SPECIAL
ARTICLES
Medically
Uninsured
Children
in the United
States:
A Challenge
to Public
Policy
Charles
N. Oberg,
MD, FAAP
From the Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota and the Department of Pediatrics, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
ABSTRACT. This article is an examination of the nature
and extent of the problem presented by medically unin-sured children in the United States. First, the
character-istics of the uninsured population are explored with a
description of how age, family income, and employment status disproportionately affect families with children. Second, the Medicaid program and its historically
mad-equate response to this growing problem of uninsured
children is examined. Third, the relationship between
insurance status and the health and development of children is discussed. Finally, recent public policy initia-tives that have been enacted or proposed to address this inequity in the present health care system are reviewed with a recommendation to establish a “Universal Mater-nal and Child Health Program.” Pediatrics 1990;85:824-833; Uninsured, Medicaid, low birth weight, universal access.
As we proceed into the 1990s we are faced with a
health care trend which is affecting an increasing
proportion of children in the United States. It is
estimated that there are over 37 million Americans
who lack health insurance coverage, and children
represent the largest segment of the uninsured pop-ulation.1 This article is an examination of the na-ture and extent of the problem presented by medi-cally uninsured children. The characteristics of the uninsured population are discussed with a descrip-tion of how age, family income, and employment status disproportionately affect families with
chil-dren resulting in their overrepresentation among
the uninsured. The Medicaid program, or Title
XIX
of the Social Security Act, and its historically
in-Received for publication Jan 27, 1989; accepted Jul 10, 1989. Reprint requests to (C. N. 0.) Dept of Pediatrics, Hennepin County Medical Center, 701 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415.
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 0031 4005). Copyright © 1990 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
adequate response to this growing problem is ex-amined and the relationship between insurance sta-tus and children’s health and development is dis-cussed. Finally, recent public policy initiatives that
have been either enacted or proposed to address
this inequity in the health care system are reviewed.
The article concludes with a recommendation
call-ing for the establishment of a “Universal Maternal
and Child Health Program” to assure access to this vulnerable population.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MEDICALLY
UNINSURED
The number of uninsured Americans has
in-creased an estimated 30% during the past decade.2
The uninsured are not a homogenous group of
individuals, but rather a diverse population that is becoming increasingly alienated and disenfran-chised from the health care system. This section is
an exploration of the key factors that characterize
the uninsured, specifically age, income, and em-ployment status.
The age distribution of the uninsured demon-strates the inequity faced by children. It is esti-mated that the largest segment of the uninsured population are the 12.2 million children less than
18 years of age.3 Another 7 million children may be insured for only part of the year.4 If the age limit is
extended to include young adults, more than 56% of the uninsured are under 24 years of age.5
Inequi-ties in coverage are particularly evident for children
between the ages of 0 and 2 years and for adoles-cents and young adults aged 18 to 24 years.4 The
lack of insurance among 18- to 24-year-olds is of
particular concern for young women in need of maternity care. Quality comprehensive prenatal
care is becoming less accessible to a large and
growing proportion of women because they lack
Whereas the uninsured rate for the general popu-lation is 17%, it
is estimated
that three women in five (59%) 15 to 19 years old and one third of women20 to 24 years old have no insurance for maternity care during these prime childbearing years.8 The
issue of inadequate access to prenatal care during this age period is critical, because it may result in increased neonatal morbidity and mortality.
Income is another key demographic variable that provides information on the uninsured and the relationship between health insurance and families
with children. Before 1965 and the creation of Med-icaid, access to health insurance was best charac-terized as a linear function with increasing family
income assuring a greater likelihood of health
in-surance coverage.7 That pattern of availability,
however, has changed. The poorest poor are at least partially covered by Medicaid. In addition, the fi-nancially secure families of the middle- and upper-income strata typically have an employer-subsi-dized health care plan or individually financed health coverage. However, there is a large segment of the population who are poor or near poor who
lack health insurance coverage.
Americans living below the federal poverty level still represent the largest segment of the uninsured, accounting for 12.6 million or 35.6% of uncovered persons.8 Because children account for the largest segment ofall Americans in poverty (40%), the link between income and health insurance coverage for children is particularly significant.8 If all families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level are included, close to 65% of all uninsured persons can be accounted for. Being uninsured, however, is not solely a low-income phenomenon; the income of 35% of the uninsured is above 200%
of the poverty threshold.8
Private health insurance coverage obtained through employment is by far the most common source of health insurance. In 1985, two thirds of all those under age 65 and 75.9% of all workers
received their health coverage through
employ-ment.’#{176} Therefore, any major disruption in the workforce environment is likely to have
ramifica-tions on access to health care benefits unless alter-natives are available. Several significant events and trends since 1980 have affected directly the availa-bility of health care coverage in the workplace.
