Health Insurance: Coverage Leads to Increased Health Care Access for Children
Released: 1997-11-24T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 1996, only 66 percent of U.S. children younger than 18—47 million— were covered by private health insurance. Most private insurance for children is acquired through a parent’s employer. However, in 1993, almost one-fourth of the workforce worked for an employer that did not cover dependents. In addition, even if employers offer coverage, the amount that employees have to pay toward it for their families may make health insurance unaffordable. Since the late 1980s, workers’ costs for family coverage have risen sharply. Increases in insurance costs may affect children disproportionately, since the 71 million children younger than 18 represent 27 percent of the U.S. population but 42 percent of the poor. Even if children have insurance, their coverage—and their relationship with their providers—may be disrupted if their parents lose their jobs or change jobs frequently.

Public health insurance for children is generally provided through the Medicaid program. Currently about 15.5 million (22 percent) of children younger than 18 are covered through Medicaid. The majority of low-income children (65 percent) in Medicaid have a working parent and, of those that do, about half have a parent working full time. To remain in Medicaid, families generally have their eligibility redetermined at least every 6 months. If family income or other circumstances change, children may go in and out of the Medicaid program during a year, disrupting their coverage. This can delay needed care, which can have long-term health consequences.

Children are uninsured when they have neither public nor private coverage. In 1996, 10.6 million children (14.8 percent) were uninsured, living generally in lower-income working families. Compared with privately insured children, a higher proportion of their parents worked for small employers—the group least likely to offer health insurance. In 1993, only a quarter of employees in firms with fewer than 10 employees and about half in firms with 10 to 24 employees reported that their employer offered a health insurance plan for workers and their dependents, compared with 89 percent in firms with 1,000 or more employees.

Health Insurance Increases Children’s Access to Preventive, Primary, Acute, and Hospital Care

Health insurance does not always cover the preventive care, such as immunizations, that children need to develop optimally. Nevertheless, most of the studies we analyzed used many different measures of access and found that insured children were more likely to have access to both preventive and acute or chronic health care. Children who were insured were more likely to be connected to the health care system through a physician. Having a primary care connection made it easier for children to get regular preventive care, acute care when ill, and more complex care as needed. Uninsured and lower-income children were more likely to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been treated through primary care.

Health Insurance Increases Children’s Access to Preventive and Primary Care

Most of the studies we reviewed showed that children who had health insurance had better access to preventive and primary health care than uninsured children. (See table 1.) They were more likely to have a primary care provider, which increased their access to both routine and more complex care. Children who had private health insurance were also more likely than children who had no insurance to get medical care from one source, and that source was more likely to be in a physician’s office. In addition, they were more likely to have seen a doctor recently and to have been up to date with their well-child care.

A child’s having a usual source of care increases the likelihood he or she will receive preventive or acute health care. One research study based on nationally representative data found that 20 percent of all uninsured children lacked a usual source of care, compared with 7 percent of insured, white, nonpoor children. Using regression analysis to isolate the effect of insurance from race, income, and ethnicity, this study found that uninsured children were twice as likely to lack a usual source of care as insured children. Uninsured children were also more likely to lack after-hours care and to spend more time traveling and more time waiting to receive care. Similarly, another study found that 33 percent of uninsured children did not go to a physician’s office for their routine care, compared with 14 percent of insured children (insured privately or through Medicaid). Controlling for factors other than insurance, the study found that uninsured children were more than twice as likely as insured children to get care in places other than a physician’s office.

Generally, lower-income children (whether uninsured or receiving public insurance) are less likely to go to a physician’s office for their care. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) found that 94 percent of U.S. children—more than 65 million—had a usual source of care in 1993. Of these, 94 percent of privately insured children, 62 percent of publicly insured children, and 74 percent of uninsured children used a doctor’s office as their usual source of care. Conversely, 5 percent of privately insured children, 30 percent of publicly insured children, and 20 percent of uninsured children used a clinic as their regular source of care.

Most experts believe that preschool children need regular visits to physicians to stay current in their immunizations and to be screened for health problems, but researchers found access problems for preschool children. About one-quarter of U.S. 3-year-olds born in 1988 had a gap in their health insurance coverage of at least 1 month, and almost 15 percent had a gap of 7 months or more or had never been covered. Preschool children who had gaps in coverage were more likely to have gone to multiple sites for care than children who had continuous insurance coverage, suggesting that the care they received was more likely to be sporadic and fragmented. Just over 40 percent of preschool children went to two or more sites of care (not counting emergency care). However, controlling for other factors affecting access, preschool children who had a gap in coverage of more than 6 months were 74 percent more likely to have gone to more than one site for care. Disruption of insurance coverage seems to be the salient factor because children who had no insurance were no more likely than insured children to have gone to multiple sites of care.

Experts have stated that adolescents can benefit from the guidance of a trusted health provider to help them through a period when their bodies are changing and they may be tempted to take risks, such as having unprotected sex or using drugs, alcohol, or tobacco products. Yet uninsured adolescents also have access problems. Researchers found that adolescents who were not insured were less likely to have a usual source of care and regular provider. (See fig. 1.)

