Higher premiums for the national Children’s Health Insurance Program
(CHIP), which also provides coverage to low-income kids, may have a
similar result.
“Premium requirements can represent a financial burden that competes
with other necessities in the family budget like food or heating,”
said lead study author Brendan Saloner of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health in Baltimore.
“When families face these difficult choices, some may decide to drop
public insurance, and in some cases the child may then become
uninsured,” Saloner added by email. “This can be problematic because
we know that children that lack health insurance have worse access
to care than those on Medicaid and CHIP, and sometimes do not
receive recommended health services like vision care, vaccinations
or mental health care.”
As of 2013, 30 states imposed premiums on some children in the CHIP
program and five states imposed them on some Medicaid recipients.
The fees ranged from about $10 to $39 per month.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/869eb/869eb9e2181597a5c50638ee5f627015594bd590" alt=""
To see how increases in these cost-sharing premiums impact coverage
for kids, Saloner and colleagues analyzed data from 17 studies
published between 1995 and 2014, and reported their findings
February 19 in Pediatrics.
One study using national survey data from 1996 to 2003 estimated
that raising premiums by about $10 in 2003 dollars would result in a
3 percentage point decrease in public insurance enrollment among
children eligible for CHIP, with roughly one-third of these kids
becoming uninsured.
Another study of medical expense survey data from 1999 to 2010 also
estimated the impact of a $10 premium increase. The result was an
average 3.9 percentage point decrease in public insurance enrollment
for kids, countered by a 2.3 percentage point increase in coverage
through private health plans – leaving a net rise in the child
uninsured rate of 1.6 percentage points.
Only one study in the analysis looked at how premiums impact access
to care, and found waiving these monthly payments in Idaho to be
associated with higher odds that kids got well-child checkups.
In addition, just one study looked at whether premium increases can
save government health programs money, and found these fees produce
little revenue compared with average program costs.
Because the studies tracked the effects of premium increases in
different ways, it is difficult to analyze trends across all of the
earlier research, the authors caution. They also had little data on
how premium changes impacted access to care.
[to top of second column] |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6f4b/b6f4b75468329d88bcb180cf718f356ce7431eb6" alt=""
Even so, the researchers conclude that higher fees may result in
fewer children getting preventive care or other needed treatment.
“The lower a family’s income, the greater the challenge associated
with paying a premium for a child’s coverage,” said Joan Alker,
executive director for the Center for Children and Families at
Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
“Low-wage working families are struggling to keep food on the table
and pay the rent so even a small premium can result in some very
difficult choices,” Alker, who wasn’t involved in the study, added
by email.
Even when children don’t become permanently uninsured, they may
temporarily lose coverage when their parents fall behind in paying
premiums, noted Judith Solomon, a vice president for health policy
at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C.,
who wasn’t involved in the study.
“What we call churn in coverage is a big problem – i.e. people
losing and regaining coverage over relatively short periods of
time,” Solomon said by email. “A great deal of churn occurs at the
time renewals of coverage are due but non-payment of premiums can
also cause churn.”
Churn can quickly contribute to health problems for kids,
particularly if they have chronic problems like asthma or diabetes,
said James Marton, an economics and health policy researcher at
Georgia State University in Atlanta who wasn’t involved in the
study.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4e1b/f4e1b8358537b709ac711efb433e9608e0526c3f" alt=""
“Children churning on and off public coverage are less likely to
have a usual source of medical care and that can result in worse
health outcomes, including a higher likelihood of preventable
hospitalizations,” Marton said by email.
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |