


36.4 29.0 1.6 20.1 7.3 34.7


30.5 29.3 1.5 I-9.7 8.1 40.2


36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3


35.6 25.6 1.8 16.4 7.4 38.9


39.4 30.0 1.4 21.2 7.4 30.6


34.0 31.7 1.5 21.6 8.5 34.3


21.0 16.9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1


22.2 15.2 1.8 8.8 4.5 62.6


19.8 23.1 2.2 14.4 6.5 57.1


14.3 18.6 1.7 10.8 6.2 67.1


33

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

------

--

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

Table 16. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to


number of previous fetal deaths and family income: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Number of Partial coverage Percent
 previous fetal


deaths and Number without


family income in Percent Total Complete Hospital coverage


thousands coverage care and Hospital Hospital
 Total care and care
 physician deliver y alone
 viaits


Total 3,48C 100.0 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

Less than $3,000 691 100.0 21.2 10.2 11.0 1.4 6.4 3.2 78.8 

$3,000 -$4,999 775 100.0 44.8 22.6 22.2 2.0 13.2 7.0 55.2 

$5,000 -$6,999 885 100.0 73.1 42.5 30.6 2.0 20.2 8.4 26.9 

$7,000 -$9,999 716 100.0 82.4 50.1 32.4 1.4 22.4 8.5 17.6 

$10,000 or mOre--- 406 100.0 81.7 49.5 32.1 2.1 22.1 8.8 18.3 

No previous


feta 1


deaths 2,696 100.0 58.1 33.9 24.3 1.8 15.4 7.0 41.9


Less than $3,000 554 100.0 20.6 10.2 10.4 1.4 5.9 3.0 79.4


$3,000 -$4,999 611 100:0 44.8 23.3 21.5 1.9 12.9 6.7 55.2


$5,000 -$6,999 697 100.0 71.9 42.0 29.9 2.0 18.9 8.9 28.1


$7>ooo-$9,999----- 530 100.0 81.5 50.1 31.4 1.6 21.5 8.3 18.5


$10,000 or mOre--- 304 100.0 81.1 51.2 29.9 2.3 19.4 8.2 18.9


One fetal


death 540 100.0 65.3 36.4 29.0 1.6 20.1 7.3 34.7


Leas than $3,000 85 100.0 25.1 12.5 12.6 2.0 8.5 2.1 74.9 

$3,000 -$4,999 119 100.0 47.4 20.8 26.6 1.9 16.7 8.0 52.6 

$5,000 -$6,999 135 100.0 78.3 44.8 33.5 1.6 25.2 6.7 21.7 

$7,000 -$9,999 130 100.0 85.2 51.4 33.7 1.3 23.0 9.4 14.8 

$10,000 or mOre--- 71 100.0 83.1 47.9 35.2 1.0 24.9 9.3 16.9 

Two or more


fetal


death s----- 245 100.0 59.8 30.5 29.3 1.5 19.7 8.1 40.2


Less than $3,000 51 100.0 21.2 6.3 14.9 7.8 7.1 78.8


$3,000 -$4,999 50 100.0 38.6 18.9 19.7 2.7 9.5 7.6 61.4


$5,000 -$6,999 57 100.0 75.2 42.8 32.4 2.5 24.2 5.8 24.8


$7,000 -$9,999 57 100.0 84.3 46.4 37.9 29.2 8.7 15.7


$10,000 or mOre--- 31 100.0 84.0 37.2 46.9 3.2 29.7 13.9 16.0


34

-------

-------------

-------

-------------

---

Table 17. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according to


color of infant and number of previous infant deaths: United States, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Percent
 Color of infant Partial coverage without
 and number of


previous infant Number coverage


deaths in Percent Fetal Complete Hospital


thousands coverage care and Hospital Hospita 1


Total care and care
 ,hysician delivery alone
 visits


Total 3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0 2S.4 1.8 16.5 7.1 40.6 

No previous 

infant deaths---- 3,290 100.0 59.7 34.3 25.4 1.8 16.4 7.2 40.3 

One previous 

infant death or 

more 190 100.0 54.1 29.9 24.2 1.5 17.1 5.6 45.9 

White 3,013 100.0 62.7 r 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3


No previous 

infant deaths---- 2,872 100.0 62.7 36.0 26.7 1.8 17.4 7.5 37.3 

One previous 

infant death or 

more 141 100.0 62.9 36.4 26.5 1.2 19.0 6.3 37.1 

All other 467 100.0 37.9 21.0 16.9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1 

No previous 

infant death s---- 418 100.0 39.0 22.1 16.8 1.9 9.8 5.2 61.0 

One previous 

infant death or ~o)---------.----- 49 100.0 28.9 11.4 17.6 2.2 11.7 3.6 71.1 { 

35

--

-----

-----

-----

-----

--

-----

-----

-----

-------

--

-----

-----

-----

---

Table 18. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity csre, according to


number of previous infant deaths and family income: United Statea, 1964-66 legitimate live births


I Allmothera II Percent with coverage


Number of


previous infant


deatha and Number


family income in


thousands


All mother a- 3,480


Leaa than $3,000 691


$3,000 -$4,999 779


$5,000 -$6,999 889


$7,000 -$9,999 716


$10,000 or more--- 406


No previous


infant


deatha 3,290


Leas than $3,000 636


$3,000 -$4,999 734


$5,000 -$6,999 843


$7,000 -$9,999 690


$10)000 or mOre--- 387


One previ­


ous infant


death or


mOre 190


Leaa than $3,000 55


$3,000 -$4,999 45


$5,000 -$6,999 46


$7,000 -$9,999 27


$10,000 or mOre 19


36


‘ercent Total


r 

100.0 I 59.4 

100.0 21.2 

100.0 44.8 

100.0 73.1 

100.0 82.4 

100.0 81.7 

100.0 21.4 

100.0 45.0 

100.0 72.7 

100.0 82.4 

100.0 81.7 

J100.0 54.1

100.0 I 19.4 

100.0 41.7 

J-100.0 79.7 

100.0 82.6 

100.0
 82.4

I


:omplete


:overage


1-Total


i-- 34.0 25.4 

10.2 11.0


22.6 22.2


42.5 30.6


50.1 32.4


49.5 32.1


I
 34.3 25.4


10.5 10.9 

22.7 22.3 T42.1 30.6

50.2
 32.3

49.9 31.7


29.9 24.2


7.3 12.0


21.8 20.0


49.3 30.4


48.1 34.5
 T
 42.1 40.3


Partial coverage	 ?ercent


~ithout
 I 

Hoapital :overage


care and Hospital {ospital


care and care
 )hyaician delivery alone
 viaita
 ---1-7.1 40.6 

1.4 6.4 3.2 78.8 

2.0 13.2 7.0 55.2 

2.0 20.2 8.4 26.9 

1.4 22.4 8.5 17.6 

2.1 22.1 8.8 18.3 

7.2 40.3


-=+---= 1.4 6.4 3.2 78.6


2.0 13.3 7.0 55.0


2.0 19.9 8.7 27.3


1.5 22.3 8.6 17.6


2.2 20.9 8.7 18.4


1.5 I 17.1 5.6 45.9 1 

2.0 6.9 3.1 80.6


0.7 12.4 6.8 58.3


1.5 25.1 3.7 20.3


1.3 25.7 7.4 17.4


1.8 26.4 12.1 17.6

--------------

--

--

--------------

--------

--------------

--

-------------

----

-------------

--

---------------

Table 19. Number and percent distribution of mothers by insurance coverage for maternity care, according tO