Better Access to Primary Care Leads to Better Linkage to Complex Care and More Adequate Preventive Care

Better access to primary care is important, because primary care is a gateway to better preventive care and needed specialized services. A number of studies found that uninsured children had fewer health care and dental visits and fewer preventive visits. Compared with the parents of low-income children who had public insurance like Medicaid, parents of uninsured children of all income levels were more likely to defer bringing them into care for financial reasons.

Having a primary care provider has been shown to improve care by facilitating the timely receipt of complex care. One study showed that children in Medicaid or who had no insurance were much less likely to have contacted a primary care physician before they came to the hospital with appendicitis. Children whose families did not contact a primary care physician before hospital admission were operated on less quickly if they were admitted on weekends and were more likely to have a perforated appendix. Contact with a primary care provider, not insurance status, was the key to differing rates of this complication, but having private insurance did increase the likelihood that a child would have a relationship with a primary care physician.

Six studies that controlled for other factors affecting access found that uninsured children were less likely to receive routine checkups, dental care, or any kind of doctor’s visit. Some of them compared routine visits made with the number of visits recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (see table 2) and found that uninsured children were less likely to meet such standards.

For example, one study found that 30 percent of uninsured children were not up to date with well-child care visits, as AAP recommends, compared with 22 percent of insured children. Compared with insured children, and controlling for other factors that affect access, uninsured children were 50-percent more likely not to have made any visits to a physician in the past year and almost twice as likely never to have had routine care. In a local California study, lack of insurance was the strongest predictor that children older than 5 had not seen a dentist in the past year, compared with privately insured children.

Uninsured children were less likely to have received care when it was not an emergency. An analysis of the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey, after adjusting for other factors affecting access, found that uninsured children had a 69-percent likelihood that they would use nonemergency ambulatory care during the year, compared with 81 percent for privately insured children. The uninsured children who had used health services had made fewer nonemergency ambulatory visits, compared with privately insured children. (See fig. 2.) Similarly, an analysis of a more recent survey also showed that being uninsured was a significant predictor of not using a physician’s services.

Uninsured Children Receive Less Care When Injured or Ill

Several studies found that uninsured children were not getting care for conditions that could be serious. Children who had no insurance had lower rates of treatment for injuries, including serious injuries such as broken bones or cuts requiring stitches, compared with children who had private insurance, and were less likely to get care when sick. Sometimes they received care later, after they had become sicker.

Childhood injuries were fairly common, but insurance status affected a child’s chances of being medically treated for an injury. In 1988, children younger than 18 had total injury rates of 16.3 per 100. Serious injuries that resulted in restricted activity, bed days, surgery, hospitalization, or substantial pain represented about half of total injuries. A study that compared injury treatment for insured children (private insurance and Medicaid combined) and uninsured children found that the uninsured were less likely to be brought in for the treatment of injuries. The study’s researchers estimated that for children who had no coverage in 1988, the year of the study, between 20 and 30 percent of total injuries may not have been examined and treated by a health professional. At least 40 percent of serious injuries to uninsured children younger than 11 might not have been examined and treated.

These researchers also found that Medicaid-insured children had treatment rates similar to privately insured children, suggesting that public insurance helped ensure that children would receive treatment for injuries. Their finding that families that had Medicaid coverage for their children would seek health care for them, while families of uninsured children would not, is consistent with the findings from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment that families of poor children in cost-sharing plans were less likely to seek care for diagnoses related to trauma or accidents than families of poor children with free care.

Uninsured children were less likely to receive treatment for some of the common illnesses of childhood. Uninsured children were about twice as likely to have received no care from a physician for pharyngitis, acute earache, recurrent ear infections, and asthma. (See fig. 3.) These are common conditions—with an incidence rate of 8 to 10 per 100 children—for which medical care is considered necessary. They can also have serious consequences for some children if they are left untreated. For example, pharyngitis, if caused by untreated group A streptococci, can lead to rheumatic fever. Untreated middle-ear infections can lead to long-term hearing loss and sometimes to related speech and language difficulties. Severe asthma can cause respiratory failure and death.

Looking at more rare conditions, one study examined severity of illness when privately insured and underinsured children were diagnosed with inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflammatory bowel diseases (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis) can result in absence from school, progressive malnutrition, weight loss, anemia, depression, and fatigue. Early diagnosis can catch these diseases before they have progressed so that they can be treated with less-aggressive therapies. The study’s authors, comparing a limited number of cases of underinsured children who had these rare illnesses with insured children who had the same illnesses, found that children who were underinsured had 2-1/2 times the weight loss of insured children and had waited 8 months longer before diagnosis. The children’s laboratory results also indicated that they were sicker before diagnosis and were more likely to be anemic. The authors suggested that delay in diagnosis could have occurred for several reasons, such as seeing different physicians at the same clinic or emergency room or not being able to get timely appointments with subspecialists.

Uninsured Children Are Hospitalized More Frequently for Lack of Primary Care

A lack of appropriate ambulatory care can cause children to be inappropriately hospitalized when they could have been treated as outpatients. Several researchers have studied hospital admissions among adults and children for conditions that can be managed with good ambulatory care. In general, they found that U.S. communities with poor access to ambulatory care—that is, low-income communities with many residents uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid—had higher rates of this kind of hospitalization. In contrast, hospital admissions in Spain for conditions sensitive to ambulatory care did not vary for children living in lower- and higher-income neighborhoods.