The slow erosion of employer-based health care
coverage began with the severe recession of 1981 to
1982 and the substantial loss of employment-re-lated health benefits. The United States
Congres-sional Budget Office estimated that, of the 12
mil-lion persons out of work in December 1982, about
5.3
million had lost coverage under an employer-based health plan. If dependents were included, anestimated 10.7 million joined the ranks of the un-insured because of lost employment.”
Since the recession, the United States has expe-rienced a prolonged recovery spanning two admin-istrations. However, the growth in jobs has occurred primarily in the service industries, such as retail trade and personal services, which have much lower rates of health insurance coverage than industries
such as mining and manufacturing. The latter in-dustries have had very limited growth in jobs since
1981 to 1982. While there are approximately twice as many workers in the high-coverage industries as in the low-coverage industries, employment growth during the recovery has been four times faster in the low-coverage industries, thereby increasing the number of uninsured.12
The 1981 to 1982 recession also changed employ-ers’ attitudes toward health insurance as a fringe benefit. The combination of the aftermath of the recession and the continued escalation of health care costs led employers to reduce offered benefits, typically by increasing the workers’ cost-sharing requirements. This has led to a reduction in family
or dependent coverage. Between 1980 and 1986, the
proportion ofemployees in medium- and large-sized
firms receiving the full cost for family coverage
declined to 35%, down from 51% in 1981.’ An
increase in the number of indirectly uninsured
chil-then, where the adult worker is covered and the
children
are not,
is a serious
problem.
Almost
87% of all medically uninsured children were in families in which at least one member was employed. In addition, 53% of uninsured children lived in fami-lies where a parent was employed full-time, full-year, and over 43% of these parents where covered by an employer-based health plan.’4Finally, many children are underinsured. Current health insurance coverage frequently provides for only major medical and catastrophic coverage. That
is, they will pay for the child if he or she is acutely ill, but may not cover recommended well-child care visits during which growth and development are
monitored and children receive routine
immuniza-tion. In addition, in some cases preventive care may
be covered, but deductibles are so high that parents defer such care because they are unable to pay the cost-sharing requirements. It has been demon-strated that the higher the cost-sharing require-ments for families, the greater the reduction in
ambulatory care for children of all ages, especially
among low-income families.’5
MEDICAID:
AN INADEQUATE
RESPONSE
FOR
CHILDREN
to health care for low-income people. Enacted in
1965,
it mandated the creation of a jointly funded federal-state partnership to help eliminate the fi-nancial barriers to medical care for the poor. The federal government matches state expenditures based on a formula using a state’s per capita in-come. This federal contribution ranges from 50%to 78%.16 States, however, have a great deal of latitude and flexibility in setting Medicaid policies, which results in substantial state-by-state
varia-tions in the benefits and reimbursement rates of
the Medicaid program. This section is an
exami-nation the Medicaid program in terms of eligibility, expenditures, and its historical inability to cover all poor children.
Medicaid was initially envisioned as a small pro-gram designed to consolidate several smaller cate-gorical grant programs. However, in the first year of operation, the combined federal and state outlays
reached $1.5 billion. By 1975, outlays had increased
to $12 billion. In 1989, Medicaid expenditures are expected to exceed $58 billion for 25 million
recip-ients.17 The two major groups entitled to Medicaid benefits are those who receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children and persons on Supplemental Security Income. Supplemental Security Income is
for low-income individuals who are aged, blind, and/or disabled. Medicaid has grown tremendously
since its inception in terms of expenditures, enroll-ment, and expansion of benefits. In 1967, the Early
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment
pro-gram was enacted to provide preventive screening
and health services for children receiving Medicaid
benefits. The next major change came with the passage ofthe Social Security Amendments of 1972. These amendments federalized the Supplemental Security Income program, establishing national standards for Supplemental Security Income ben-efits for low-income, aged, and disabled persons, but allowed the continued state-by-state variations that characterize the Aid to Families with Depend-ent Children program. This statutory change dis-rupted the equilibrium between the two eligible groups and has had an impact on the subsequent
growth of the Medicaid program.’8
A trend analysis of Medicaid expenditures for Aid to Families with Dependent Children children
vs Supplemental Security Income recipients from 1972 to 1987 is shown in Table 1. In 1972, 18.1%
of Medicaid expenditures went to Aid to Families with Dependent Children children under 21 years
of age. By 1984, this percentage declined to 11.7%
and recently increased slightly to 12.3%. The share used by the Supplemental Security Income
popu-lation, on the other hand, increased from 52.8% in 1972 to 73.0% in 1987.19 These two divergent trends
exemplify the shift in direction for the Medicaid
program following the passage of the Social
Secu-rity Amendments of 1972. Although Medicaid was
enacted to finance and improve access to health care for the poor, it has developed into the largest public funder of long-term care for the elderly.