color of infant and birth weight: United Statea, 1964-66 legitimate live births


All mothers Percent with coverage


Partial coverage ~rcent Color of infant Lthout and birth weight I Number 

‘ercent Total Complete Hospital >verage in


thousands coverage care and Hospital [ospital


rotal care and care
 physician delivery alone
 visits


100.0 59.4 34.0 25.4 1.8 16,5 7.1 40.6 ‘Otal--------+ 

2,500 grams or


less 271


2,501-3,000 grams 641


3,001-3,500 grams 1,358


3,501-4,000 grams- i 912 

4,001 grams or


more 299


White 3,013


2,500 grams or


leSs 210


2,501-3,000 grams-- 531


3,501-3,500 grams 1,173


3,501-4,000 grams-- 827


4,001 grams or


mOre 1272 

All other


L--=


2i~~~ yams or
 61


2,501-3,000 grams-- 110


3,001-3,500 grams- 185


3,501-4,000 grams 84


4,001 grams or
 m(Jr I 26 

100,0 54.0 29,6 24.4 1.5 16.8 6.1 46.0 

100.0 57.3 33.6 23,7 1.8 15.4 6.5 42.7 

100.0 58.8 33.4 25.4 1.9 16.1 7.4 41.2 

100.0 61.8 36.0 25.8 1.7 16.9 7.2 38.2 

100.0 63.7 35.5 28.2 1.5 18.6 8.0 36.3 

100.0 62.7 36,0 26.7 1.8 17.5 7.4 37.3


100.0 59,0 32.7 26.3 1.2 19.0 6.1 41.0 

100.0 60.7 35.8 24.9 1.8 16.4 6.7 39.3 

100.0 62.4 35.4 27.0 1.9 17.2 7.9 37.6 

100.0 63.9 37.6 26.3 1,6 17.4 7,2 36,1 

100.0 67.1 37,1 30.0 1.7 19.5 8.8 32.9 

100.0 37.9 21.0 16,9 1.9 10.0 5.0 62.1


100.0 36.8 18.8 18.0 2.3 9.5 6.2 63.2 

100.0 40.8 22.7 18.2 1.8 10,6 5.8 59,2 

100.0 36.0 21,3 14.7 1,7 9.0 4.0 64.0 

100,0 42.1 20,5 21.6 2.7 11.9 7.0 57.9 

100.0 28,9 19.1 9.8 9.8 71.1 

37

--

-----

-----

----- ---

----

--

-----

-----

-----

---

------

--

-----

-----

-----

---

------

--

-----

-----

-----

---

------

--

-----

-----

----- ---

--

-----

-----

----- ---

Table 20. Number and Dercent distribution of mother bv insurance covera!ze for maternitv care. according to


birth w;ight and family income: United ~tates, 1964-66 le~itimate live births ‘


All mothers Percent with coverage


Birth weight and


family income Number


in Percent Total Complete


thousands coverage


II Partial coverage ‘ercent 

rithout
 Total Hospital


care and Hospital Hospital overage


care and care
 physic ian delivery alone
 visits
 1


25.4 1.8


11.0


22.2 M


30.6 2.0


32.4
T32.1 ;::


24.4
 1.5

10.1 1.4 

23.2 

28.3 ;:! 

31.2


28.8 i::


10.6


21.2 ;:$


30.1 2.4


34.6 1,6


32.5 1.9


“1+ 

10.0 

22.8 ;:;


30.6 2.0


31.0


34.3 M
 L28.2
 1.5 

16.5 7.1 40.6


6.4 3.2 78.8 13.2 55.2 

20.2 ;:: 26.9 

22,4 8.5 17.6 

22,1 8.8 18.3 

16.8 6.1 46.0 f 

9.1 3.4 76.1 

13.3 59.2 

25.1 1::; 28.6 

21.3 6.5 25.1 

15.5 3.6 20.8 

15.4 6.5 42.7


w 80.1::? 54.3 

20.3 29.7 

23.3 H 16.7 

16.9 8.9 17.7 

16.1 7.4 41.2


78.9


1;:: ::: 56.7


19.6 27.9


23.4 ;:; 16.4


19.6 11.0 17.9


16.9 7.2 38.2


2.9 80.4


1::: ;;.;


19.3 :;:


21.3 8.7 17:8


26.1 6.3 17.8


18.6 8.0 36.3


10.1 72.7 

17.0 H 53.3 

20.7 10.5 23.7 

20.7 8.6 18.2 

24.0 11.6 21.3 

All birth


weights----


Less than $3,000


$3,000 -$4,999


$5,000 -$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or mOre


2,500 grams


or less


Less than $3,000


$3,000 -$4,999


$5,000 -$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or mOre


2,501-3,000


grams


Less than $3,000


$3,000 -$4,999


$5,000 -$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or more


3,001-3,500


grams


Less than $3,000


$3jooo-$4,999


$5,000 -$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or mOre


3,501-4,000


grams


Less than $3,000


$3,000 -$4,999


$5,000 -$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or mOre


4,001 grams


or mOre----


Less than $3,000


$3,000 -$4,999


$5,000 -$6,999


$7,000 -$9,999


$10,000 or mOre


3,480 100.0 59.4 34.0


691 100.0 21.2 10.2


779 100.0 44.8 22.6


889 100.0 73.1 42.5


716 100.0 82.4 50.1


406 100.0 81.7 49.5


271 100.0 54.0 29.6


100.0 23.9 10.0 

100.0 40.8 20.5 

100.0 71.4 35.1 

100.0 74.9 45.7 

100.0 79.2 57.7 

641 100.0 57.3 33.6


141 100.0 19.9 

151 100.0 45.7 2;:; 

155 100.0 70.3 42.0 

127 100.0 83.3 52.0 

68 100.0 82.3 53.5 

1,358 100.0 58.8 33.4


273 100.0 21.1 10.5


307 100.0 43.3 22.1


346 100.0 72.1 41.9
 275 100.0 83.6 49.0


157 100.0 82.1 49.5


912 100.0 61.8 36.0


160 100.0 19.6 

198 100.0 46.9 2::: 

237 100.0 75.7 45.1 200 100.0 82.2 51.2 116 100.0 82.2 47.9 

299 100.0 63.7 35.5


47 100.0 27.3 12.3 

65 100.0 46.7 22.6 

80 100.0 76.3 44:4 70 100.0 81.8 50.1 

37 100.0 78.7 41.3 

38


— 
APPENDIX I 

TECHNICAL NOTES ON METHODS 

Background 

This report presents statistics on health insurance coverage for maternity care for mothers of 

infants born during 1964-1966 basedon data collected 

in the 1964-66 National Natality SurVey. The 5urveY 

was designed primarily to collect information on the 

past and expected future fertility of women who were 

currently bearing children; however, information was 

also gathered on health insurance coverage for maternity care for these mothers. In addition to information 

on fertility and health insurance coverage for maternity 

care, information on certain socioeconomic and demographic characteristics which were thought to be relevant to the study was obtained from the mother. 