Lower-income U.S. neighborhoods had higher avoidable hospitalization rates compared with higher-income neighborhoods for both children and adults. Income differences in avoidable hospitalizations dropped for persons 65 years old or older, probably because of their Medicare coverage. Compared with privately insured patients in the same age category, uninsured patients had higher rates of avoidable hospitalization.

Medicaid patients had even higher rates. Most of the potentially avoidable hospitalizations for children younger than 15 were for pneumonia or asthma. Communities where people perceived that they had poorer access to medical care had higher rates of hospitalization for chronic diseases. Self-rated access to care was lower in communities that had greater proportions of uninsured residents, Medicaid beneficiaries, and persons without a usual source of care.

Analysis of crossnational data also suggests that broader access to primary care reduces the number of hospitalizations for conditions sensitive to ambulatory care. Several researchers compared such admissions for children in Spain and several U.S. cities. Although rates of hospital admission were higher in general for children in Spain, rates of hospitalization for conditions sensitive to ambulatory care were lower. In addition, lower-income communities in Spain, unlike the United States, did not have higher rates of children’s hospital admissions sensitive to ambulatory care. The authors attributed this difference to Spanish children’s access to universal health care, each child being covered by a responsible primary care provider.

Uninsured Children Receive Unequal Care When Hospitalized

Two studies indicated that when children were hospitalized, providers did not give the same type of care to uninsured and privately insured children. Providers may have been unwilling to provide the same intensity of care if the payment source was uncertain or likely to be less than actual charges.

One group of researchers found that sick uninsured newborns in California had shorter hospital stays and received less-intensive care while in the hospital than privately insured sick newborns, even though the uninsured newborns and those in Medicaid were sicker. Newborns in Medicaid had lengths of stay and levels of service between those of uninsured and privately insured newborns. Adjusted mean length of stay was 15.2 days for privately insured newborns, 14.2 for Medicaid-covered newborns, and 12.7 for uninsured newborns. Total mean charges were $15,899 for privately insured newborns, $13,858 for Medicaid-covered newborns, and $11,414 for uninsured newborns. Charges per day were also significantly different depending on insurance status. In all, length of stay, total charges, and charges per day were 16-percent, 28-percent, and 10-percent less for uninsured than privately insured newborns.

Another group of researchers found that uninsured children and adults were generally sicker when admitted to the hospital, received less care given their condition on admission, and had higher mortality than privately insured children and adults. For children between ages 1 and 17, uninsured black males and white females rated significantly higher on a risk-adjusted mortality index, indicating that they were sicker on admission. The differences for uninsured black females and white males were not significant. Another measure of children’s being sicker on admission is admission on weekends, which was more likely for all uninsured children except black males. For the entire sample of all ages, uninsured people had shorter lengths of stay for conditions for which physicians had more discretion over the length of stay, and they had a lower probability of getting selected procedures that were either costly or more likely to be done at the physician’s discretion. The researchers cautioned that their adjustment for health risk might be imperfect. Nevertheless, they concluded that insurance coverage affects resource use for a broad spectrum of clinical problems, particularly elective and discretionary services.

Uninsured Children Who Have Chronic Conditions or Special Health Needs Receive Less Care Than Insured Children

Many children have a chronic condition—one study estimated that 31 percent of children younger than 18 in 1988 had one or more chronic conditions. NCHS estimated that about 15 percent of children who had chronic conditions had special health care conditions that were disabling because they missed school, stayed in bed, limited their activities, or experienced pain or discomfort often. Many children who have chronic conditions are uninsured. In 1988, 21.1 percent of poor children and 9.7 percent of nonpoor children who had chronic conditions were uninsured. About 13 percent of children who had chronic conditions and special health care needs were uninsured—with low-income, Hispanic, and nonsuburban children more likely to be uninsured.

Having a regular source of care ensures continuity of care and professional monitoring of disease symptoms. Only a few studies looked at children who had chronic conditions and those who had special health care needs, and fewer controlled for factors that influence access other than insurance. However, these few studies found differences in access to care by insurance status. (See table 3.) For example, poor children who had chronic conditions but no insurance were more than twice as likely as similar, insured children, to lack a usual source of routine care or sick care. (See fig. 4.) Adjusting for severity of illness and other factors, they had only 2.3 physician contacts per year, compared with 3.7 for similar but insured children.

An analysis that went even further to separate insurance status from other factors that could affect children’s access to care found that children who had chronic conditions and special health care needs were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized if they had public or private insurance than if they were uninsured, adjusting for differences in need for hospitalization based on their conditions.

Health Insurance Differs in Coverage of Children’s Common Health Care Needs

Many health plans do not cover a number of preventive, primary, and developmental health services needed by some or all children. Private policies differ in whether they cover well-child, dental, and vision care. In 1996, KMPG Peat Marwick reported that 57 percent of the indemnity health plans used by firms with 200 to more than 5,000 workers covered well-child care, compared with 96 percent of health maintenance organizations (HMO) and 73 percent of preferred provider organization (PPO) plans. Dental caries are a common problem for children, while poor vision can lead to problems in learning. Nevertheless, only about half or less of the private plans surveyed covered dental or vision care. Medicaid’s child health benefit package, the Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program requires coverage of well-child care, including dental, hearing, and vision care. Other publicly funded programs, such as the Florida HealthyKids Program and New York’s Child Health Plus Program, have not covered dental care; HealthyKids covered vision and hearing care, but Child Health Plus did not.