TABLE 1. Medicaid Expenditure for Children Receiving Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) vs Recipients of Supplemental Security Income (551) for the Years 1972
to 1987 (Expenditures in Millions of Dollars)*
Years Total AFDC Children <21 y 551 Recipients
E:nthtures Expenditures % of Expenditures % of
Total Total
1972 6 300 1 139 18.1 3 324 52.8
1973 8639 1426 16.5 5315 61.5
1974 9983 1694 17.0 6159 61.7
1975 12 242 2 186 17.9 7 503 61.3
1976 14091 2431 17.3 8830 62.7
1977 16239 2610 16.1 10382 63.9
1978 17992 2748 15.3 11929 66.3
1979 20472 2884 14.1 13928 68.0
1980 23311 3123 13.4 16360 70.2
1981 27204 3508 12.9 19381 71.2
1982 29 399 3 473 11.8 21 144 71.9
1983 32391 3836 11.8 23321 72.0
1984 33895 3979 11.7 24795 73.2
1985 37508 4412 11.8 27548 73.4
1986 40872 5096 12.5 29943 73.3
1987 45170 5536 12.3 32963 73.0
When nursing home care is needed, the elderly “spend down” to a level of poverty so as to qualify
for Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid.
The inadequacy of coverage by Medicare and pri-vate insurance for long-term care services forces
many older Americans onto Medicaid. This shift of funds toward the aged and disabled has contributed
to the erosion of Medicaid coverage for uninsured
children in poverty.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
exam-med the extent to which Medicaid was able to provide coverage for individuals whose income is
below or near the poverty level. The program
reached its peak in 1975 when 63% of low-income individuals were covered by Medicaid. By 1985, the program served less than half (46%) of those living
in or near poverty.20 In addition, the proportion of poor children who actually receive Medicaid bene-fits declined 18% from 1980 to 1983.21 In 1984, the
10 states with the lowest Aid to Families with Dependent Children income levels covered only
38% of their children living below the poverty threshold.22 The states’ failure to increase income eligibility ceilings to deal with inflation caused coy-erage for poor families to decline. The average state
Aid to Families with Dependent Children eligibility
threshold used for Medicaid fell from 71% of pov-erty in 1975 to 48% in 1986.23 This retrenchment was accentuated in the early 1980s under the Rea-gan Administration and the passage of Public Law 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. The Ominbus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 mandated reductions in the federal Medicaid match to states for a 3-year period.24 The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 also modified
provisions of the “work incentive” program within
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children pro-gram, which eliminated close to half a million work-ing families and 700 000 children from the Medicaid
program and expanded the ranks ofthe uninsured.25 In summary, this inability to cover low-income
families and children has been due to the shift of Medicaid to long-term care services, governmental efforts to constrain programmatic costs, and the persistent inequity found in state-by-state varia-tions in eligibility standards.
CORRELATES
TO CHILDREN’S
HEALTH
AND
DEVELOPMENT
Financial access to care correlates with the uti-lization of health services. This section is an explo-ration of how this relates to the health and well-being of infants and children. In that regard, both uninsured women in need of prenatal care and uninsured children are discussed. The difficulties
faced by each group in obtaining care potentially affect the overall growth and development of
chil-dren.
The birth of a healthy infant is associated with
early and appropriate prenatal care. A recent Insti-tute of Medicine report on the prevention of low-birth-weight infants indicated that prenatal care was particularly beneficial to socioeconomically and
medically high-risk women.26 The Institute of Med-icine study also noted, however, that the proportion
of women receiving inadequate prenatal care stopped decreasing and, in fact, recently increased.