The basic source document wasthe certificate of 

live birth. Using the information given on the birth 

certificate to determine name, address, and legitimacy status, a questionnaire was mailed to the mother 

of each legitimate birth, Additional mailings were 

made if the original questionnaire was not returned 

or was returned with the answers to certain questions 

incomplete.
Finally, if there was no response or if a 

usable questionnaire was not obtained after three 

mailings, a personal interview was attempted by ‘“so 

Bureau of the Census interviewers if the mother was 

a resident of a primary sampling unit as designated 

by the Bureau of the Census. 

Although all stages of the survey from questionnaire through final processing were the same during 

the 3 years, the survey for each year was an independent 

survey and was treated’ as such. Sample selection, 

data collection, and all processing was completely 

independent until the final tape files were merged in 

the computer in order to prepare tables for publication. 

The description of survey procedures which follows 

describes all 3 years, but all steps were actually 

carried out for each year separately. 

Sample Design 

The sampling frame for the 1964-66 National 

Natality Survey was the file of microfilm copies Of 

birth records received each month by the National 

Center for Health Statistics from the 54 birth-registration areas in the United States. These birth-registration areas include the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and the cities of New York, Baltimore, 

and New Orleans, which have their own systems of 

birth registration. As a general rule each registration 

area assigns a number to each certificate prior to 

or during the filming of the birth record. The certificates of all births occurring during the year are 

numbered consecutively as they are received by the 

registrar. 

The sample for the survey was based on a probability design which made use of these image numbers on the birth records. Each 1,000 records constituted a primary sampling unit. Within each 1,000 

records, one record was chosen at random. Thus a 

sample of 1 out of 1,000 births was selected from the 

records from each registration area. 

The national sample included a total of 4,025 

births in 1964, 3,702 in 1965, and 3,604 in 1966, or 

11,331 births in the 3 years of the survey. Of these 

11,331 births, 647 were reported as illegitimate on 

the birth record. However, legitimacy status is reported in only 36 of the 54 registration areas. Hence 

a procedure was developed to infer legitimacy status 

on the basis of indirect evidence on the birth certificate for the 18 registration areas not reporting 

the item. If the surname of the father on the birth 

record was different from the surname of the child 

or if the surname of the father was not reported, 

the birth was inferred to be illegitimate. On the basis 

of this procedure 289 births in tbe sample were inferred to be illegitimate. This made a total of 936 

births which were either reported or inferred to be 

illegitimate. 

The mothers of these 936 illegitimate births were 

outside the scope of the survey and wsre not queried. 

The mothers of an additional 79 births were not sent 

questionnaires although they were within the scope of 

the survey because 70 mothers resided in the State of 

New Mexico, which did not participate in the survey, 

and 9 of the mothers resided in California and had 

already been included in another survey in that State. 

Mothers of 10 additional births were not sent questionnaires either because their residence was outside the 

United States or because no usable mailing address 

was obtainable. The final sample of mothers to whom 

questionnaires were mailed was 10,306. Table I shows 

the number in the original sample drawn from the 

birth records. the number of legitimate births in39 
---------------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------

Table 1, Total number of births in	 the United Sta $ and the number of mothers in the 1964-66 

National Natali Survey 

Item 

Total count of births in the United States---

Number of mothers selected in the sample . . . . . . . . . . . 

Number of mothers of illegitimate births excluded 

from survey 

Number of mothers of legitimate births in survey---

Number of mothers of births from New Mexico and 

California:---------------------------------------

Number of additional mothers to whom questionnaires were not sent 

Number of mothers of births for which 

questionnaires were roiled 

1964-66 1966 1965 1964 

4


11,394,000 3,606,000 3,760,000 4,027,000€

11,331 3,604 3,702 4,025 

-+ 

936 309 345 282 

10,395 3,295 3,357 3,743 

79 31 22 26 

10 7 3 

3,257 3,332 3,717 

lNine mothers who resided in California were not sent questionnaires because they were already 

included in another survey in that State, 

ch.tded in the sample, and the final number of births 

for which questionnaires were mailed for each year of 

the survey. 

Birth Certificate and Survey Questionnaire 

Facsimiles of the U.S. Standard Certificate of 

Live Birth and of the questionnaire used in the survey 

are shown in appendix III. 

Although not all State certificates conform with the 

standard certificate, most do include the items for Ix@c 

information used in this report. The major exceptiott is 

the legitimacy status item (23), which is not reported in 

18 registration areas. The procedure developed to overcome this omission is described in the section’ ‘Sample 

Design. ” 

The questionnaire sent to the mother of a legitimate birth was designed primarily to obtain information about her fertility history and her expected 

future fertility. Regarding the mother’s fertility history, 

information was obtained on number of pregnancies 

and the date of birth, sex, and present status of a 

child if the pregnancy resulted in a live birth. Regarding the mother’s expected future fertility, information was obtained on whether the mother expected to have more children and if so, how many. 

Information was also obtained on the mother’s health 

insurance coverage for the pregnancy which resulted 

in the birth of the sample child. In addition to the 

foregoing questions there were questions concerning 

the family income during the previous calendar 

year, the educational attainment of the mother and 

father, and the mother’s employment at any time 

during her pregnancy. A household listing provided 

space for the age, sex, marital status, and relationship to the mother of every person residing in 

the household at the time of the sample child’s birth. 

Collection of Data 

Data for the 1964-66 National Natality Survey 

were collected primarily by mail. Using the addresses 

given on the birth certificates, questionnaires were 

mailed to the mothers of births which were either 

recorded or inferred to be legitimate. 

Followup procedures when there was no response 

consisted of a questionnaire sent by certified mail 

2 weeks after the original mailing and a second 

followup questionnaire sent by regular mail 3 weeks 

later. When the questionnaire was returned but certain items were incomplete or inconsistent, either 

a special let@r was sent or a telephone call was 

made to obtain the missing data. 

A final followup was made by Bureau of the 

Census interviewers for mothers who did not respond or whose responses were essentially incomplete 

if the mother was a resident of one of the primary 

sampling units designated by the Bureau of the Census. 