Children who have chronic conditions and special health care needs may have particular difficulties because the services and supplies they need may not be covered by their insurance. For example, coverage for speech or physical therapy to help with developmental delays is often limited or explicitly excluded from private health insurance policies. In contrast, Medicaid’s EPSDT program covers a wide variety of developmental services.

Some children are insured but with “bare-bones” policies that provide minimal coverage except for catastrophic costs. Such children, if eligible for Medicaid, could get coverage for services not covered by their private insurance. However, Title XXI—the new child health insurance program—was designed to be restricted to uninsured children, so that low-income children with coverage, even if it were only catastrophic coverage, would not be considered eligible. Florida HealthyKids and New York’s Child Health Plus, two state-based plans whose benefits have been grandfathered into Title XXI, have in the past covered insured children if their health insurance was not comparable in scope to the state-based coverage.

Some experts have argued that special pediatric standards should be developed that recognize children’s specific needs, such as their need for health services to ensure optimal development. They have argued that such services should be considered medically necessary and should be covered by private health insurance. Medicaid’s standard of medical necessity is more global than that of private plans. However, families in Medicaid have sometimes had difficulty finding mainstream providers willing to accept them as patients, which limits their ability to secure covered benefits for their children.

Expanding Public Insurance Improves Access

Since providing uninsured children with publicly funded insurance improves their access to preventive and acute health services, families are more likely to report that their children’s health needs are being met. Children are more likely to be up to date with recommended preventive care and are more likely to see a physician. Two different researchers estimated that the expansion of publicly funded insurance in the United States and Canada decreased child mortality, in association with either more physicians’ visits or more prenatal care.

NCHS reported that uninsured children were about three times as likely to have an unmet health need as children with publicly funded insurance (generally Medicaid). (See fig. 5.) Dental care was the most common unmet need for all children—but uninsured children were more than three times as likely not to receive needed dental care as children who had publicly funded insurance. Almost 16 percent of uninsured children were reported as needing but not receiving dental care.

Parents of uninsured children reported delaying getting care for their children because of its cost almost five times as often as children who had publicly funded insurance. One local study in Los Angeles found that inner-city Latino parents were also most likely to report that they deferred health care for their toddlers for financial reasons when they were uninsured, compared with others who had Medicaid or private coverage.

A number of studies estimated the effect that providing publicly funded insurance, such as Medicaid, had on lessening the gap between uninsured and insured children. One research team examined the effect of expanding Medicaid coverage to children and found decreases over time in the probability that children would go without at least one ambulatory care visit in a year. Making a child eligible for Medicaid lowered the child’s estimated probability of going without a visit by 13 percent. Hospitalizations also rose by an estimated 14 percent—but the estimated probability of making visits to physicians’ offices increased even more than making visits to other sites, suggesting to the authors that expanding Medicaid coverage increased ambulatory care. These authors also looked at the effects of Medicaid expansion on child health as measured by decreases in child mortality. They estimated that the 15-percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent. A similar study that looked at the effect of providing national health insurance in Canada found a statistically significant increase in early prenatal care and a significant decrease in infant mortality.

Another study of children’s rates of preventive and illness-related primary care visits found that, adjusting for other factors such as race and perceived health status, the predicted probability of making either a preventive or illness-related visit increased if children were covered by public or private insurance, compared with being uninsured. For example, for uninsured children younger than 6 in single-parent families headed by mothers, the predicted probability of making a preventive visit was more than 40-percent greater if the children were covered by public or private insurance, and it was almost 100-percent greater for children aged 6 to 17.

Many children miss recommended preventive visits, but uninsured children fare worse than insured children. Short and Lefkowitz found that in 1987, only 49 percent of uninsured preschool children had made any well-child visits, compared with 65 percent of insured children, and only 32 percent of uninsured preschool children had made the recommended number of visits, compared with 48 percent of insured children. They found that when adjusting for other factors, private insurance status was only marginally significant in predicting well-child visits, which they explained by the degree to which private insurance varies in its coverage of well-child care. However, they estimated that for low-income children who would otherwise be uninsured, a full year of Medicaid coverage increased the probability of making any well-child visits by 17 percentage points, and compliance with AAP’s guidelines for well-child visits would increase by 13 percentage points. (See table 2 for AAP guidelines.)

Lack of Health Insurance Is Only One Barrier to Care

Getting appropriate health care when it is needed can be difficult for children. Parents and guardians usually make the decision to seek care for them. Having health insurance and having a regular source of health care facilitate a family’s use of health services, but some families experience systemic, financial, and personal barriers to care. Systemic barriers can include a lack of primary care providers readily available in the neighborhood, physicians’ missing opportunities to provide vaccinations during health care visits, and physicians’ refusing to accept certain patients. Financial barriers, apart from lack of insurance, can include lack of funds to make copayments or pay for uncovered services. Personal barriers can include parents’ lack of knowledge that care is needed and language differences between parents and providers. Similarly, discrimination and poor treatment by health care workers can discourage the use of health care services.