The United States Government Accounting Office
recently conducted a survey of 1157 women in 32 communities from eight states and examined the use of prenatal care by Medicaid recipients and
uninsured women. The results demonstrated that 63% of these women obtained insufficient prenatal
care, and that most of the women in that group were uninsured, young, poorly educated, and from
a minority background.27
The consequences of inadequate prenatal care may be profound, with a direct relationship to an increased incidence of low-birth-weight infants and
perinatal and infant mortality. The Infant
Mortal-ity Rate remains a serious problem in the United States. This country made significant progress in reducing infant deaths over the 30-year span from 1950 to 1980. However, it appears that the
subse-quent rate of decline in the 1980s has been dis-tinctly slower than that of the 19705.28 In addition to this slowing of the aggregate national rate, a
number of states and cities have experienced an increase in their overall and ethnic-specific
mortal-ity rates. In 1985, the Infant Mortality Rate among whites actually increased in 19 states, and the In-fant Mortality Rate among blacks increased in 12 states.29 Data from the National Center for Health Statistics revealed that 15% ofthe 54 largest United States cities experienced an increase in infant mor-tality for all races from 1979 through 1984, and 35% reported higher nonwhite rates.3#{176}The Chil-dren’s Defense Fund recently reported that the international standing of the United States for
infant mortality had declined to where the United States was now tied for last place among 20 other
industrialized nations.31
Low birth weight is a major determinant of infant
mortality. A low-birth-weight infant is almost 40 times more likely to die in the first 4 weeks of life as a normal-birth-weight infant, and two thirds of all deaths during the first month are attributable to low birth weight.26 Researchers recently demon-strated a sixfold increase in the risk of low birth
weight associated with financial problems during
eth-nicity, health habits, and complication of preg-nancy.32 The presence of low birth weight, in addi-tion to increasing the risk of mortality, can have major consequences for those who survive. These infants appear to be at increased risk of serious illness, developmental disorders, and life-long handicapping conditions. Birth defects, mental
re-tardation, seizure disorders, and cerebral palsy are
more prevalent among these infants.33 The most
distressing fact is that low birth weight and its consequence for infant mortality and health is largely a preventable disorder. According to the
Department of Health and Human Services, with
adequate risk assessment, 80% of women at risk of having a low-birth-weight baby can be identified at
the first prenatal visit, and intervention can be started to reduce the risk.27
Medically uninsured children also face barriers to health care services that may affect their overall
health and development. An analysis of physician visits revealed that the uninsured had 15% fewer physician visits than privately insured individuals
and 33% fewer than Medicaid recipients.34 In
ad-dition, according to the 1977 National Medical Care
Expenditure Survey, the uninsured had 50% fewer
physician visits and hospital days than did full-year
Medicaid recipients.35
The 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and
Expenditure Survey revealed similar results.
In-sured children averaged 1.3 more physician visits
than the uninsured and incurred more than twice the total medical charges.36 This persistent differ-entiation in the availability of services is also seen in preventive services. Uninsured children received
fewer childhood immunizations than those with a
public and/or private source of coverage.37 The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation prepared a
se-ries of special reports investigating access to medi-cal care during the past decade. Its 1986 report
states that despite rapid changes in the health care system, the plight of those traditionally under-served, such as poor uninsured children, may have worsened since the last survey in 1982. The report investigated ambulatory visits as a key indicator of access to care, and the poor, despite their worse
health and their greater likelihood of having a
chronic or serious illness, fared worse than the more affluent. While the number of ambulatory visits has declined for both insured and uninsured persons, the gap has widened. In 1982, the insured had 4.7 and the uninsured had 3.8 ambulatory visits. The
insured in 1986 had 4.4 visits and the uninsured had 3.2. In addition, it was estimated that over a million families were refused or did not seek care
because of an inability to pay.38
This inadequate access to health-related services
for uninsured children may contribute to poor health outcomes in later childhood and adolescence. Although researchers have had difficulty establish-ing the predictive value of the frequency of well-child visits on better health outcomes, the efficacy of preventive care becomes evident when specific aspects of such visits are examined. The data are particularly clear for immunizations, good nutri-tion, and various forms of other early childhood screening; for example, vision and hearing, lead poisoning, and iron-deficiency anemia.3#{176} Each of these aspects of well-child visits has also been shown to have an impact on subsequent health,
development, cognitive functioning, and school
achievement. Furthermore, certain health condi-tions make a statistically significant contribution to explaining variations in school performance and cognitive functioning. Low birth weight, poor hear-ing, uncorrected or poor vision, and school absences because of illness are among the major correlates of below-average achievement and IQ.4#{176}
Low-in-come children also have a greater prevalence of
iron-deficiency anemia, lead poisoning, recurrent
infections, and school absence.41 Lead poisoning is
a particularly insidious problem. Low to moderately elevated lead levels, which clinically are frequently
asymptomatic, can exert significant and lasting ef-fects on cognitive ability. A recent study showed that such levels affected motor skills, memory,
con-centration, language development, and spatial
func-tioning.42 Lead poisoning may in part be linked to
poor access to health care services and the absence of early detection.
A
number of preventive expenditures have beenshown to be dramatically cost-effective.
Further-more, these savings from the additional costs for more intense medical services or developmental
interventions can be considered proxies for
im-proved health and developmental outcomes for chil-dren. The United States House of Representative’s
Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families
released a report on the cost-effectiveness of se-lected preventive programs for children.43 The re-port estimated that for every dollar spent on quality prenatal care, over $3 can be saved by reducing the number of low-birth-weight infants. The
cost-effec-tiveness of childhood immunizations is also clear.
For every dollar spent on the Childhood Immuni-zation Program, over $10 is saved in future medical
costs. A Centers for Disease Centers Control study
revealed that the $180 million spent on measles
vaccination saved $1.3 billion in acute medical and
long-term care by reducing hearing impairment and
mental retardation.43 Yet because of inadequate
ac-cess to care and reductions in funding for the
TABLE 2. Medically Uninsured Children in the United States
Legislative Initiatives Medicaid Eligibility Changes
(CHAP Amendments)
*DEFRA, Deficit Reduction Act; CHAP, Child Health Assurance Program; COBRA,
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent
Children; SOBRA, Sixth Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; OBRA87, Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987.
increase in the reported cases of measles, mumps, and pertussis and a decrease in the number of fully immunized children between 1981 and 1985.