Because the primary sampling units are geographically selected to give unbiased national estimates, 

such a followup should serve to reduce the bias which 

might be introduced by the nonresponses to a mail 

survey. 

of the 10,395 legitimate births in the survey 

(including the 89 for which questionnaires were not 

mailed), questionnaire information was obtained for 

9,232, or 89 percent. Approximately 54 percent of 

the respondents returned the original questionnaire, 

40 

— 
--------

--------------

--------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

-------------------

------------

----------------

------------

--------------------

---------------------

Table IX. Number of mothers in the survey and


percent responding, by selected characteris­


tics of the mother: 1964-66 National Natal­


ity Survey 

Number


Characteristic in Percent


“esponding
 survey


All mothers 10,395 88.8


— 

Age

Under 20 years----------- 1,466 82.5 

20-24 years-------------- 3,698 88.7 

25-29 years 2,617 90.7 

30-34 years-------------- 1,562 90.7 

35 years and over 1,052 90.5 

Color 

white 9,096 89.5 

All other---------------- 1,299 84.0 

Live-birth order 

First 3,009 88.7 

Second------------------- 2,596 89.4 

Third 1,852 89.4 

Fourth 1,208 89.1 

Fifth or more 1,730 87.2 

Region of residence


Northeast 2,445 92.8 

North Central 2,968 91.4 

South 3,246 87.1 

West 1,736 82.0 

Place of residence 

Metropolitan area-------- 6,682 90.4 

Nonmetropolitan area----- 3,713 85.9 

31 percent returned the first (certified) followup, 

and 7 percent the second followup. The remaining 

8 percent were interviewed by the Bureau of the 

Census. 

Response rates for selected characteristics of 

the mother obtainqd from items on the birth certificate are shown in table H. 

Processing of Dato 

After all specified methods of obtaining complete 

questionnaires had been tried, the data were edited, 

coded, and transcribed onto punchcards. Basic range 

edits were made to eliminate punching errors and the 

cards were then used as input for magnetic tape. 

Computer processing included consistency checks, 

interval edits, estimation or assignment of weights, 

and imputation of missing data. 

Consistency checks were made whenever the birth 

record and the questionnaire provided information 

about items which couldbe checkedagainstoneanother. 

For example, both the birth record and the questionnaire contained items about the number of children 

born alive to this mother, In addition, the questionnaire provided space for listing the birth date and 

other information about each child. The three items 

were cross-checked to make certain that no child 

was omitted. 

Interval edits were made wherever two dates 

where given which could reasonably be assumed to 

have some definite relationship or minimum ormaximum interval between them. For example, if the interval between the mother’s and child’s date of birth 

was less than 15 years or more than 44 years, the 

record was rejected for verification. Similarly, ~ 

the interval between the birth dates of any two children was less than 10 months, the record was rejected for verification. 

When a record was rejected because of a consistency or interval edit, the folder containing all 

records on the sample case was pulled from the 

files and gone over carefully to ascertain the correct answer. In almost all cases information available on the questionnaire e, either in answers to ques ­

tions or in comments which the respondent had written 

voluntarily, made the correct answer apparent. In 

the few remaining cases where the differences could 

not be reconciled, the questionnaire items weretreated 

as nonresponses and were imputed at a later stage 

of processing. 

Nonresponse and Imputation of Missing Data 

Failure to obtain a response represents one of 

the main sources of error and bias in any data collection system. Information must he imputed for persons on whom it is unknown in order to use the data 

at all. Often the user of the data merely assumes 

that the persons for whom the information is unknown 

are exactly like those for whom it is known. The 

imputation procedures used for the National Natality 

Survey were done as part of the processing by taking 

advantage of available information. This made certain that imputed data for nonrespondents was the 

same as that for “similar” respondents. 

Imputation was done first for unit nonresponses. 

Unit nonresponse in this survey was defined aa failure to mail a questionnaire to the mother of a legitimate birth for any of the reasons given at the beginning of this appendix, failure to obtain a returned 

questionnaire after all followup procedures had been 

completed, and failure to obtain a usable questionnaire 

even though the form was returned. Of the 10,395 

legitimate births selected in the sample, 1,163, or 

11 percent, were unit nonxesponses. 

The number of sample cases and the proportion 

which were unit nonresponses are shown by color 

and age of mother in table III and by live-birth order 

and color of mother in table IV. Age of. mother, 

live-birth order, and color of mother are all char­ . . 

41


—. 
---------------

---------------

------------------

------------------

------------------

------------

--------

-------------------------

------------------------

-------------------------

------------------------

---------------

Table III. Number of mothers in sample and percent not responding, by age and color: 1964-66 

National Natality Survey 

Total White All other 

T 

Age I Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

in not in not in not 

sample responding sample responding sample responding I 

All ages 10,395 11.2 9,096 10.5 1,299 16.0 

l== 

Under 20 years 1,466 17.5 1,235 16.8 231 ‘20.8 

20-24 years 3,698 11.3 3,258 10.5 440 16.8 

25-29 years 2,617 9.3 2,315 8.6 302 15.6 

30-34 years 1,562 9.3 1,369 8.9 193 12.4 

35 years and over 1,052 9.5 919 9.2 133 11.3 

acteristics which could influence the motherrs 

responses to items on the questionnaire, such as 

number of children expected. They are also characteristics which are recorded on the birth certificate and so are available for all sample cases 

whether these cases represent respondents or nonrespondents. For these reasons the three characteristics were chosen for use in unit imputations well 

as estimation. 

Imputation was done in the computer by setting 

up a matrix of 24 color, age, live-birth order classea 

(shown in the section “Estimation”) the cells of which 

were filled as each record meeting the criteria pasaed 

through. As the file of records was processed, the 

information in each cell was replaced by that from 

the next record which met the specifications. When 

a record for which no questionnaire information was 

available was read in, i.e, ,, a unit nonresponse, the 

data already in the appropriate cell were imputed to 

that record. 

In addition to unit nonresponaes there were item 

nonresponses. kern nonresponse is defined as no information available on a particular item even though 

the questionnaire was complete enough to be considered 

a unit response. In general item nonresponse rates 

were very low—less than 1 percent. Moat of the item 

nonresponses were imputed on the basis of information available elsewhere on the birth certificate or 

questionnaire. For example, a mother’s age as recorded on the birth certificate was used to compute 

her year of birth when she had not completed that 

queationnaire item. Other items with very low nonresponse rates (less than 0.5 percent) were impute,d 

arbitrarily. Five itek with fairly high nonresponae 

Table IV. Number of mothers in sample and percent not responding by live-birth order and color 

of mother: 1964-66 National Natality Survey 

Live-birth order 

All birth orders 

First 

Second 

Third 

Fourth 

Fifth or higher 

Total 

Number Percent 

in not 

sample responding 

10,395 11.2 

3,009 11.3 

2,596 10.6 

1,852 10.6 

1,208 10.9 

1,730 12.8 

Color of mother 

White 

Number Percent 

in not 

sample responding 

9,096 10.5 

2,734 10.8 

2,315 9.6 

1,643 9.8 

1,069 10.3 

1,335 12.4 

All other 

Number Percent 

in not 

sample responding 

T 1,299 16.0 

275 16.0 

281 18.1 

209 17.2 

139 15.8 

395 13.9 

42 

— 

1 
---------------

-------------- ------------

------------------

-----------

----------------

-----------

---------

---------

---------------

ratea were imputed in the computer by procedures The birth certificates were first checked to be 

similar to those used for unit imputation on the basis certain that these items were complete on all records. 

of matrices designed specifically for each item. Com- When they were not, the items were imputedby hand, 

pleted weeks of pregnancy was imputed by using taking advantage of the information available on the 

birth weight and color; expectation of more children questionnaire if the mother was a respondent and of 

by using age of mother and live-birth order; number all other items on the birth certificate if the mother 

of children expected by using age of mother and was a nonrespondent. It was necessary to impute 

whether any children were exTected; education of color of mother for seven records, age ofmother for 

father by using age of father and education of mother; three records, and live-birth order for 242 records. 

and family income by using age and education of Ml certificates were classified as belongingin 

father. one of the following 24 groups: 

Item nonresponse rates for variables shown in 

this report are given in table V. 

Live-birth Group Color and age order Estimation 

Published statistics based on the survey are White 

national estimates prepared by the use of a poststratified 

ratio estimation is to take into account available rel- 2 Under 20 years 2+ 

evant information, thereby reducing the variability of 20-24 years 1 

the estimate. The relevant information used in the ; 20-24 years 2 

1964-66 National Natality Survey was age and color of 5 20-24 years 3+ 

mother and live -birth order of child. These three items 6 25-29 years 1 

are recorded on the birth certificate, and statistics 25-29 years 

showing the national totals (based on a 50-percent ; 25-29 years 3-: 

5+ 

ratio estimation procedure. The purpose of 1 Under 20 years 1 

sample) are published annually in Vital Statistic; of the 9 25-29 years 

United States. 10 30-34 years 1-2 

30-34 years 3-4 

:; 30-34 years 5+ 

13 35 years and over 1-4 

Table V. Item nonrespons:9:;t;: ~or variables 14 35 years and over 5+ 

shown in this report: National Natality Survey All other 

15 Under 20 years 1 

Item Number Per cent 16 Under 20 years 2+ 

17 20-24 years 1-2 

18 20-24 years 3+ 

!hb irth ce rtificate 

base—10, 395 legitimate 19 25-29 years 1-2 

births 20 25-29 years 3-4 

21 25-29 years 5+ 

Age of mother 

Color of child 22 30-34 years 1-4 

Live-birth order 23 30-34 years 5-1-

On questionnaire 24 35 years and over All 

base—9,232 unit responsea 

Health insurance coverage: 

Physician bills during 

17 0.2 For each group the ratio of the number of birthsin 

pregnancy 

Physician bills for the United States in 1964, in 1965, and in 1966, estidelivery of baby 19 0.2 mated from a50-percent sample and publishedin Vital 

Hospital bills at time 

5 0.2 Statistics of the United Stitesfor each of these years, of delivery to the number of births selected for the National 

Employment of mother Natality Survey sample in each year was calculated. 

during pregnancy 

Education of mother These 24 ratios for each year were the sample weights 

Education of father used in estimating national totals. In addition, for 

Family income each of the same 24 groups the ratio of births in the 

United States during the combined 3 years to the 

43 
number of births selected in the National Natality 

Survey during the 3 years was calculated so that 

statistics could be published on the annual average 

number of births in 1964-1966. 

The effect of the ratio adjustment is to make the 

estimates from the National Natality Survey sample 

consistent with the estimate based on the 50-percent 

sample for each of the groups used in the estimation 

procedure. However, since data published from the 

1964-66 National Natality Survey refer only to legitimate births, the published statistics are not the same 

as those in Vital Statistics of the United States, which 

refer to all births. 

Estimates of characteristics are produced from 

the sample using the following formula: 

where 

X’ is the estimate of the number of births with 

a particular characteristic; in group i , 

x is the count of sample births with the characteristics in group i, 

y, is the count of all sample births in group j, 

and 

y is the total number of births in group ;, 

based on the 50-percent sample. 

Reliability of Estimates 

Since the statistics derived from this survey 

are estimates based on a sample, they may differ 

from the figures that would have been obtained had 

a total count been made using the same questionnaire 

and procedures. 

The probability design of the sample for the survey makes possible the calculation of sampling errora. 

The standard error is a measure of the sampling 

variation that occurs by chance because only a sample rather than the entire population is surveyed. The 

chances are about 68 out of 100 that an estimate from 

the sample differs from the value for the entire population by less than the standard” error. The chances 

are about 95 out of 100 that the difference is less than 

twice the standard error and about 99 out of 100 that 

the’ difference is less than three times the standard 

error. 

Estimates of sampling variability for the statistics derived from this survey were based on 20 

rafidom half-sample replications. This technique 

Yieids overall variability through observation of variability among ~an.dom subsamples of the total sample. 

It reflects both the error that arises from sampling 

and a part of the measurement error, but it does not 

measure any systematic biases in the data. A general 

discussion of the development and evaluation of a 

replication technique for estimating variance is published elsewhere. 22 -However, the proce@es and 

computations required to estimate variance by this 

method in the natality survey are briefly described 

below. 

Each record from the entire file of records in 

the survey was assigned systematically to a random 

group between 1 and 40. Twenty pairs of random 

groups were created from these groups. A half sample was formed by randomly selecting one group from 

each of the 20 pairs. This process was repeated until 

20 “replicate half samples” were formed from which 

variance estimates were derived. The composition of 

the 20 half samples was determined by an orthogonal 

plan. 

After the composition of each of the half samples 

was determined, all the estimation procedures used to 

produce the final estimates for the entire sample 

were applied separately to each of the resulting half 

samples. 

An estimated variance S;, of an estimated 

statistic x/ of the parameter X is obtained by 

applying the following formula: 

where 

~/ is the estimate of X based on the entire 

sample, and 

~f( is the estimate of X based on half sample i . 

Rules to determine the approximate standard 

errors for estimates presented in this report are as 

follows: 

1.	 Estimates of aggregates: Approximate standard 

errors for estimates of aggregates, such as the 

number of mothers who have health insurance 

coverage for maternity care, are given in table 

VI. 

2.	 Estimates of percentages in a percent distribution: Approximate standard errors for estimated percentages, such as the proportion of 

mothers who have health insurance coverage 

for maternity care to all mothers, are determined in one of two ways, depending on the 

source of the base of the percentage, as follows: 

a.	 When the denominator is an estimate from 

the sample which was not one of the ratio 

estimation classes shown on pages 45-46 the 

approximate standard errors for 1-year 

data are given in table VII and for 3-year 

data in table VIII. 

b.	 When the denominator is one of the 24 

ratio estimation cells and is therefore not 

subject to sampling error, the relative 

standard error of the percentage is equivalent to the ~elative standard error of 

the numerator, which can be obtained 

directly from table VI. 
- - -- - ----- -- --

-------------------------- ---

-------------------------------------------

------------------------------------

------ --------------------------

--------------------------------

Table VI. Approximate standard errors for estimates of agg~egates shown in this report for l-year


data and for 3-year data: 1964-66 National Natality Survey


l-year data 3-year data


Annual estimate
 Relative Relative


standard Standard standard Standard
 error error
 error error


10,000------------------------------------------ .* * 19.6 1,960 

15,000- - --_--- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - >’: * 14.8 2,220 

