Insurance for Children With Special Health Care Needs: Patterns of
Coverage and Burden on Families to Provide Adequate Insurance
Amy J. Davidoff, PhD
ABSTRACT. Objective. To update national estimates of insurance coverage for children with special health care needs (CSHCN) to reflect better the current eco-nomic and policy environment and to examine the bur-den on families and adequacy of coverage.
Methods. I analyzed data on children who were aged
0 to 17 and included in the sample child files of the 2000 and 2001 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). CSHCN were identified using a noncategorical approach. Various measures of insurance coverage type, premium contributions, unmet need for care, and out-of-pocket spending were compared for CSHCN and children with-out special needs across all incomes and stratified by poverty status.
Results. Compared with other children, CSHCN had
higher rates of public insurance (29.8% vs 18.5%), lower rates of private insurance (62.5% vs 69.1%), and a smaller percentage without insurance (8.1% vs 11.5%). More than 13% of low-income CSHCN were uninsured. Most (78.1%) families of CSHCN contributed to private insur-ance premiums. Family premium contributions for em-ployer-sponsored insurance plans averaged $2058, or 4.4% of income; premiums for private nongroup insur-ance were higher ($3593) and consumed a larger percent-age of income (6.6%). For children with insurance, rates of unmet need for specific services were relatively low, suggesting that insurance coverage was adequate. How-ever, almost 20% of low-income CSHCN experienced some form of unmet need and of out-of-pocket spending was significantly higher for families with CSHCN com-pared with those without CSHCN.
Conclusions. CSHCN are more likely to have
insur-ance coverage, but among low-income CSHCN, lack of insurance remains a problem. In addition, the burden on families of CSHCN to provide insurance is greater, yet coverage purchased is not always adequate to meet the needs of many children and places addition burdens on families to pay directly for care.Pediatrics2004;114:394–
403;health insurance, children, chronic conditions,
premi-ums.
ABBREVIATIONS. CSHCN, children with special health care needs; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey; SCHIP, State Children’s Health Insurance Program; FPL, federal poverty level; SSI, Supplemental Security Income; ESI, employer-sponsored insurance.
H
ealth insurance coverage plays a critical role in ensuring adequate access to care for chil-dren with special health care needs (CSHCN). Insured CSHCN are much more likely than their uninsured counterparts to have a usual source of care and to obtain needed medical care, dental care, mental health services, and prescription medications.1–3The important role played byinsur-ance in enabling access, as well as the reduced risk of large out-of-pocket expense, provides strong incen-tives for eligible CSHCN to be enrolled in public insurance and for parents of ineligible children to seek employer-sponsored or other private coverage. However, ensuring that CSHCN have access to in-surance, that the insurance is adequate to meet the needs of the child, and that there is not an undue burden on the family to provide coverage may be a substantial challenge.
Although many studies have described patterns of insurance coverage for children in the United States, relatively few studies have focused specifically on insurance coverage of CSHCN, and little emphasis has been placed on the burden on families to provide insurance. According to estimates from Silver and Stein3using the 1994 National Health Interview
Sur-vey (NHIS), 27.6% of CSHCN reported Medicaid coverage, substantially higher than the 17.9% Med-icaid enrollment among children without special health care needs; 59.1% reported private insurance; and 12.3% were uninsured, less than the 15.8% re-ported for other children. Other estimates using the same data are qualitatively similar but use different definitions of CSHCN and different groupings of insurance coverage.2,4 However, these estimates
based on data from 1994 do not reflect significant changes in public insurance policy and the economic environment over the past 10 years, such as welfare reform, the Health Insurance Portability and Ac-countability Act, and the State Children’s Health In-surance Program (SCHIP) expansions.
This article updates national estimates of insur-ance coverage for CSHCN and provides important new information concerning the burden on families to provide insurance and the adequacy of existing coverage for CSHCN. The estimates are based on data from the NHIS. The rich information on health status of children available on the NHIS provides the means to identify CSHCN using a noncategorical approach, consistent with other recent research on CSHCN.5Comparisons are conducted for children of
all income levels and then stratified by income rela-From the Health Policy Center, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
Received for publication Jul 28, 2003; accepted Nov 7, 2003.
Reprint requests to (A.J.D.) Urban Institute, 2100 M St NW, Washington, DC 20037. E-mail: adavidof@ui.urban.org
tive to the federal poverty level (FPL). Stratification by income is important because low-income children have fewer economic resources either to obtain pri-vate health insurance or to pay for the care that they need.3 However, eligibility for public insurance is
limited in most states to children below 200% of FPL. As available insurance options change with income, patterns of coverage and family burden are expected to differ.
Historically, public programs have been a partic-ularly important source of insurance for CSHCN. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash assistance to families with children who have severe physical or mental impairments and who meet the stringent income and resource limits imposed by the program. SSI-eligible children are estimated to represent ⬃18% of all CSHCN.6
Once children are eligible for SSI, they are also au-tomatically eligible for Medicaid in most states, with the exception of 11 “209(b)” states that have more restrictive eligibility criteria.7 Other low-income
CSHCN are eligible for the Medicaid program through mechanisms generally available to children, for example, Section 1931 family Medicaid coverage, child poverty expansions to Medicaid, and, more recently, the SCHIP. In the 35 states with programs for the “medically needy,” children who do not oth-erwise meet income thresholds for Medicaid but whose condition results in high levels of pocket spending may also qualify after the out-of-pocket medical costs are subtracted from family in-come.7,8In the 19 states that have implemented Katie
Beckett model waivers, children who require institu-tional levels of care and remain at home can qualify for Medicaid regardless of family income, subject to enrollment caps in some states. Finally, state Mater-nal and Child Health Title V block grants for CSHCN provide selected supplemental services, such as case management and family support, but do not gener-ally cover or provide comprehensive medical care services.