Despite the documentation of decreased utiliza-tion and the increased prevalence of poor health
indices among poor and uninsured children, re-search has been equivocal on the benefits of well child visits on health outcomes. In fact, the Rand Insurance Study failed to show a relationship
be-tween the availability and utilization of medical care services to improved health outcomes for
chil-dren.451t is therefore critical that research on access
and health outcomes continue to better delineate the relationship between these various parameters.
RECENT PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES
Numerous public policy initiatives have
at-tempted to address the inadequate financial access
to care for the uninsured. Some of these proposals
address the entire uninsured population, while
oth-ers have targeted high-risk populations that appear most vulnerable, such as expectant mothers, in-fants, and young children. Some proposals have
called for the creation of new federal and state programs; others have attempted to broaden the
scope of the existing health care system by expand-ing employer-sponsored health care. In addition, the recent incremental expansion of the Medicaid
program could extend coverage to more low-income
families and children and shrink the pool of the uninsured. This section is an examination of recent
Medicaid changes which should reduce the number of uninsured children as well as major legislative
proposals introduced to address the problem of the uninsured.
Medicaid
Expansion
for Uncovered
Women.
Infants and Children
As previously noted, recent changes in the
Med-icaid program directly affect uninsured women and children. Despite significant budgetary difficulties faced by this nation and the continued need to find
domestic savings, Medicaid has not only been
pro-tected from further cuts but has been expanded to
reach a larger portion of uninsured women and
children. Table 2 provides a brief summary of the
DEFRA* 1984
COBRA 1985
SOBRA 1986
OBRA87
1987Medicare Catastrophic
1988
Family Support Act 1988
OBRA89 1989
Mandates expansion to include first time
pregnant women and women in two-parent families.
Mandates coverage for all children aged 0-5 meeting state financial eligibility critiera.
Financial eligibility standards remain unchanged and vary state by state based on AFDC eligibility.
States may increase coverage for
preg-nant women and children up to 5 y of age with family incomes less than 100% federal poverty level.
States may provide coverage to pregnant
women and infants with family in-comes up to 185% of federal poverty
level.
Expansion of CHAP Amendments to
in-dude children up to 8 y of age.
Mandates cover age of pregnant women and infants with family incomes less than 100% of federal poverty level.
Mandates Medicaid coverage for 6 mo
for working families leaving AFDC.
Allows states an additional 6-mo
ex-tension of benefits.
Mandates coverage of all pregnant and
children under 6 y of age with family incomes less than 133% of the federal
recent changes in the Medicaid program which have loosened categorical and financial eligibility
re-quirements. Toward the end of the 98th Congress,
Public Law 98-356, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, was enacted and contained certain provisions called “The Child Health Assurance Program”.46 The Child Health Assurance Program altered Med-icaid’s eligibility criteria to include a larger number
of women in need of prenatal care services. It
expanded coverage to include first-time pregnant
women and pregnant women from two-parent
households in which the main wage earner is un-employed. The Deficit Reduction Act also extended
Medicaid coverage to all children less than 5 years
of age born after October 31, 1983, whose family income falls below the state’s income eligibility floor. The Child Health Assurance Program
amend-ments were completed by Public Law 99-272, the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1985, which extended coverage to the last group of low-income expectant mothers: those pregnant women in families where the parents may be
work-ing but whose income is insufficient to raise the family income above the state’s asset and income
requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children eligibility.47
In the 99th Congress, Public Law 99-509, the
Sixth Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 was passed. It gave the states the option to raise eligibility to 100% of the federal poverty level for
this vulnerable group of expectant mothers, infants,
and children less than 5 years of age. This effort was an attempt to federalize partially the Aid to Families with Dependent Children portion of the Medicaid program to reduce state-by-state varia-tions. The National Governors’ Association
esti-mates that as of January 1, 1988, 24 states had
opted this 48 program expansion.