20,000------------------------------------------ * .> 12.2 2,440 

25,000------------------------------------------ 19.2 4,798 10.9 2,725 

50,000 -.----------- 13.2 6,603 7..5 3,750 

75,000 10.6 7,923 6.o 4,500 

100,000----------------------------------------- 8.6 8,645 4.9 4,910 

150,000----------------------------------------- 6.9 10,300 3.9 5,850 

200,000----------------------------------------- 5.8 11,621 3.3 6,600 

250,000----------------------------------------- 5.1 12,633 2.9 7,175 

300,000----------------------------------------- 4.5 13>364 2.5 7,590 

500,000----------------------------------------- 3.6 17,783 2.Q 10,100


-
 7oo,ooo--..- 3.2 22,308 1.8 12,670


1,000,000--------------------------------------- 2.3 23,241 1.3 13,200


Table VII. Approximate standard errors for percentages shown in this report for annual estimates


from l-year data: 1964-66 National Natality Survey


Estimated percent


Base of percentage 2 5 10 20 25 30 40
 or or or or or 50


98 95 90 E 75 70 z


Standard error apressed in percentage points


30,000-----------------------------------2.6 4.0 5.5 7.3 7.9 8.4 8.9 9.1 

50,000 -.. 2.0 3.1 4.2 5.7 6.1 6.5 6.9 7.1 

100,000--------------------------------- 1.4 2.2 3.0 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.0 

250,000--------------------------------- 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 

500,000 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.9 2.0 2..2 2.2 

1,000,000------------------------------- 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 

2,000,000------------------------------- 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 

3,000,000------------------------------- 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 (J.9 0.9 

4,000,000------------------------------- 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8


-


45

Table VIII. Approximate standard errors for percentages shown in this report for annual averages 

from 3-year data: 1964-66 National Natal_lty Survey 

Estimated percent 

Base of percentage 2 5 10 20 25 30 40 or or or or or or 

98 z 90 80 75 70 60 

Standard !rror expressed in percentage points 

30,000----------------------------------


50,000----------------------------------


100,000---------------------------------


250,000---------------------------------


500,000---------------------------------


1,000,000-------------------------------


2,000,000-------------------------------


3,000,000-------------------------------


4,000,000-------------------------------


L 

1.5 

1.1 

0.8 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3


0,2


0.1


0.1


2.3 3.2 4.2 4.6 4.8 5.2 

1.8 2.4 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.0 

1’.3 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 

0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 

0.6 0.8 1.0 l.l 1.2 1.3 

0.4 0,5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6. 0.6 0.6 

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 

50


5.3


4.1


2.9


1.8


1.3


0.9


0.6


0.5


0.5


3.	 Difference between two sample estimates: 

The standard err?rof adifference isapproximately the square root of the s urn of ,the 

squares of the standard errors of the two estimates. This formula will represent the actual 

standard error quite accurately for the difference between separate and uncorrelated characteristics although it is only a rough approxiMatiO13 in cases where the characteristics are 

correlated. 

In addition to sampling errors survey results are 

subject to errors in conceptual formulation, ambiguities 

in definitions as the wording of questions, biases due 

to nonresponse or incomplete response, and errors 

in coding, editing, and tabulation, There is no way of 

computing the magnitude of these errors. However, 

attempts ware made to minimize them as nUICh as 

possible, 

Errors in conceptual formulation and ambiguities 

were reduced by pretesting the questionnaire before 

000 

the sut-vev began. The steps taken to reduce biases 

due to no&esp&se were discussed in the sections on 

data collection and imputation, Errors in coding and 

editing were reduced by verification and the consistency and interval checks discussed in the section 

on processing the data. Errors in tabulation were 

reduced, if not eliminated, by carefully cross checking 

the tabulations and by comparing data from this survey w~,th data from other sources when available. 

Rounding of Numbers 

The original tabulations on which the data in this 

report are based show figures to the nearest whole 

unit. In the published tables estimates of aggregates 

are rounded to the nearest thousand although they 

are not necessarily accurate to that detail, All percentages,ratios, and averages were computed using 

unrounded figures, 

46 
-------

--

-----------

-----------

APPENDIX II 

DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT 

Terms Related to Data Derived Fram 

the Birth Certificate 

Age of jathev.— Age of father is recorded or 

derived from entries on the birth certificate. In this 

report, age categories such as “under 20” and “20-24” 

are used in place of individual years. 

Age of mothev.-Age of mother is recorded or 

derived from entries on the birth certificate. In this 

report, the same age categories were used as for 

fathers. 

Birth weight.— In almost all cases birth weight 

was recorded on the birth certificate in pounds and 

ounces. It was converted into grams by making 1 

pound equal to 454 grams. 

Legitimacy stat’u.s.- For the reporting States legitimacy is recorded or derived from the entry on the 

birth certificate, For States not reporting legitimacy 

on the birth record it is inferred from other evidence 

on the certificate such as when mother, father, and 

child all have the same last name and mother!s 

maiden name is different. 

Live- bivth ordev.- Live-birth order is derived 

from entries on the birth certificate and refers to 

the number of children born alive to the mother 

including the sample child. 

CO1OY.—Color is recorded or derived from entries 

on the birth certificate. The category “white” includes 

whitq, Mexican, or Puerto Rican. The category “all 

other! i includes Negro, American Indian, Chinese, 

Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian, or part-Hawaiian, 

Race. - Race is recorded or derived from entries 

on the birth certificate. For this report, race is 

divided into two main categories—’ ‘white” and “all 

other.” These categories correspond with those for 

color. The category “all other” is subdivided into 

“Negro” and “other than white or Negro.” 

Region of mother’s vesidence.-states are gowed 

into four regions which correspond to those used by the 

U.S. Bureau of the Census as follows: 

Region States Included 

Northeast	 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania 

North Central	 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, 

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,’ 

Missouri, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas 

South	 Delaware, Maryland, District of 

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, 

Texas 

West	 Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, 

New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, 

Washington, Oregon, California, 

Alaska, Hawaii 

Place of mothw?s vesidence.-Usual residence of 

mother of infant is classified by location in metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas 

are standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s) 

defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

and used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In New 

England, metropolitan State economic areas are used 

in place of SMSAfs. 

Terms Related to Data Derived From 

the Questionnaire 

Level of education.— Level of education in this 

report refers to the highest grade of regular school 

completed, Regular school consists of elementary 

school, high school, and college or university and 

does not include trade or business schools. Data 

are .derived from the answers to questions concerning the highest grade of school attended and 

whether or not that grade was completed. 

Employment of mothev during pvegnancy.-The 

categories “employed outside home at any time during pregnancy” and “not employed outside home at 

any time during pregnancy” are used to classify data 

on employment status of mother, which are derived 

from answers to the questions concerning whether 

the mother was employed outside her home at any 

time during her recent pregnancy and when she stopped 

working before her baby was born. 