For CSHCN who are not eligible for public ance, however, the incentives to obtain private insur-ance coverage are equally strong, yet access to pri-vate insurance may be limited and the burden on the family to provide private coverage is greater. Al-though most workers have access to group insurance through an employer and most CSHCN have a working parent in the home, a smaller percentage of parents of CSHCN work full time compared with other parents, and part-time workers are less likely to be eligible for that coverage.4,9,10 Coverage for
workers in small firms may be subject to underwrit-ing, if permitted by state regulation; thus, having a family member with a chronic health condition may reduce the likelihood that an employer offers cover-age or may increase premiums. Finally, private non-group insurance coverage is difficult to obtain for children with any major chronic condition or disabil-ity.11,12
Because private coverage often contains fairly sub-stantial cost-sharing requirements and coverage lim-its or exclusions, parents of CSHCN may be more likely to pursue a strategy of double coverage, or
joint private-public coverage, to maximize the range of covered services and minimize out-of-pocket costs.13 Low-income families with children who are
eligible for Medicaid programs have the option of using Medicaid coverage to “wrap around” private coverage, in other words, to pay for services not covered by the private insurance and to pay for out-of-pocket costs associated with covered services. For all children but particularly those with chronic conditions, the presence of insurance does not guar-antee that coverage is adequate to meet the child’s needs. Public insurance programs tend to cover a broad spectrum of services, including specific ser-vices such as screening, transportation, and respite care, that are particularly valuable for children with chronic health conditions.6 Public insurance
cover-age for children generally has minimal or no out-of-pocket cost-sharing requirements, although most freestanding SCHIPs have implemented copay-ments.14 However, low participation rates among
providers and bureaucratic barriers may limit access to some extended benefits. Furthermore, the advent of managed care may have exacerbated the problem of access for CSHCN, if capitated managed care con-tracts lack specific access protections or are not de-signed to foster integration of special services.15
Private insurance plans vary tremendously in the scope of covered services and the level of coverage. People who have chronic conditions and private in-surance typically face problems such as high out-of-pocket costs in the form of deductibles, additional cost sharing for covered services, exclusion of partic-ular benefits, use of a medical necessity standard that does not reflect the developmental needs of children, and annual or lifetime limits imposed on other ben-efits.16 Problems of inadequate insurance will be
re-flected in the prevalence of unmet needs reported by families of children with insurance and reports of high out-of-pocket spending by families.
METHODS Source of Data
Data from the 2000 and 2001 NHIS for children aged 0 through 17 were pooled for the analysis. The NHIS is an ongoing house-hold survey that collects data on health status, health insurance, and use of health care services, as well as demographics and income for a nationally representative sample of the noninstitu-tionalized US population. The NHIS asks more detailed informa-tion on medical condiinforma-tions and activity limitainforma-tions, as well as additional questions on access to care, for a sample child in each family. An adult who is knowledgeable about the children in each family serves as the respondent for them.
Measurement
Identifying CSHCN
CSHCN were defined in a manner consistent with the federal Maternal and Child Health Bureau definition as “those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally.”17 Those who were at risk of developing a condition were excluded, because of difficulties in operationaliz-ing this portion of the definition.
need or functional limitations. The screener asks explicit questions about whether a child needs or uses prescription medications, needs or uses more medical care or educational services than is usual for most children of the same age, is limited or prevented in his or her ability to do the things that most children the same age can do, needs or receives special therapy, and needs mental health treatment or counseling, all associated with a chronic health prob-lem. A child who meets any of the 5 criteria is identified as having a special health care need.
Following the organizational structure of CSHCN screener, survey items and responses from the NHIS designate children who meet each of the 5 screening criteria.5An estimated 12%, or 8.7 million children, in 2000 –2001 had special health care needs. The unweighted sample in the 2 years of pooled data includes 2879 CSHCN and 21 909 children without special needs.
Measures of Insurance Coverage, Adequacy, and Family Burden
The NHIS collects information on the type of health insurance coverage for each member of the household. Information is col-lected about current coverage through Medicaid, SCHIP, other state-sponsored plans, Medicare, military coverage, other govern-ment plans, employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), nongroup insur-ance, and single-service plans. Summary categories were created for public (Medicaid, SCHIP, other state-sponsored plans) and private (ESI, including military coverage for dependent children, and nongroup) insurance. The number of private plans was cal-culated, and indicators were created for children with both private and public insurance.
To measure burden on the family to provide private insurance, I used data collected on the NHIS for up to 4 private health insurance plans. Information on who pays for the plan (employer, family, public source) was used to create a hierarchy indicating whether any plans were paid for entirely by the family, partially by the family, or with no family contribution. Data on the family’s premium contribution for private plans were used to calculate the total out-of-pocket premium amounts for any private plans cov-ering the child, as well as the premiums paid as a percentage of total family income. Because some families may have reported premiums for part-year coverage, I excluded children who were uninsured at some point during the year and trimmed the lowest 5% of premium values from this analysis.