The 100th Congress produced three major legis-lative initiatives that would allow states to continue to separate Aid to Families with Dependent Chil-then from Medicaid eligibility and would extend care to a large number of families who make up a significant portion of the uninsured. First, Public Law 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, provided Medicaid benefits to addi-tional working poor families. It permitted states the option of expanding Medicaid coverage to the large number of uninsured pregnant women and infants whose family income falls between 100% and 185% of the federal poverty level. This bill would also accelerate the phase-in for children who were ex-tended care in the previous bills and would include children through 8 years of age.49 The Children’s Defense Fund recently estimated that full imple-mentation of Sixth Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act and Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act of 1987 by all states could reduce the number of uninsured
pregnant women and infants by two thirds, and the number of uninsured children aged 1 to 8 years by one third.5#{176}Secondly, Public Law 100-360, the re-cently passed Medicare Catastrophic legislation
contained Medicaid provisions that mandated
states to cover all pregnant women and infants less
than one with income less than 100% of poverty.5’ Finally, Public Law 100-435, the Family Support Act of 1988 passed at the close of the 100th
Con-gress enacting major welfare reform. One provision
addresses the issue of working poor families making the transition from welfare to self-sufficiency. The law mandates an extension of Medicaid coverage
for a minimum of 6 months following the loss of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits due to employment and allows states to provide benefits for an additional 6 months.52 This Medic-aid extension is considered a vital component of welfare reform and the need to address the insuffi-cient health coverage of working poor families. This
effort to decouple Medicaid from the welfare system
continues with Medicaid expansion proposals in
the 101st Congress. Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) and John Chafee (R-RI) introduced 5.1201 which would mandate states to cover any pregnant women and children up to age 6 years in families with incomes below 185% of the federal poverty level. It
is estimated that the expansion would ensure
300 000 pregnant women and 2.5 million children.53
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
increased coverage for this group up to 133% of the
poverty threshold.
Expansion
of Private
Sector
Alternatives
“The Basic Health Benefits for All Americans Act,” was first introduced in 1987, by Senator Ken-nedy (D-MA) and would require companies to offer a minimum level of health benefits to their employ-ees.54 This legislation was crafted to use the present
health care system in which 75% of Americans
Small businesses are strongly opposed and feel that
the cost of providing coverage to all workers is prohibitive and that it is unreasonable to expect small businesses to provide the same coverage as
medium and large firms. Somewhat surprisingly, a
number of large employers have provided their
sup-port; they contend that larger employers with
health care coverage pick up the costs of uninsured
workers when hospitals and providers pass costs
onto payers through higher charges to insured pa-tients. There is a growing sentiment among large employers that a minimum level of coverage should
be shared equitably by all employers. Although not
passed in the 100th Congress, the proposal was
reintroduced and will be debated vigorously in the 101st Congress.
The “Child Health Incentive Reform Plan” has
been introduced by Senator Chaffee (R-RI) in the past and was also reintroduced in the 101st
Con-gress. This legislation addresses the large number
of children who are underinsured. It would provide coverage for those children currently insured for acute illnesses and major medical expenses but not
for preventive well-child care. This bill would
re-quire all traditional insurers who offer dependent coverage to include comprehensive well-child care coverage at a reasonable cost with appropriate
cost-sharing requirements. This proposal with the strong support from the American Academy of Pe-diatrics has been enacted by seven states with sim-ilar legislation pending in several other states.56
CONCLUSION
The nature and extent of medically uninsured children provides us with a public policy challenge. How do we reverse the deleterious trends which
have resulted in the growing number of uncovered children? The public policy initiatives discussed
above provide the first step and acknowledge the realization that financial access to quality health care ought to be available to all Americans. In the near future new proposals will surface and they
must be examined, discussed, and analyzed. These will range from local and state initiatives to a
restructuring of how health care is delivered and
financed in the United States. This process has already begun. The Intergovernmental Health
Pol-icy Project estimates that, in 1988, 29 states and
the District of Columbia enacted measures designed
to extend care to selected segments of medically uninsured population.57 Several proposals have re-cently appeared in the medical literature which
advocate a fundamental restructuring of the health care in the United States in response to the growing number of uninsured persons.58’59 In addition, the
American Academy of Pediatrics has undertaken as a priority an active role in the development and formulation of a proposal which will hopefully re-duce or eliminate the problem of uninsured chil-dren.
The Presidential Commission for the Study of
Ethical Problems in Medicine concluded that,
“So-ciety has an ethical obligation to ensure equitable access to health care for all.”#{176}We must proceed to
broaden the scope of the present patchwork of
private and public programs and transform the
restrictive, categorical programs of the past toward
a “Universal Maternity and Child Health
Pro-gram.” This program must be universal to assure that women in need of maternity care and children
have equitable access to health services
independ-ent of age, income, family composition, and/or em-ployment status. Equitable access implies that
women and children are able to secure an adequate level of care without an excessive financial burden. Finally an adequate level of care will require coy-erage of not only acute and catastrophic services
but the full array of preventive services necessary to promote the growth and development of our children. This obligation must be met, and the
present inequity characterized by the dispropor-tionate representation of children among the
un-insured must be reversed and eliminated.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported, in part, by a grant from
Hennepin Faculty Associates, Minneapolis, MN Grant
P-951G.
The author would like to express gratitude to Becky
Westergren for manuscript editing and preparation.