Family inCOme.- Family income refers to the 

total money income received during the calendar 

47 
year prior to the year of birth of the sample child 

by the mother and all persons related to the mother 

by blood, marriage. or adoption and living in the 

household when the baby was born. Income from all 

sources such as wages, salaries, unemployment compensation, and help from relatives is included. 

Fetal deaths. — Data on the number of fetal deaths 

a mother has had are derived from responses to 

two questions on tbe questionnaire. The first question 

asks a mother if she has had any babies that were 

born dead and the second question asks if she has 

ever had a miscarriage. Responses to these questions 

were added together to derive the number of fetal 

deaths a mother has had. 

Health inswance for matewzity cave.— For purposes of this survey health insurance for maternity 

care is defined as any plan which is available to 

pay for tbe medical or hospital expenses during the 

pregnancy of the mother. The plan, in order to be 

considered insurance, must be a formal one with 

defined membership and benefits. The insuring organization may be either a nonprofit group or a 

commerical group. The medical care which is provided to uniformed services personnel and their dependents (Dependent Medical Care) is not considered 

to be health insurance. Health insurance for maternity care included the following categories in this 

report 

Complete coverage. -Health insurance for maternity care is defined as providing complete coverage when there was insura%ce to pay the physician 

bills for office visits or home calls during pregnancy, to pay the physician bills for delivery of 

the baby, and to pay the bills for hospital care at 

the time of delivery. 

PaYtW covevage.—Health insurance for maternity 

care is defined as pro;iding partial coverage when 

there was insurance to pay the bills for one or 

two of the following items but not all three: 

HosPiW cave and delivery,—This type of 

health insurance refers to insurance for hos. 

pital care at the time of delivery and insurance 

for the physician bills for delivery of the baby. 

Hospital care alone. —This type of health 

insurance refers to insurance for hospital 

care only at the time of delivery of the baby. 

Physician visits and hospital caye. —This type 

of health insurance refers to insurance for 

office visits or home calls during pregnancy 

and insurance for hospital care at the time 

of delivery of the baby. 

ooo — 

48 
APPENDIX Ill 

SOURCE FORMS 

Standard Certificate of Live Birth 

mm .Zmoved 

Bud..’ Bu>eau No, c5-R37u 

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH STATE OF BIRTH No. 

I. :.E.A:AN:F 91RTH .2. }sfU\RESl DCNCE OF MOTHSR j,~hj:y ?JIO!h,, /&l) 

I


; b. CITY. TowN. OR LOCkT1ON c. CITY. TOWN, OR LOCATION 

t


8.NAME OF (If not {n hmpifel, cL-e Wwl address) d, STREET ADDRCCA 

HOSPITALOR 

2 !WG WT’iON 

. d. 1S PLACEOF BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMITS t. IS RESIDENCEltiSIDE CITY LIMITS? I f. IS RESIDENCE0?4A FARM? 

YES � No � _ X5 � m � YES D N3 n 

3.€NAMr Fir,: .’.fiddfe L.M 

4 

0 print ) 

5 4, SEX 5. THIS 81RTH 5b IF TWIN OR TRIPLET, WAS CHILD BORN 6 DATE .Ifonm Day Y@x 

SINGLE � -WIN n TRIP&ET � Isrcl 20 c1 33a 81:;H 

. 7. NAME First Mtddit Lmf B COLOROR RACE 

(z”YFear 

~ g 

: r 

w 

. +~ 9 AGE (Al II m oj (h it birth) 10, BIRTHPUCE (Sluk w Iwt$pn COUIIIW) II(I USUALOCCUPATIOX 1lb KIND OF BU5[SES5 OR [NDUSTRY 

5 

!5 YEARS

. 12 MAIDEN NAME First Jfiddk Last 13 CGLOROR RACE 

: K g ~ 

j g 14 AGE (..s( ~(m .[ (h{. bjr~h) 15 BIRTHPLACE {Sfdc or fmign counfrv) 16 PREV!OVS DELIVERIES TO $w3THER(Do Nor ixlude this b:rthl 

. 

2 

YEARS e {r- m.” b How -.. oTHER <w. o I’JIER d ,!*C” :mJ. w,; b a!.. but am < H.u M., ktd #..,<A, 

$M“., h“,” *.d ., .4 \ i’ 

d 17 INFORMANT “,. mow h,m,r ,L”u .r,cr ,o.c@ w.!. 

3 

g I I I 

U

=. ~ 18 MOTHER S MAILING ADDRESS

:0 ~-

~~ 18x SIGNATURE 18b ATTENDANT AT 8RWI 

: 

s 

3 

z 

=. 

1 Aercbq U,Ii/v 

that Ihcs chid 

?ffa$ trh~ y# on I&, ADDRESS 

M D. � D. 0. � M[DW[FE � 

18d DATC SIGNED 

OTHER (Sp@iJv) 

5 atafed abate.

s 

s 19, DATE RECD BY LOCAL REG. 20 REG!STRAWSSIGNATURE 21 DATE ON WHICH GIVEN NAME ADDED 

k w (Rtgis!ror) 

5 FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH USE ONLY 

z (Thk atction 3fusT be IW3edOUS) 

z 

~ 22., LENGTH OF PREGNANCY 226. WEIGHT AT BIRTH 23. I.EGIT!MATE 

E $OE~~:ETED LB. 02. YES D NO n 

(SPACEFOR ADDITION OF MEDICAL AND HEALw ITEMS 8Y lMOIVIDUAL 5TATS51 

49 
1964-66 National Natality Survey Questionnaire 

@T*. %=,+0 

[+ Q j DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

@‘“+O ,+” PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

Usb 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201 

NATIONAL CENTER FOjl 

HEALTH STATISTICS 

1-

1-

The U. S � ~blic Health Sem- iS conductinga national study of families 

having babies during 1966. In this study,we are particularlyinterested


in learningabout the size and types of these families,as well as about


other family characteristics, This InformationIs needed in order to


better understandthe growth sad changes taking place in our population.


Detailed and accurate informationof this t~ is essentialfor intelligent

Planning of programsto improvethe Nation’shealth and welfare.


This national study will be based on informationobtainedfrom families


which were selectedas a sample fran among the 4 million familieshaving a


baby during 1966. Your family was one of those selected. Please answer


the questionson the followingpages and return this form in the enclosed


postage.f~e envelope.


As you might expect, statisticalaccuracy zquires that we receive your


reply and those of all of the other,familiesin the study. You may be


assured that all informationwhich you report about yourself and your fmily


will be kept completelyconfidential.in accordancewith regulationsof the


U. S. Public Health Service.


informationof importancefor


A 

bmeofChild


DateofBhth


Your cooperationin this stu&, which seeks


the generalwelfa~, is appreciated.


Sincerely you , 

%’? (9a4@’%b.Y/&4L

Mji(nroe G. S3rked, Ph. D.

Chief, Division of Health


Records Statistics


FileNumber


50

------

COMFIWITIALl~ haa ban �mred the Indivldu.1 .S publl.hti in th. Fad.r.l R.~1.t.r Hay 30, 1959 

Form Approved


Bud#et .9.,... N0,68-R823


NATIONAL BIRTH SURVEY 

PART 1. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN 

In this part, we are interested in knowing about all of 

the children which have ever been boyn to you, even if 

they were by a previous marviage. 