To measure the adequacy of insurance for the children, I used data from the NHIS to identify whether there was any period during the previous 12 months when the child was uninsured. The NHIS also collects data, for each child, on the presence of unmet need as a result of cost, for general medical care, prescription drugs, dental care, mental health services, and vision care. These separate indicators were summarized to create an indicator for any unmet need as a result of cost. Also reported are NHIS data on family out-of-pocket spending for medical care services. For cur-rently uninsured children, the duration and reason for being un-insured available on the NHIS is reported.
Identifying Low-Income Children
The NHIS collects total previous-year family income for the legal family and sources of income but not amounts for each person. A substantial proportion of observations in the NHIS (26% in 1999) did not report total family income at all or reported only that income was above or below $20 000. Furthermore, reported previous-year income may not be consistent with current labor force participation of adults in the family. Sources of income were updated on the basis of current labor force participation, and total income was imputed for families for whom total income was not reported, using a regression-based hot-deck method.19 Low-in-come children were defined as those with total family inLow-in-come
⬍200% of the FPL.
Statistical Analysis
All estimates in the text and tables were weighted to reflect national population totals. Bivariate analyses test whether there were differences in characteristics and patterns of health insurance coverage between CSHCN and other children and between low-income and higher-low-income children in both categories. For se-lected measures, multivariate probit models were estimated to test the effects of having special health needs while controlling for
child and family characteristics such as age, gender, race, ethnic-ity, citizenship status, parent education, and income. These factors have been shown in previous research to affect insurance or access to care. Marginal effects associated with being a child with special health care needs were calculated at the sample means for all observations. The multivariate adjusted results are discussed pri-marily when they are different from the unadjusted comparisons. All standard errors were adjusted for the complex survey design used by the NHIS. All analyses were conducted using Stata soft-ware. Results discussed in the text all are statistically significant, unless noted otherwise.
RESULTS
Before examining the differences in insurance cov-erage, it is important to note that CSHCN differ from children without special needs in key characteristics that are likely to affect insurance coverage and access to care (Table 1). CSHCN tend to be more economi-cally disadvantaged, with a greater percentage living in single-parent families, living with nonworking parents, living with a parent in fair or poor health or with a limitation in activity, living in poverty, and receiving cash assistance through either SSI or Tem-porary Assistance for Needy Families. These factors all suggest a greater likelihood that the child would be eligible for and enrolled in public insurance. CSHCN are also less likely than children without special needs to be Hispanic, noncitizen, or have immigrant parents, characteristics generally associ-ated with low rates of private insurance and with restricted public insurance eligibility in the case of immigrants. These characteristics, along with lower income, rates of parent employment, and rates of ESI offer, suggest lower rates of private coverage. Even when stratifying into low- versus higher-income groups, most differences between CSHCN and other children persist, suggesting that patterns of insur-ance would differ within income groups.
Patterns of insurance coverage held by children with and without special health care needs were consistent with these differences in underlying char-acteristics (Table 2). In 2000/2001, 61.6% of CSHCN had ESI, almost 30% had some form of publicly sponsored insurance, and only 8.1% of CSHCN were uninsured. Children without special needs were more likely to have private insurance—particularly ESI (67.1%)—and less likely to have public insurance (18.5%). The higher rates of private coverage did not compensate for the lower rates of public coverage, leaving a larger proportion of other children unin-sured. After adjustment for child and family charac-teristics, differences associated with having special health care needs remained significant. CSHCN were 6.7 percentage points more likely to have public in-surance coverage and 7.1 percentage points less likely to have private insurance. The substantially smaller magnitude of the adjusted effect on public coverage suggests that the characteristics of CSHCN play an important role in determining insurance cov-erage.
insurance, compared with 10.7% of higher-income CSHCN. Uninsurance rates were ⬎3 times as high for low-income (13.2%) compared with higher-in-come CSHCN (4.2%).
In contrast to expectations, a relatively small per-centage of CSHCN (7.5%) were covered by multiple health insurance plans. More than half (57%) of the double coverage for CSHCN resulted from multiple private plans covering the child, with an additional 38% having joint public-private coverage (data not shown). Among children without special needs, those with double coverage were more likely to have multiple private plans (76%), reflecting the higher rates of ESI coverage in this population. Likewise, higher-income children in each group were more likely to have higher rates of multiple private plan coverage compared with low-income children.
Relatively few families faced the full financial bur-den to provide private insurance to their child (Table 3). Only 14.1% of CSHCN had a plan paid for en-tirely by their family. Families who shared the cost with employers were much more common (64.0%), and more than one fifth of families did not have to pay anything for the child’s private insurance. There were few significant differences in the distribution of premium sharing across the groups; among higher-income children, families of CSHCN were more likely to pay the full premium compared with other children.
Premium dollar out-of-pocket contributions for ESI plans were lower and more stable across groups than premiums for nongroup insurance. Family pre-mium contributions for ESI plans covering CSHCN averaged $2058, or 4.4% of total family income. The
unadjusted premium amount for ESI plans did not differ between children with and without special needs or for low- and higher-income children, con-sistent with the lack of differentiation in group pre-miums by worker family health status or income. However, after controlling for differences in child and family characteristics, families who had a child with special health care needs paid $40 more to cover their child. This may reflect purchase of more gener-ous ESI plans when choices were available, greater takeup of ESI even when faced with higher ums, or higher rates of double coverage. ESI premi-ums as a percentage of income were higher for low-income compared with higher-low-income children. Outlays for nongroup insurance were higher ($3593, or 6.6% of income) than for ESI, because the full cost is borne by the family and nongroup premiums gen-erally cost more as a result of administrative expense and underwriting. The estimates were also less stable as a result of smaller sample size. Nongroup pre-mium outlays for plans that covered low-income CSHCN were $4141 and represented a substantial burden: 15.9% of family income. Nongroup premi-ums for plans that covered children without special needs were significantly less at $3102. This difference in cost likely reflects the higher cost to cover a child with chronic conditions.