Uninsured children and children in Medicaid may also be likely to face systemic, financial, or personal barriers that limit their access to care, beyond their lack of insurance. Compared with privately insured children, uninsured children and those in Medicaid are more likely to have less family income, to be members of a minority group, to have parents who have lower educational attainment, or to live with only one parent—characteristics associated with lower use of health services.

As a result, experts in health issues have concluded that while insurance plays a critical role in getting children access to health care, encouraging their appropriate use of health care encompasses multiple strategies. These include making insurance coverage more continuous in order to foster children’s relationships with providers, maintaining a better organized system of primary care in settings that ease access for parents and that have good links to more complex care, enhancing systems in which primary care providers can track and prompt preventive visits and immunizations, and aiming outreach and educational programs at parents.

Conclusion

Research has clearly demonstrated that having health insurance makes a difference for children. Children who have no insurance—even those who are sick or chronically ill or have special health care needs—get less health care than children who have insurance. Many studies have shown that increasing children’s coverage increases their access to care, particularly primary care. Without appropriate access to primary care, children are more likely to suffer unnecessarily from illness.

But having health insurance is no guarantee that children will get appropriate, high-quality care. Some children live in families that do not understand the need for preventive care or do not know how to seek high-quality care. Some live in neighborhoods that have few health care providers, where they have to travel further and wait longer to get care. Some live in families in which most of the members do not speak English or defer getting care because they have had difficulty getting care previously. Some children have health insurance that does not cover some of the services that they need most—such as dental care or physical therapy for the developmentally disabled. Some children have health insurance whose deductibles and cost-sharing are unaffordable. Such barriers can reduce the likelihood that even insured children will get the care they need.

Overcoming these kinds of barriers would require that children be more continuously covered by health insurance so that they could develop long-term relationships with primary care providers. Having a stable source of insurance can help families use the health system for their children optimally over time. Beyond that, children have needs for specific developmental and preventive care that differ in some ways from those of adults. For insurance to work for children, the services they need must be both covered and affordable.

Overcoming nonfinancial barriers might require outreach and education for families so that they can learn how better to use preventive and primary health care for their children. In addition, making high-quality primary health services convenient for families in local communities might facilitate children’s access to appropriate care.

Experts’ Comments and Our Response

We asked experts on access to health insurance and children’s health care to review a draft of this report, and we incorporated their comments and suggestions where appropriate.

We will make copies of this report available on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-7114 if you or your staff have any questions. This report was prepared by Michael Gutowski, Jonathan Ratner, Sheila Avruch, and Sarah Lamb.

Bibliography

Aday, LuAnn. “Health Insurance and Utilization of Medical Care for Chronically Ill Children With Special Health Care Needs.” Advance Data, No. 215. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1992.

Aday, LuAnn, and others. “Health Insurance and Utilization of Medical Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs.” Medical Care, Vol. 31, No. 11 (1993), pp. 1013-26. “American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Health Financing: Principles of Child Health Care Financing.” Pediatrics, Vol. 91, No. 2 (1993), pp. 506-7.

Bashshur, R.L., R.K. Homan, and D.G. Smith. “Beyond the Uninsured: Problems in Access to Care.” Medical Care, Vol. 32, No. 5 (1994), pp. 409-19.

Behrman, R.E., and C.S. Larson. “Health Care for Pregnant Women and Young Children.” American Journal of Diseases of Children, Vol. 145, No. 5 (1991), pp. 572-74.

Berk, Marc L., Claudia L. Schur, and Joel C. Cantor. “Ability to Obtain Health Care: Recent Estimates From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation National Access to Care Survey.” Health Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1995), pp. 140-46.

Billings, J., G. Anderson, and L. Newman. “Recent Findings on Preventable Hospitalizations.” Health Affairs, Vol. 15 (fall 1996), pp. 239-49.

Billings J., and Nina Teicholz. “Uninsured Patients in District of Columbia Hospitals.” Health Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1990), pp. 158-65.

Billings, J., and others. “Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Hospital Use in New York City.” Health Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1993), pp. 162-73.

Bindman, Andrew B., and others. “Preventable Hospitalizations and Access to Health Care.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 274, No. 4 (1995), pp. 305-11.

Bindman, Andrew B., and others. “Primary Care and Receipt of Preventive Services.” Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 5 (1996), pp. 269-76.

Bloom, Barbara. “Health Insurance and Medical Care: Health of Our Nation’s Children, United States, 1988.” Advance Data, from Vital and Health Statistics for the National Center for Health Statistics, No. 188 (Oct. 1990), pp. 1-8.

Bograd, Harvey, and others. “Extending Health Maintenance Organization Insurance to the Uninsured.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 277, No. 13 (1997), pp. 1067-72.

Braveman, P., and others. “Differences in Hospital Resource Allocation Among Sick Newborns According to Insurance Coverage.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 266, No. 23 (1991), pp. 3300-8.

Bronstein, J.M., and others. “Access to Neonatal Intensive Care for Low-Birthweight Infants: The Role of Maternal Characteristics.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, No. 3 (1995), pp. 357-61.

Brook, R.H., and others. “Quality of Ambulatory Care: Epidemiology and Comparison by Insurance Status and Income.” Medical Care, Vol. 28, No. 5 (1990), pp. 392-433.