REFERENCES
1. Short PF, Monheit A, Beauregard K. Uninsured Americans: A 1987 Profile. Rockville, MD: National Center for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Assessment; 1988
2. Health Insurance and the Uninsured: Background Data and
A nalysis. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress; May 1988
3. Chollet D. Uninsured in the United States: The Nonelderly Population Without Health Insurance, 1986. Washington, DC: Employee Benefit Research Institute; 1988
4. Committee on Child Health Financing, American Academy of Pediatrics. Financing health care for the medically mdi-gent child. Pediatrics. 1987;80:957-960
5. Sulvetta MB, Swartz K. The Uninsured and Uncompensated Care Chartbook. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum; June 1986:6
6. Gold RB, Kenney AM, Singh S. Paying for maternity care in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect. 1987;19:190-206 7. Aday LA, Anderson RM, Fleming GV. Health Care in the
United States-Equitable for Whom? Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE; 1980
8. Sulvetta MB, Swartz K. The Uninsured and Uncompensated
Forum; 1986:7
9. Income and Poverty Status in the United States: 1987. Wash-ington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1988:8. US Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 161.
10. A Profile of the Non-elderly Population without Health Insurance. EBRI Issue Brief. No. 66. 1987:4
1 1. US Senate, Committee on Finance. Health Benefits: Loss
Due to Unemployment. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; April 1983:6
12. Public Policy Options to Expand Health Insurance Coverage among the Non-elderly Population. EBRI Issue Brief. No. 67. 1987:1-4
13. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee
Benefits in Medium and Large Firms 1986. Washington, DC:
US Government Printing Office; June 1987:31. Bulletin 2281.
14. Public and Private Issues in Financing Health Care for Children. EBRI Issue Brief. No. 79. 1988:7
15. Starfield B, Dutton D. Care, costs, and health: Reactions to and reinterpretation of the Rand findings. Pediatrics.
1985;76:614-621
16. Analysis of State Medicaid Program Characteristics: 1984. Health Care Financing Program Statistics. Baltimore, MD: Health Care Financing Administration, Office of Actuary; August 1985:6-36
17. The United States Budget in Brief FY 1989. Washington,
DC: Office of Management and Budget; February 1988:74 18. Oberg CN, Polich CL. Medicaid entering the third decade.
Health Aff 1988;7:83-96
19. Health Care Financing Administration, Office of the Actu-ary, Medicaid Statistics Branch. Historical Medicaid Table 7, FY 1972-84 and Medicaid State Table 8, FY 1985-87. 20. Blendon R, Aiken L, Freeman H, et al. Uncompensated care
by hospitals or public insurance for the poor: Does it make a difference? N EngI J Med. 1986;314:149-176
21. Burwell BO, Rymer MP. Trends in Medicaid eligibility, 1975-1985. Health Aff. 1987;6:30-45
22. Twenty Years of Medicaid. New York: McGraw-Hill Books; July 29, 1985:4. McGraw-Hill’s Medicaid & Health: Per-spectives.
23. Curtis R. The role of state governments in assuring access to care. Inquiry. 1986;23:277-285
24. O’Sullivan J. Medicare and Medicaid Provisions of the
Om-nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. P.L. 97-35. Septem-ber 1981:36-40. CongreSupplemental Security Incomeonal Research Service. Report No. 81-210 EPW.
25. An Evaluation of the 1981 Aid to Families with Dependent Children Chances: InitialAnalysis. April 2, 1984:3. US Gen-eral Accounting Office: GAO/PEMD 84-6.
26. Institute of Medicine. Preventing Low Birthweight.
Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985:24-31
27. US General Accounting Office. Prenatal Care: Medicaid
Recipients and Uninsured Women Obtain Insufficient Care.
1987:18. GAO/HRD 87-137.
28. Wegman ME. Annual Summary of Vital Statistics, 1987.
Pediatrics. 1988;82:817-827
29. Hughes D, Johnson K, Rosenbaum 5, et al. The Health of America ‘5Children. Maternal and Child Health Data Book.
1988. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund; 1988:20 30. Ducey S. Poor Infants, Poor Chances: A Longitudinal Study
of Progress Toward Reducing Low Birth Weight and Infant
Mortality in the United States and Its Largest Cities.
1979-1984. Washington, DC: Food Research and Action Center;
1987:5
31. Hughes D, Johnson K, Rosenbaum 5, et al. The Health of America’s Children. Maternal and Child Health Data Book.
1987. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund; 1987:8 32. Binsacca DB, Ellis J, Martin DG, et al. Factors associated
with low birthweight in an inner-city population: The role of financial problems. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:505-506 33. Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on Health
Promotion and Disease Prevention. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1979:24. US
Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare (Public Health Service) publication 79-55071.