A major concern of policy makers is whether in-surance coverage for CSHCN is consistent over time and adequate to meet the needs of the child. The results presented in Table 4 suggest that most (95%) CSHCN with insurance had insurance for the full year. Low-income children with and without special needs had a greater likelihood of being uninsured at TABLE 2. Distribution of Current Insurance Coverage for CSHCN Overall and by Income
Rela-tive to Poverty
Current Insurance Coverage Type CSHCN Non-CSHCN
% SE % SE
All income
Any private 62.5 1.1* 69.1 0.5
Any ESI 61.6 1.0* 67.1 0.5
Any nongroup 3.4 0.5 3.7 0.2
Any public (excluding Medicare) 29.8 1.0* 18.5 0.4
Multiple coverage 7.5 0.6* 4.6 0.2
Uninsured 8.1 0.6* 11.5 0.3
Low-income children1
Any private 33.5 1.7*§ 40.4 0.8#
Any ESI 32.6 1.7*§ 38.6 0.7#
Any nongroup 2.8 0.8 3.1 0.3#
Any public (excluding Medicare) 54.9 1.7*§ 39.9 0.7#
Multiple coverage 6.3 1.0*¶ 3.0 0.2#
Uninsured 13.2 1.2*§ 19.7 0.6#
Higher-income children
Any private 84.6 1.0* 87.5 0.4
Any ESI 83.7 0.9‡ 85.4 0.3
Any nongroup 3.9 0.5 4.1 0.2
Any public (excluding Medicare) 10.7 0.9* 4.8 0.2
Multiple coverage 8.4 0.8* 5.6 0.3
Uninsured 4.2 0.6* 6.2 0.2
Source: authors’ analysis of 2000 –2001 NHIS.
CSHCN significantly different from children without special health care needs: *Pⱕ.01. † .01⬍Pⱕ .05, ‡ .05⬍Pⱕ.10.
Low-income significantly different from higher-income CSHCN: §P⬍.01,㛳.01⬍Pⱕ.05, ¶ .05⬍P
ⱕ.10.
Low-income significantly different from higher-income children without special health care needs: #P
some point during the year compared with higher-income children.
Relatively few CSHCN with insurance experi-enced unmet needs for the 5 service areas measured on the NHIS. However, almost 14% had unmet need in at least 1 of the 5 categories, and CSHCN were more likely to have unmet needs compared with other children in each category. Unmet dental care needs were cited most frequently for both CSHCN (8.9%) and other children (3.7%), likely as a result of coverage restrictions or the complete lack of dental coverage in most private plans and the difficulty in finding participating Medicaid providers. CSHCN may have particular difficulty in finding dentists who are able to accommodate physical or behavior conditions that may complicate provision of basic dental care. Reported unmet need was much greater for low-income children compared with higher-in-come children. For example, 7.4% of low-inhigher-in-come CSHCN had unmet need for prescription drugs, compared with 2.9% of other low-income children and 2.0% of higher-income CSHCN. Almost 20% of
low-income CSHCN experienced some unmet need, compared with 9.1% of other low-income children and 9.9% of higher-income CSHCN. Thus, the lack of financial resources for low-income CSHCN resulted in a bigger access gap than for children without special needs.
The gap in unmet need would likely be greater if families of CSHCN were not also paying more out of pocket for health care. The proportion of CSHCN with family out-of-pocket spending ⬎$2000 was 21.5%, compared with 13.9% for children without special needs. Higher-income families with CSHCN were almost twice as likely as low-income families to spend $2000 (27.1% vs 13.9%), reflecting lower rates of enrollment in Medicaid and greater resources available to the family. Despite the disproportionate enrollment in Medicaid, out-of-pocket spending was still higher for CSHCN compared with other chil-dren, for both low- and higher-income children.