Butler, John A., Sara Rosenbaum, and Judith S. Palfrey. “Ensuring Access to Health Care for Children with Disabilities.” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317, No. 4 (1987), pp. 162-65.

Casanova, Carmen, and Barbara Starfield. “Hospitalizations of Children and Access to Primary Care: A Cross-National Comparison.” International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 25, No. 2 (1995), pp. 283-94.

Chande, V.T., and J.M. Kinnane. “Role of the Primary Care Provider in Expediting Care of Children With Acute Appendicitis.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 150, No. 7 (1996), pp. 703-6.

Chaulk, C.P. “Preventive Health Care in Six Countries: Models for Reform?” Health Care Finance Review, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1994), pp. 7-19.

Cunningham, Peter J., and Beth A. Hahn. “The Changing American Family: Implications for Children’s Health Insurance Coverage and the Use of Ambulatory Care Services.” The Future of Children: Critical Health Issues of Children and Youth, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1994), pp. 24-42.

Currie, Janet, “Socio-Economic Status and Child Health: Does Public Health Insurance Narrow the Gap?” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 97, No. 4 (1995), pp. 603-20.

Currie, Janet, and Jonathan Gruber. “Health Insurance Eligibility, Utilization of Medical Care, and Child Health.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2 (1996), pp. 431-66.

Currie, Janet, and Jonathan Gruber. “Saving Babies: The Efficacy and Cost of Recent Changes in the Medicaid Eligibility of Pregnant Women.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104, No. 6 (1996), pp. 1263-96.

Currie, Janet, and Duncan Thomas. “Medical Care for Children: Public Insurance, Private Insurance, Racial Differences in Utilization.” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1995), pp. 135-62.

Davis, Karen. “Inequality and Access to Health Care.” Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 2 (1991), pp. 253-73.

Escarce, Jose J., and others. “Racial Differences in the Elderly’s Use of Medical Procedures and Diagnostic Tests.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 83, No. 7 (1993), pp. 948-54.

Ettner, Susan Louise. “The Timing of Preventive Services for Women and Children: The Effect of Having a Usual Source of Care.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, No. 12 (1996), pp. 1748-54.

Gans, J.E., M.A. McManus, and P.W. Newacheck. Adolescent Health Care: Use, Cost, and Problems of Access, AMA Profiles of Adolescent Health Series, Vol. 2. N.p.: 1991.

Glied, Sherry, and others. “Children’s Access to Mental Health Care: Does Insurance Matter?” Health Affairs, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1997), pp. 167-74.

Goodman, David C., and others. “Why Are Children Hospitalized? The Role of Non-Clinical Factors in Pediatric Hospitalizations.” Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 6 (1994), pp. 896-902.

Guralnik, Jack, and others. “Annotation: Race, Ethnicity, and Health Outcomes—Unraveling the Mediating Role of Socioeconomic Status.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 5 (1997), pp. 728-29.

Hadley, Jack, Earl Steinberg, and Judith Feder. “Comparison of Uninsured and Privately Insured Hospital Patients: Condition on Admission, Resource Use, and Outcome.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 265, No. 3 (1991), pp. 374-79.

Hafner-Eaton, C. “Physician Utilization Disparities Between the Uninsured and Insured: Comparisons of the Chronically Ill, Acutely Ill, and Well Nonelderly Populations.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 269, No. 6 (1993), pp. 787-92.

Halfon, N., and P. Newacheck. “Childhood Asthma and Poverty: Differential Impacts and Utilization of Health Services.” Pediatrics, Vol. 91, No. 1 (1993), pp. 56-61.

Halfon, N., and others. “Routine Emergency Department Use for Sick Care by Children in the United States.” Pediatrics, Vol. 98, No. 1 (1996), pp. 28-34.

Halfon, N., and others. “Medicaid Enrollment and Health Services Access by Latino Children in Inner-city Los Angeles.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 277, No. 8 (1997), pp. 636-41.

Hanratty, Maria J. “Canadian National Health Insurance and Infant Health.” American Economic Review, Vol. 86, No. 1 (1996), pp. 276-84.

Hellstedt, L.F. “Insurability Issues Facing the Adolescent and Adult With Congenital Heart Disease.” Nursing Clinics of North America, Vol. 29, No. 2 (1994), pp. 331-43.

Himmelstein, D.U., and S. Woolhandler. “Care Denied: U.S. Residents Who Are Unable to Obtain Needed Medical Services.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, No. 3 (1995), pp. 341-44.

Holl, J.L., and others. “Profile of Uninsured Children in the United States.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 149 (April 1995), pp. 398-406.

Institute of Medicine. Paying Attention to Children in a Changing Health Care System. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.

Kogan, Michael D., and others. “The Effect of Gaps in Health Insurance on Continuity of a Regular Source of Care Among Preschool-aged Children in the United States.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 274, No. 18 (1995), pp. 1429-35.

Kohrman, A.F. “Financial Access to Care Does Not Guarantee Better Care for Children.” Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 3 (1994), pp. 506-8.

Lehmann, C.U., J. Barr, and P.J. Kelly. “Emergency Department Utilization by Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescent Health Care, Vol. 15, No. 6 (1994), pp. 485-90.