How many babies have you ever had? (Count all 4. Have you ever had any babies that were born 

those that were born alive to you at any time.) dead? 

l--Jl I--J4 D7 � 10 or more � NO 

1 

� 2 � 5 � ff Number 

H YES -How many have you ever ha;? 

� 3 � 6 � 9 

Number 

Have you ever had any children who have died? 5. Have you ever had a miscarriage ? 

(Do not count miscarriages or babies that were 

born~ead.) � NO 

� NO � YES--HOw many have you ever had? 

I � YES--Please list below the name, sex, &te Number 

of birth, and date of death of each 

such child. c 

1 

Name of child Sex Date 

Birth Death families are completed, while others expect more 

children. In your case, do you expsct to have 

more children? 

� Definitely yes How many more 

- children d6~ 

of Date of 6. After each birth, some couples feel that their 

3.	 Were any of your chi Mren living away from you � Probably yes } think you will 

when your last baby was born ? (For example, probably have ? 

in the Armed Forces, living with relatives, etc.) � Probably no 

� NO � Definitely no 

a YEf+Pleaee list below the name, sex, and + 

date of birth of each such child. 

I 

Date of 

Name of child Sex Birth 

Wts.4425-19 (IJwe 2) (Cft n~ To ~A~~ lf) _

RI!v, ]/66 \-- -.. - – —-, 

51

PART Il. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FAMILY 

In this part, information is asked about the members of the family who 

lived with you when your last baby was born. 

1.	 List below everyone who usually lived in your household at the time your last baby was born. Be sure 

to list yourself, your husband (if he lived at home) and your newborn baby, as well as other children 

and relatives living with you. Unrelated persons who lived with you, and children who were away at 

school or college, should be listed. Do not include persons who lived away. (For example, persons 

in the Armed Forces). Also, do not include persons who were only visiting temporarily at the time 

your baby was born: 

Enter your name on the first line; For each person, provide the information requested below. 

enter the names of every other Relationship to you Marital Status (for 

person who lived with you, inc Ming (husband, daughter, Date of birth persons 14 years 

your newborn baby, on the following son, father-in-law, and older). 

lines. nephew, stepson, Married Divorced 

adopted daughter, Month-Day-Year Widowed Separated 

(First name) (Last name) etc) Single (never married) 

Yourself 

(If more space is needed, please continue on separate sheet) 

3. What was the total income of your family during 1965? 

2. Who was the head of your (Include all income of all members of the family listed above even 

household? if they were not living together during 1965. Include income from 

all sources such as wages, salaries, unemployment compensation, 

n	 Your husband help from relatives, profits and fees from own business or farm, 

welfare payments, Social Security payments, etc.) 

� Another person � None 0$4000-$4999 

-! � Under $1000 u $5000-$6999 

Name of head 

(J $1000-$1999 � $7000-$9999 

� $2000-$2999 c1 $10,000-$14,999 

c1 $3000-$3999 •l $15,000 or over. — PH?.-44H- 19 (Pas. 3) (GoONTOPART ~) - REV, 3/66 

52 
--------------------

--------------

--------------

------------------

--------------------

--------------

--------------

------------------

PART ill. INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELI 

AND YOUR HUSBAND 

In this part, information is requested about 

you and your husband. 

1. Is this your first marriage? 

� YES 

� NO 

\ 

Please give the date of 

your marriage. 

PE?EE


/ Please give the date of 

your ~ marriage. 

h Month Day Year 

Please give the date of 

present marriage. 1’

~ 

2.	 Were you employed outside your home at any 

time during your recent pregnancy ? 

a YES _ When did you stop working before 

your baby was born ? 

“N” + 

3.	 What was the highest grade (or year) of regular 

school that you ever attended? 

(Circle highest grade attended) 

None O


Elementary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


High School 1 2 3 4


College 1 2 3 4 5 6+


3a. Did YOUfinish this grade? � YES n NO 

ZOMMENTS: 

u-4425-19 (PUC 4i


w. 3/44


PART 111.Con. 

4.	 What was the highest grade (or year) of regular 

school that your husband ever attended? 

(Circle highest grade attended) 

None 0


Elementary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


High School 1 2 3 4


College 1 2 3 4 5 6+


4a. Did he finish this grade? � YES � NO 

PART IV. INFORMATION ON 

HEALTH INSURANCE 

[n this part, we are”interested injindi~ out wlzether 

YOUwerecoveredby health insurance atany time dur­

@?Y~r YeCentPYeg?IUnCy. Please report on eachkind 

Of health insurance protection which you had, whether 

Or not the insurance was used. 

1.	 During your recent pregnancy, dldyou have health 

insurance to pay for doctor’s bills for office 

visits or home calls? 

� YES Q NO 

2.	 Did you have health insurance to pay for hospital 

care at the time of delivery? 

� YES o NO 

3.	 Did you have health insurance to pay for the 

doctor’s bill for delivery of your baby? 

� YES � NO 

PART V. PERSON COMPLETING 

THIS FORM 

Name of person completing this form 

Address 

Telephone 

Number 

I 

GP2 905.486 

53 
VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATION SERIES 

Forrnedy Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Series 1. Pro.yams and collection procedures. — Reports which describe the general programs of the National 

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, 

and other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Series 2.	 Data evaluation and methods research. — Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical 

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory. 

Series 3. Analytical studies .-Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health 

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

Series 4.	 Documents and committee vepo?4s. — Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and 

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised 

birth and death certificates. 

Series 10. Data fvom the Health Interview .%wvev. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use 

of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-relared topics, based on data 

collected in a continuing national household interview survey. 

Series 11.	 Data jvom the Health Examination Suvvey. —Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian, noninstitutional population provide the basis for two types 

of reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United 

States and the distributions of the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) analysis of relationships among the various measurements without 

reference to an explicit finite universe of persons. 

Series 12.	 Data porn the Ins titutional Population Sunreys —Statistics relating to the health characteristics of 

persons in institutions, and their medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national 

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients. 

Ss?+es 13.	 Data J70m the Hospital Discharge Survey. —Statistics relating to di scha]ged patients in short-stay 

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals. 

Series 14.	 DOtQ on health Yesources: manpower and facilities. —Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health 

occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities. 

Series 20.	 Data on mortality. -Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or 

monthly reports —special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also 

geographic and time series analyses. 

Sevies 21.	 Data on natality, marriage, and divoyce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce 

other than as included in regular annual or monthly reports +pecial analyses by demographic 

variables, also geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility. 

SeTies 22. Data j%om the National Natality and Mortality Sunreys. — Statistics on chai-acteristics of births 

and deaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these 

records, including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, hospital. experience in the 

Iast year of life, medical care during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, etc. 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information 

National Center for Iiealth Statistics 

Public Health Service, HSMHA 

Rockville, !vld. 20852