With its broader coverage and reduced out-of-pocket burden, it would be reasonable to expect that public insurance would provide more adequate cov-TABLE 3. Family Contribution to Private Insurance Plans That Cover CSHCN Overall and by Income Relative to Poverty
CSHCN Non-CSHCN
% SE % SE
All incomes
Distribution of premium sharing with employer or public program
% Family pays all 14.1 0.4 14.9 1.1
% Family pays some 64.0 0.5 64.7 1.3
% Family pays none 21.9 0.4 20.4 1.0
Family contribution toward plans covering child
Any private plans $2163 83 $2056 29
ESI plans $2058 83 $1931 28
Nongroup plans $3593 314 $3762 147
Family premium contribution as % of total income
Any private plans 4.5 0.3‡ 5.0 0.2
ESI plans 4.4 0.3 4.7 0.2
Nongroup plans 6.6 0.8‡ 8.9 1.1
Low-income children
Distribution of premium sharing with employer or public program
% Family pays all 15.3 2.6 16.9 0.9#
% Family pays some 61.6 3.2 62.1 1.1**
% Family pays none 23.1 2.7 21.0 0.9
Family contribution toward plans covering child
Any private plans $2027 154 $2016 67
ESI plans $1939 145 $1923 68
Nongroup plans $4141 453† $3102 246#
Family premium contribution as % of total income
Any private plans 10.7 1.1§ 12.8 0.8#
ESI plans 10.5 1.1§ 12.2 0.7#
Nongroup plans 15.9 3.6§ 19.8 4.0#
Higher-income children
Distribution of premium sharing with employer or public program
% Family pays all 16.9 0.9* 13.3 0.4
% Family pays some 62.1 1.1† 64.6 0.5
% Family pays none 19.4 1.1† 22.1 0.5
Family contribution toward plans covering child
Any private plans $2194 94 $2067 33
ESI plans $2085 96 $1934 30
Nongroup plans $4096 322 $3974 177
Family premium contribution as % of total income
Any private plans 3.0 0.1 2.9 0.0
ESI plans 2.9 0.1 2.8 0.0
Nongroup plans 5.1 0.3 5.4 0.2
Source: authors’ analysis of 2000 –2001 NHIS.
CSHCN significantly different from children without special health care needs: *Pⱕ.01, † .01⬍Pⱕ.05, ‡ .05⬍Pⱕ.10. Low income significantly different from higher income CSHCN: §P⬍.01,㛳.01⬍Pⱕ.05, ¶ .05⬍Pⱕ.10.
Low income significantly different from higher income children without special health care needs: #Pⱕ.01, ** .01⬍Pⱕ.05, †† .05⬍
erage than private insurance, but for low-income children, there is little evidence that public insurance does a better (or worse) job in meeting the needs of CSHCN compared with privately insured children, although the distribution of out-of-pocket costs is substantially lower among publicly insured children (data not shown). The only significant difference is that privately insured CSHCN are twice as likely to report unmet need for dental care compared with publicly insured children (18% vs 9%). Selection may play a role in the failure to find differences: if CSHCN who are enrolled in public insurance have more serious and disabling conditions, then the cov-erage may be better, but their level of need may be higher than privately insured children.
CSHCN tend to have shorter spells of being unin-sured as reflected in the results presented in Table 5. Among CSHCN who are uninsured, 34.9% were un-insured for 6 months or less, whereas 10.1% never had insurance. Among uninsured children without special needs, the current spell of insurance tended to be longer, with only 21.4% reporting that they had been uninsured for⬍6 months and 29.7% reporting that they never had insurance.
Cost was reported as the most common barrier, cited for half of CSHCN. Other commonly cited rea-sons were that the family member with insurance lost or changed jobs (30.9%), that the child lost Med-icaid because the parents increased their earnings (9.6%), or some other reason for losing Medicaid (17.7%). Being turned down by an insurance com-pany was cited for 4.0% of uninsured CSHCN. Chil-dren without special health care needs were less
likely to experience insurance company refusals and more likely to report no need for insurance.
DISCUSSION
Consistent with expectations, this analysis finds that CSHCN had different patterns of insurance cov-erage than other children. Rates of public insurance coverage were higher, likely as a result of both higher rates of eligibility and higher rates of partici-pation associated with expected greater need for ser-vices. Rates of private insurance coverage were lower among CSHCN, consistent with lower rates of parent employment, lower rates of ESI offer, and lower incomes. Higher rates of public coverage more than compensated for lower rates of private insur-ance, resulting in smaller proportions of CSHCN going uninsured. However, 8.1% of all and 13.2% of low-income CSHCN were uninsured at the time of the survey, many of whom had been uninsured for
⬎1 year.
The analysis finds that families with CSHCN tended to face greater burdens securing coverage adequate to meet their child’s needs. CSHCN were more likely than other children to have double cov-erage, especially public-private coverage. Double private coverage requires the financial outlay associ-ated with addition premium expense, and any dou-ble coverage situation likely involves greater time spent obtaining and coordinating providers and ben-efits. There is evidence that families of CSHCN paid more for ESI coverage and low-income families of CSHCN paid more for nongroup premiums com-pared with families of children without special TABLE 4. Consistency and Adequacy of Insurance Coverage: Children With and Without Special Health Care Needs Overall and by Income Relative to Poverty
Insurance Coverage All Income Low-Income Children Higher-Income Children
CSHCN
Non-CSHCN
CSHCN
Non-CSHCN
CSHCN
Non-CSHCN
% SE % SE % SE % SE % SE % SE
Continuity of coverage over past 12 mo
Ever uninsured, past 12 mo 5.0 0.5 5.0 0.2 8.4 1.0§ 8.4 0.4# 2.7 0.5 3.3 0.2 Months uninsured if any, past 12 mo 5.0 0.4 5.0 0.1 5.4 0.5 5.4 0.2# 4.2 0.8 4.5 0.2 Adequacy of insurance among children
with coverage
% With unmet need as a result of cost, past 12 mo
Medical 3.0 0.4* 1.2 0.1 4.5 0.7†§ 2.0 0.2# 1.9 0.4* 0.8 0.1
Prescriptions 4.2 0.5* 1.5 0.1 7.4 1.1†§ 2.9 0.2# 2.0 0.3* 0.8 0.1
Dental care 8.9 0.7* 3.7 0.2 12.3 1.3†§ 5.6 0.4# 6.6 0.8* 2.6 0.2
Mental health 3.3 0.4* 0.4 0.1 4.4 0.8†¶ 0.5 0.1** 2.6 0.5* 0.3 0.1
Vision care 2.9 0.4* 1.2 0.1 5.7 0.8†§ 2.1 0.2# 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.1
Any unmet need 13.8 0.8* 5.7 0.2 19.6 0.2†§ 9.1 0.4# 9.9 1.0* 3.7 0.2 Distribution by family out-of-pocket
spending on health care
0 9.3 0.6 8.5 0.3 18.9 1.5§ 17.5 0.7# 2.6 0.5 3.3 0.2
⬍$500 33.0 1.1* 44.1 0.5 39.9 1.8†§ 46.8 0.8# 27.7 1.2* 42.4 0.6
$500–$1999 36.1 1.1† 33.6 0.4 27.2 1.7§ 25.8 0.7# 42.6 1.4* 38.2 0.6
$2000–$2999 10.9 0.7* 7.1 0.2 7.2 1.0†§ 4.5 0.3# 13.5 0.9* 8.7 0.3
$3000–$4999 5.5 0.6* 3.9 0.2 3.2 0.6§ 2.9 0.3# 7.3 0.9* 4.5 0.2
ⱖ$5000 5.1 0.5* 2.8 0.2 3.5 0.8§ 2.5 0.3 6.3 0.7* 3.0 0.2
Source: authors’ analysis of 2000 –2001 NHIS.