Lewit, Eugene M., and Alan C. Monheit. “Expenditures on Health Care for Children and Pregnant Women.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992.

Liebman, J., and others. “Pennsylvania’s Medically Uninsured Population: Findings from a Statewide Survey.” Journal of Health and Social Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1991), pp. 71-89.

Lieu, T.A., P.W. Newacheck, M.A. McManus. “Race, Ethnicity, and Access to Ambulatory Care Among U.S. Adolescents.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 83, No. 7 (1993), pp. 960-65.

Lieu, T.A., and others. “Health Insurance and Preventive Care Sources of Children at Public Immunization Clinics.” Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 3 (1994), pp. 373-78.

Lozano, P., F. Connell, and T. Koepsell. “Use of Health Services by African-American Children With Asthma on Medicaid.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 274, No. 6 (1995), pp. 469-73.

McManus, Margaret A., and Paul Newacheck. “Health Insurance Differentials Among Minority Children with Chronic Conditions and the Role of Federal Agencies and Private Foundations in Improving Financial Access.” Pediatrics, Vol. 91, No. 5 (1993), pp. 1040-47.

Mark, T., and C. Mueller. “Access to Care in HMOs and Traditional Insurance Plans.” Health Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1996), pp. 81-87.

Marquis, M.S., and S.H. Long. “The Uninsured Access Gap: Narrowing the Estimates.” Inquiry, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1994), pp. 405-14.

Marquis, M.S., and S.H. Long. “Reconsidering the Effect of Medicaid on Health Care Services Use.” Health Services Research, Vol. 30, No. 6 (1996), pp. 791-808.

Martz, E.W. “Medical Care for the Un(der)insured.” Delaware Medical Journal, Vol. 62, No. 6 (1991), pp. 1076-77.

Moffit, Robert A., and Eric P. Slade. “Health Care Coverage for Children Who Are on and off Welfare.” The Future of Children: Welfare to Work, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1997), pp. 87-98.

Monheit, Alan C., and Peter J. Cunningham. “Children Without Health Insurance.” The Future of Children: U.S. Health Care for Children, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1992), pp. 154-70.

Morgan, David R., and James T. LaPlant. “The Spending-Service Connection: The Case of Health Care.” Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1996), pp. 215-29.

Newacheck, P.W. “Improving Access to Health Care for Children, Youth, and Pregnant Women.” Pediatrics, Vol. 86, No. 4 (1990), pp. 626-35.

Newacheck, P. W. “Characteristics of Children with High and Low Usage of Physician Services.” Medical Care, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1992), pp. 30-42.

Newacheck, P.W. “Poverty and Childhood Chronic Illness.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 148, No. 11 (1994), pp. 1143-49.

Newacheck, P.W., D.C. Hughes, M. Cisternas. “Children and Health Insurance: An Overview of Recent Trends.” Health Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 1 (spring 1995), pp. 244-54.

Newacheck, P.W., D.C. Hughes, J.J. Stoddard. “Children’s Access to Primary Care: Differences by Race, Income, and Insurance Status.” Pediatrics, Vol. 97, No. 1 (1996), pp. 26-32.

Newacheck, P.W., and M.A. McManus. “Health Care Expenditure Patterns for Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescent Health Care, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1990), pp. 133-40.

Newacheck, P.W., J.J. Stoddard, and M. McManus. “Ethnocultural Variations in the Prevalence and Impact of Childhood Chronic Conditions.” Pediatrics, Vol. 91, No. 5: Part 2 (1993), pp. 1031-39.

Newacheck, P.W., and others. “Children’s Access to Health Care: The Role of Social and Economic Factors.” In Health Care for Children: What’s Right, What’s Wrong, What’s Next, ed. by R. E. Stein. New York: United Hospital Fund of New York, 1997.

Office of Technology Assessment. Does Health Insurance Make a Difference? Background paper, OTA-BP-H-99. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.

Overpeck, Mary D., and Jonathan B. Kotch. “The Effect of U.S. Children’s Access to Care on Medical Attention for Injuries.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, No. 3 (1995), pp. 402-4.

Pappas, G., and others. “Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations: Inequities in Rates between U.S. Socioeconomic Groups.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 5 (1997), pp. 811-16.

Paulin, Geoffrey D., and Elizabeth M. Dietz. “Health Insurance Coverage for Families With Children.” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 118, No. 8 (1995), pp. 13-23.

Perrin, James, Bernard Guyer, and Jean M. Lawrence. “Health Care Services for Children and Adolescents.” The Future of Children: U.S. Health Care For Children, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1992), pp. 58-77.

Perrin, James M., and others. “Health Care Reform and the Special Needs of Children.” Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 3 (1994), pp. 504-6.

Pollack, Ron, and others. Unmet Needs: The Large Differences in Health Care Between Uninsured and Insured Children, Special Report. Washington, D.C.: Families U.S.A., June 1997.

Potterfield, Tyler. “Children’s Access to Health Coverage: The Upside-down House.” Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 32, No. 10 (1993), p. 591 (1).

Rice, D.P. “Ethics and Equity in U.S. Health Care: The Data.” International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1991), pp. 637-51.