34. Davis K, Gold M, Markus D. Access to health care for the poor. Does the gap remain? Annu Rev Public Health 1981;2:159-187
35. Wilenski GR, Berk ML. The health care of the poor and the role of Medicaid. Health Aff. 1982; Fall:94-100
36. Butler JA, Winter WD, Singer JD, et al. Medical care use and expenditures among children and youth in the United States: Analysis of a national probability sample. Pediatrics. 1985;76:495-507
37. Aday LA, Anderson RM. The national profile of access to medical care. Where do we stand? Am J Public Health. 1984;74:1331-1346
38. Access to Health Care in the United States: Results of a 1986
Survey. Princeton, NJ: The Robert Wood Johnson Foun-dation. 1987. Special Report No. 2.
39. Select Panel for the Promotion of Child Health. Better Health for Our Children: A National Strategy. 1: Major Findings and Recommendations. Washington DC: Govern-ment Printing Office. 1981.
40. Edwards LN, Grossman M The Relationship Between
Chil-dren ‘a Health and Intellectual Development. New York: Na-tional Bureau of Economic Research; 1977. National Bureau of Economic Research Reprint 213.
41. Butler JA, Starfield B, Stenmark S. Child health policy. In: Stevenson HW and Siegel AE, eds. Child Development Re-search and Social Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1984
42. Faust D, Brown J. Moderately elevated blood lead levels: Effects on neuropsychologic functioning in children.
Pedi-atrics. 1987;80:623-629
43. US House ofRepresentatives Select Committee on Children,
Youth and Families. Opportunities for Success: Cost Effective Programs for Children. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; August 14, 1985
44. Children, especially minority children, threatened by im-munization slump. CDF Reports. January 1988:1
45. Leibowitz A, Manning WG, Keeler EB, et al. Effect of cost sharing on the use of medical services by children: Interim results from a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics.
1985;75:942-951
46. US House of Representatives. The Deficit Reduction Act of
1984. Conference Report No. 98-861, Government Printing
Office 35-426 0, June 23, 1984:1359-1360
47. Congress approves COBRA Medicaid changes. State Health News. May 1986:8
48. Health Legislation and Regulation. New York: McGraw-Hill; September 2, 1987;13:2
49. US House of Representatives. The Omnibus Budget Recon-ciliation Act of 1987. Conference Report No. 100-495, Gov-ernment Printing Office 80-398, December 21, 1987:146-148
50. Children’s Defense Fund. Maternal and child health legis-lation enacted during the first session of the 100th Congress. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund Memorandum; January 19, 1988
51. US House of Representatives The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Conference Report No. 100-661. May 31, 1988:72-73
52. US House of Representatives: The Family Support Act of
1988. Conference Report No. 100-998. September 28, 1988:44-49
53. Congress pushes medicaid expansions. Medicine and Health.
June 26, 1989:3
54. Employee health coverage proposed: Bills renew focus of nation’s uninsured. Am Med News. April 28, 1989
55. Public Policy Options to Expand Health Insurance Coverage Among Non-elderly Population. EBRI Issue Brief. No. 67. 1987:18
56. Three states find varied success with CHIRP bills. AAP News. June 1989:1
Uni-versity; 1988:17. Intergovernmental Health Policy Project. 58. Himmelstein D, Woolhandler S. A national health program for the United States. A physician’s proposal. N EnglJ Med. 1989;320;102-108
59. Enthoven A, Kronick R. A consumer-choice health plan for the 1990’s. Universal health insurance in a system designed
to promote quality and economy. N EngI J Med.
1989:320;29-37
60. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
Se-curing Access to Health Care. 1983:1-223. Government Printing Office 418-180/1428.
CHEATING
IN SCHOOL
A 50-state study released in September by Friends for Education, an
Albu-querque, NM, school-research group, concluded that “outright cheating by
American educators” is “common.” The group says standardized achievement
test scores are greatly inflated because teachers often “teach the test”...
Evidence of widespread cheating has surfaced in several states in the last year or so. California’s education department suspects adult responsibility for
erasures at 40 schools that changed wrong answers to right ones on a statewide test. After numerous occurrences of questionable teacher help to students,
Texas is revising its security practices.
. . .sales of test-coaching booklets for classroom instruction are booming.
These materials, including Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Co.’s
Scoring High and Learning Materials-are nothing short of sophisticated crib sheets, according to some recent academic research. By using them,
teachers-with administrative blessing-telegraph to students beforehand the precise areas to which a test will concentrate, and sometimes give away a few exact
questions and answers. ...
Putka G. The Wall Street Journal. November 2, 1989.
“COMITTOLOGY”
(Pediatrics.
1 989;84:A1
18)
The European Commission that coined that word to describe its policy of
leaving decisions to the appropriate committees evidently forgot the definition
of a committee: A group of the inept, chosen from the unwilling, by the
incompetent, to do the impossible.