CSHCN significantly different from children without special health care needs: *Pⱕ.01, † .01⬍Pⱕ.05. ‡ .05⬍Pⱕ.10. Low-income significantly different from higher-income CSHCN: §Pⱕ.01,㛳.01⬍Pⱕ.05, ¶ .05⬍Pⱕ.10.
Low-income significantly different from higher-income children without special health care needs: #Pⱕ.01, ** .01⬍Pⱕ.05, †† .05⬍
needs. Even absent any difference in premium out-lays for nongroup insurance, similarly priced private nongroup policies being purchased for CSHCN are likely to be less comprehensive than policies that cover other children—with greater cost-sharing re-quirements and coverage exclusions.11 Thus, the
comparisons likely understate what would be real differences between CSHCN and other children in the cost for comparable coverage. Providing care for CSHCN also places a greater burden on the family with respect to out-of-pocket spending, and CSHCN are more likely to forego various types of care as a result of cost.
The limited measures of insurance adequacy avail-able on the NHIS (unmet need for various basic services and out-of-pocket spending) suggest that most CSHCN have adequate insurance, but a larger proportion have inadequate coverage compared with children who are not identified as having spe-cial health care needs. However, there may be other, more specialized services of particular importance to CSHCN and where insurance adequacy is likely to be even more of a problem. These services include case management, special therapies, home health, respite care, and special equipment and supplies. These more specialized measures are captured in the National Survey of CSHCN, which can provide an important resource for additional analysis.20The
Na-tional Survey of CSHCN also captures information concerning effects of having a child with special health care needs on parent labor force participation, an issue linked to but not directly addressed in this analysis.
The failure to find even greater differences in the burden associated with providing insurance and in the adequacy of the coverage may also be attribut-able to heterogeneity within the population of
CSHCN itself and selection of children into different types of insurance. Only a portion of the CSHCN identified using the Maternal and Child Health Bu-reau definition have serious medical problems that require ongoing medical monitoring and/or inter-ventions. These children may be even more likely than other CSHCN to be enrolled in Medicaid when eligible and may face greater barriers to private non-group coverage and thus may be underrepresented in that group. Likewise, children with more serious medical problems are more likely to experience un-met needs and other access problems. Given the data available in the NHIS, it is difficult to identify a group with conditions that are particularly health or life threatening, but it may be possible to identify children who have a greater variety of health care service needs associated with their condition. Future research is needed to explore this issue and to exam-ine the adequacy of coverage for more homogeneous subgroups of children.
Not only is there heterogeneity within the popu-lation of CSHCN identified in this study, but also the overall sample is limited in scope, excluding children who do not currently have but are at risk for devel-oping a chronic condition. The at-risk group has been excluded by most researchers who examine charac-teristics of CSHCN, because of the difficulty in op-erationalizing this aspect of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau definition.2–4,18 This diverse group
includes children who are at increased risk as a result of genetics, environmental exposures, behaviors, limited family resources, and poor access to health care. The variety of risk factors and the varied impli-cations for health insurance coverage make it diffi-cult to draw any conclusions about likely patterns of health insurance for the at-risk group.