Rosenbach, Margo L. “The Impact of Medicaid on Physician Use by Low-Income Children.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 79, No. 9 (1989), pp. 1220-26.

Saver, B.G., and N. Peterfreund. “Insurance, Income, and Access to Ambulatory Care in King County, Washington.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 83, No. 11 (1993), pp. 1583-88.

Short, Pamela Farley, and Doris C. Lefkowitz. “Encouraging Preventive Services for Low-Income Children: The Effect of Expanding Medicaid.” Medical Care, Vol. 30, No. 9 (1992), pp. 766-80.

Simpson, Gloria, and others. “Access to Health Care Part 1: Children.” Vital and Health Statistics, Series 10, No. 196. Hyattsville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.

Smith, M.W., and others. “How Economic Demand Influences Access to Medical Care for Rural Hispanic Children.” Medical Care, Vol. 34, No. 11 (1996), pp. 1135-48.

Spillman, Brenda C. “The Impact of Being Uninsured on Utilization of Basic Health Care Services.” Inquiry, Vol. 29 (winter 1992), pp. 457-66.

Spivak W., R. Sockolow, and A. Rigas. “The Relationship Between Insurance Class and Severity of Presentation of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Children.” American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 90, No. 6 (1995), pp. 982-87.

Starfield, Barbara. “Primary Care and Health: A Cross-National Comparison.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 266, No. 16 (1991), pp. 2268-71.

Stewart, A.L., and others. “Primary Care and Patient Perceptions of Access to Care.” Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 44, No. 2 (1997), pp. 177-85.

Stoddard, Jeffrey J., Robert F. St. Peter, and Paul W. Newacheck. “Health Insurance Status and Ambulatory Care for Children.” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 330, No. 20 (1994), pp. 1421-25.

Strain, J.E. “Agenda for Change in the U.S. Child Health Care System.” Health Matrix, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1994), pp. 107-18.

Strickland, W.J., and C.M. Hanson. “Coping with the Cost of Prescription Drugs.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1996), pp. 50-62.

Susser, Mervyn. “Race, Health, and Health Services.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 83, No. 7 (1993), pp. 939-41.

Wehr, E., and E. J. Jameson. “Beyond Benefits: The Importance of a Pediatric Standard in Private Insurance Contracts to Ensuring Health Care Access for Children.” The Future of Children: Critical Health Issues for Children and Youth, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1994), pp. 115-33.

Weissman J.S., and A.M. Epstein. “Rates of Avoidable Hospitalization by Insurance Status in Massachusetts and Maryland.” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 268, No. 17 (1992), pp. 2388-90.

Weissman J.S., and others. “Delayed Access to Health Care: Risk Factors, Reasons, and Consequences.” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 114, No. 4 (1991), pp. 325-31.

Wood, D., and others. “Access to Infant Immunizations for Poor, Inner-City Families: What Is the Impact of Managed Care?” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1994), pp. 112-23.

Wood, David, and others. “Factors Related to Immunization Status Among Inner-City Latino and African-American Preschoolers.” Pediatrics, Vol. 96, No. 2 (1995), pp. 295-301.

Wood, David, and others. “Vaccination Levels in Los Angeles Public Health Centers: The Contribution of Missed Opportunities to Vaccinate and Other Factors.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, No. 6 (1995), pp. 850-53.

Wood, D.L. “Access to Medical Care for Children and Adolescents in the United States.” Pediatrics, Vol. 86, No. 5 (1990), pp. 666-73.

Related GAO Products

Uninsured Children and Immigration, 1995 (GAO/HEHS-97-126R, May 27, 1997).

Health Insurance for Children: Declines in Employment-Based Coverage Leave Millions Uninsured; State and Private Programs Offer New Approaches (GAO/T-HEHS-97-105, Apr. 8, 1997).

Employment-Based Health Insurance: Costs Increase and Family Coverage Decreases (GAO/HEHS-97-35, Feb. 24, 1997).

Children’s Health Insurance, 1995 (GAO/HEHS-97-68R, Feb. 19, 1997).

Children’s Health Insurance Programs, 1996 (GAO/HEHS-97-40R, Dec. 3, 1996).

Private Health Insurance: Millions Relying on Individual Market Face Cost and Coverage Trade-Offs (GAO/HEHS-97-8, Nov. 25, 1996).

Medicaid and Uninsured Children, 1994 (GAO/HEHS-96-174R, July 9, 1996).

Health Insurance for Children: Private Insurance Coverage Continues to Deteriorate (GAO/HEHS-96-129, June 17, 1996).

Health Insurance for Children: State and Private Programs Create New Strategies to Insure Children (GAO/HEHS-96-35, Jan. 18, 1996).

Medicaid and Children’s Insurance (GAO/HEHS-96-50R, Oct. 20, 1995).

Health Insurance for Children: Many Remain Uninsured Despite Medicaid Expansion (GAO/HEHS-95-175, July 19, 1995).

Medicaid: Experience With State Waivers to Promote Cost Control and Access Care (GAO/HEHS-95-115, Mar. 23, 1995).

Uninsured and Children on Medicaid (GAO/HEHS-95-83R, Feb. 14, 1995).

Employer-Based Health Insurance: High Costs, Wide Variation Threaten System (GAO/HRD-92-125, Sept. 22, 1992).

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.