Although uninsured rates are relatively low TABLE 5. Duration and Reason for Being Uninsured: Uninsured Children With and Without Special Health Care Needs Overall and by Income Relative to Poverty
All Incomes Low Income Higher Income
CSHCN
Non-CSHCN
CSHCN
Non-CSHCN
CSHCN
Non-CSHCN
% SE % SE % SE % SE % SE % SE
Spell of current uninsurance
⬍6 mo 34.9 3.9* 21.4 1.0 37.1 5.0* 21.1 1.2 29.6 6.6 22.2 1.8
6 mo-1 y 9.6 2.3 12.0 1.0 10.3 2.9 11.6 1.1 7.9 3.6 12.9 1.7
1–3 y 23.1 3.9 17.8 1.0 22.3 4.4 18.1 1.3 25.2 7.3 17.2 1.7
3⫹y 22.3 3.6 19.1 0.9 19.0 3.7 17.9 1.1** 30.4 7.9 21.9 1.7
Never insured 10.1 2.3* 29.7 1.4 11.4 2.9* 31.4 1.7** 6.9 3.5* 25.8 2.0 Any parent with offer of ESI from
employer
38.3 4.1 42.7 1.3 41.8 5.3 38.8 1.7# 31.3 6.1* 49.8 1.8
Reason for being uninsured
Cost too high 50.3 4.0 51.0 1.3 52.9 4.7 49.1 1.6** 43.9 7.8 55.4 2.1 Insured family member lost job 30.9 4.2 24.8 1.1 28.6 4.9 23.2 1.4** 36.5 7.9 28.9 1.9 Lost Medicaid as a result parents’
getting new job, increased earnings
9.6 2.3 7.4 0.7 12.0 3.0㛳 8.4 0.9** 3.8 2.0 5.1 1.0
Lost Medicaid, other 17.7 3.2‡ 11.6 0.8 21.5 4.1†㛳 13.0 0.9# 8.3 3.2 8.4 1.5 Insurance company refused 4.0 1.6‡ 0.9 0.3 2.4 1.8 0.8 0.4 8.1 3.8‡ 1.1 0.4 Employer doesn’t offer, not eligible 7.1 2.2 7.6 0.7 7.1 2.6 7.5 0.7 7.0 4.0 7.6 1.2 Source: authors’ analysis of 2000 –2001 NHIS.
CSHCN significantly different from children without special health care needs: *Pⱕ.01, † .01⬍Pⱕ.05, ‡ .05⬍Pⱕ.10. Low-income significantly different from higher-income CSHCN: §Pⱕ.01,㛳.01⬍Pⱕ.05, ¶ .05⬍Pⱕ.10.
among CSHCN, there is still a residual group of uninsured low-income CSHCN. The key explanation cited for why children are uninsured is the cost of insurance, yet expansions to public insurance eligi-bility through implementation of SCHIP in the past 4 years have extended eligibility for this very low cost insurance to most of these uninsured children.21
States have taken substantial measures to inform and enroll children who are eligible for SCHIP generally. It may be that outreach efforts are not reaching CSHCN and/or that health plans that participate in the outreach efforts are particularly reluctant to en-roll them. Policy makers may need to design special outreach approaches to identify and enroll CSHCN. The distribution of insurance coverage for CSHCN in this study is similar qualitatively to estimates from 1994. The estimates of public coverage are actually close (29.8% vs earlier estimates ranging from 27.6% to 32.6%, although the high estimate is not fully comparable because it includes military coverage and Medicare). This analysis finds a higher propor-tion of children with private insurance than the other studies2–4and fewer uninsured (8.1% in this analysis
compared with between 11.2% and 14% in the 1994 studies). The differences may stem from differences in the population of CSHCN identified. For example, the definition used by Heck and Makuc4was more
restrictive than the current definition, identifying only 7.5% of children as having special health care needs, compared with 12% for the definition applied in this study. Although there are likely to be broad overlaps in the types of children identified in the 4 analyses, there may also be differences that explain the different rates of private coverage and uninsur-ance in the previous analyses.
Alternatively, the higher estimates of private cov-erage and lower rates of uninsurance are consistent with the significant changes in the economic and policy environment for health insurance in 2000/ 2001 compared with 1994/1995 and are comparable to trends identified for all children.22Improvements
in the economy between these 2 periods reduced the proportion of children who live in poverty and in-creased the proportion of children with working par-ents.23Implementation of welfare reform also led to
dramatic reductions in cash assistance case loads that were linked to declines in Medicaid enrollment for children generally.24 It is likely that CSHCN were
affected to a lesser degree by the changes in Medic-aid eligibility and participation, because their par-ents had strong incentive to maintain coverage for their children, but it is likely that some families with CSHCN were affected. Declines in employment rates during 2002 and 2003 may have reversed the gains in employment-related insurance coverage suggested by these estimates from 2000 and 2001. Likewise, states have started to retrench on public insurance eligibility, although the initial changes have focused more on adults than children. The estimates pre-sented in this article, as with all other estimates that are sensitive to changing economic and policy envi-ronments, must be viewed as snapshots in time.
Given the importance of public coverage to CSHCN, potentially the most important policy
change was passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the implementation of SCHIP. SCHIP es-sentially allowed states to extend the public insur-ance safety net to children at even higher incomes by expanding existing Medicaid programs or creating new freestanding programs that operated more like private insurance. During the past 5 years, all states have implemented some type of SCHIP.25 Research
in progress will assess the effects that these SCHIP expansions have on insurance coverage and access to care for CSHCN.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by a grant from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Grant R40 MC 00292.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, The Urban Institute, or its funders.
I acknowledge the helpful comments of 2 anonymous review-ers, as well as Urban Institute colleagues Lisa Dubay, Ian Hill, and Genevieve Kenney. Jennifer Lesko and Alshadye Yemane pro-vided excellent programming assistance.
REFERENCES
1. Aday LA, Lee ES, Spears B, Chung CW, Youssef A, Bloom B. Health insurance and utilization of medical care for children with special health care needs.Med Care.1993;31:1013–1026
2. Newacheck PW, McManus M, Fox HB, Hung YY, Halfon N. Access to health care for children with special health care needs.Pediatrics.2000; 105:760 –766
3. Silver EJ, Stein REK. Access to care, unmet health needs, and poverty status among children with and without chronic conditions.Ambul
Pediatr.2001;1:314 –320
4. Heck KE, Makuc DM. Parental employment and health insurance cov-erage among school-aged children with special health care needs.Am J
Public Health.2000;90:1856 –1860
5. Davidoff A. Identifying children with special health care needs in the National Health Interview Survey: a new resource for policy analysis.
Health Serv Res.2004;39:53–71
6. Scanlon WJ. Children with disabilities: Medicaid can offer important benefits and services. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 2000 (Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, US Senate; Pub-lication GAO/HEHS-00-152)
7. Schneider A, Strohmeyer V, Ellberger R.Medicaid Eligibility for Individ-uals With Disabilities. Washington DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured; May 2000
8. Bruen BK, Wiener JM, Kim J, Miazad O.State Usage of Medicaid Options for Aged, Blind and Disabled People. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 1999 (Assessing the New Federalism Discussion Paper 99-09) 9. Fronstin P. Employment-based health benefits: who is offered coverage
vs. who takes it.Issue Brief.1999;(213):1–18
10. Garrett AB, Nichols L, Greenman E.Workers Without Health Insurance: Who Are They and How Can Policy Reach Them. Washington DC: The Urban Institute and the WK Kellogg Foundation; August 2001
11.Health Insurance for Children: Private Individual Coverage Available, but
Choices Can Be Limited and Costs Vary. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; August 1998 (Report GAO/HEHS-98-201) 12. Pollitz K, Sorian R, Thomas K.How Accessible Is Individual Health
Insur-ance for Consumers in Less-Than-Perfect Health?Washington, DC: Kaiser
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured; June 2001
13. Monheit AC, Schone BS, Taylor AK. Health insurance choices in two-worker households: determinants of double coverage.Inquiry.1999;36: 12–29
14. Hill I, Westpfahl Lutzky A, Schwalberg R.Are We Responding to Their Needs? States’ Early Experiences Serving Children With Special Health Care Needs Under SCHIP. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2001 (Assessing the New Federalism Occasional Paper No 48)
15. Newacheck PW, Stein REK, Walker DK, Gortmaker SL, Kuhlthau K, Perrin JM. Monitoring and evaluating managed care for children with chronic illness and disabilities.Pediatrics.1996;98:952–958
17. McPherson M, Arango P, Fox H, et al. A new definition of children with special health care needs.Pediatrics.1998;102:137–140
18. Bethell CD, Read D, Stein REK, Blumberg SJ, Wells N, Newacheck PW. Identifying children with special health needs: development and eval-uation of a short screening instrument.Ambul Pediatr.2002;2:38 – 48 19. Kalton G, Kasprzyk D. The treatment of missing survey data.Surv
Methodol.1986;12:1–16
20. Van Dyck PC, McPherson M, Strickland BB, et al. The national survey of children with special health care needs. Ambul Pediatr. 2002;2:29 –37
21. Dubay L, Haley J, Kenney G. Children’s Eligibility for Medicaid and
SCHIP: The View From 2000. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; March 2002 (Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief, Series B) 22. Holahan J, Dubay L, Kenney G. Which children are still uninsured and
why.Future Child.2003;13:55–75
23. Moore KA, Redd Z. Children in poverty: trends, consequences, and policy options. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Research Brief 2002-54. Available at: www.childtrends.org. Accessed July 21, 2003
24. Ellwood M, Ku L. Welfare and immigration reforms: unintended side effects for Medicaid.Health Aff.1998;17:137–151
25. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Available at: www.statehealthfacts.kff.org. Accessed July 22, 2003
OBESITY MACHINE?
“A new report was released suggesting that advertising contributes to childhood obesity. The report, by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, summarized exist-ing studies on obesity and the media like television, video games and movies that capture children’s attention. But critics like Gary Ruskin, executive director at Commercial Alert in Portland, Ore, said the Kaiser Foundation report did not go far enough. ‘The report reconfirms the obvious: that advertising to children works and that television is basically an obesity machine,’ Mr Ruskin said. The report failed to delve deeper into questions over issues like product placement, which children in particular may not recognize as marketing, he said. Worse, blaming parents for abdicating control over their children’s diets fails to recognize the extent of advertising and marketing surrounding families, Mr Ruskin said. ‘It’s time for these large junk food companies to stop injecting themselves in the relationship between parents and kids,’ he said.”
Ives N.New York Times. February 25, 2004
DOI: 10.1542/peds.114.2.394
2004;114;394
Pediatrics
Amy J. Davidoff
and Burden on Families to Provide Adequate Insurance
Insurance for Children With Special Health Care Needs: Patterns of Coverage
Services
Updated Information &
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/2/394
including high resolution figures, can be found at:
References
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/2/394#BIBL
This article cites 13 articles, 3 of which you can access for free at:
Subspecialty Collections
http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/billing_-_coding_sub
Billing & Coding
_management_sub
http://www.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/administration:practice
Administration/Practice Management following collection(s):
This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml
in its entirety can be found online at:
Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or
Reprints
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml
DOI: 10.1542/peds.114.2.394
2004;114;394
Pediatrics
Amy J. Davidoff
and Burden on Families to Provide Adequate Insurance
Insurance for Children With Special Health Care Needs: Patterns of Coverage
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/2/394
located on the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397.
