Underinsurance Among Children in the United States

OBJECTIVES: We describe the change in the percentage of children lacking continuous and adequate health insurance (underinsurance) from 2016 to 2019. We also examine the relationships between child health complexity and insurance type with underinsurance. METHODS: Secondary analysis of US children in the National Survey of Children’s Health combined 2016–2019 dataset who had continuous and adequate health insurance. We calculated differences in point estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to describe changes in our outcomes over the study period. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and examined relationships between child health complexity and insurance type with underinsurance. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, the proportion of US children experiencing underinsurance rose from 30.6% to 34.0% (+3.4%; 95% CI, +1.9% to +4.9%), an additional 2.4 million children. This trend was driven by rising insurance inadequacy (24.8% to 27.9% [+3.1%; 95% CI, +1.7% to +4.5%]), which was mainly experienced as unreasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses. Although the estimate of children lacking continuous insurance coverage rose from 8.1% to 8.7% (+0.6%), it was not significant at the 95% CI (−0.5% to +1.7%). We observed significant growth in underinsurance among White and multiracial children, children living in households with income ≥200% of the federal poverty limit, and those with private health insurance. Increased child health complexity and private insurance were significantly associated with experiencing underinsurance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9 and 3.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Underinsurance is increasing among US children because of rising inadequacy. Reforms to the child health insurance system are necessary to curb this problem.

Health

This chapter addresses the issue of health care for low-income people. The United States, virtually alone among developed nations, does not offer universal access to health care, leaving many millions of individuals without health insurance or other means of obtaining necessary medical services. In 2010, Congress enacted the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)—popularly known as “Obamacare”—marking an important but incomplete response to the nation’s health care crisis. This chapter examines the ACA in detail, including its impact on Medicaid and Medicare, the major government health programs in the United States, its creation of Health Insurance Exchanges and tax credits to help low-income households obtain private health coverage, and the reform of private health insurance markets through a patient’s bill of rights, which, among other measures, prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage for preexisting medical conditions. Perhaps the most critical aspect of the ACA was its expansion of Medicaid to cover virtually all low-income citizens (and certain immigrants) who do not qualify for other health coverage. Although several states opted out of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, the Medicaid program nevertheless remains the largest single provider of health coverage in the United States. This chapter also provides a detailed description of Medicaid, its eligibility criteria and scope of coverage; the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a government-funded health insurance program for children in households with too much income to qualify for Medicaid; and Medicare, the federal health insurance program for aged, blind, and disabled individuals.

Cognition and the Crisis of Citizenship and Care

The American struggle over healthcare policy is emblematic of the larger crisis of citizenship and national identity. We have a crisis at the structural, policy level, but the problem also goes deep into our moral lives as individuals and commitments as a society. We struggle to come to a workable consensus about why and how we should provide healthcare, and for whom. Who belongs in our circle of care, and what are our commitments to one anothers’ wellbeing? This identity crisis is spinning out into a breakdown of institutional structures and even loss of caring practices. As a Christian ethicist interested in how moral discourse works, my central concern is this: Why are so many American Christians speaking and legislating against health care programs - the Affordable Care Act, but even also Child Health Insurance Program, which covered children? They are using Bible verses to anchor and justify their policy stances. The American health care reform fight is a crisis of citizenship and national identity, but it is also a crisis of Christian mission and witness. A policy statement given by a conservative congressman is used as a test case with which to display how two experts on language could help us understand conservative Christian thinking on healthcare. Charles Taylor reflects as a philosopher on how “the politics of bringing about care” expresses our deepest commitments and our struggle with the impersonal forces of modernity. Charles Fillmore offers models for understanding how thought and language are linked and systematically structured, framed. There are alternatives to conservative ways of framing healthcare, ways that are arguably more coherent and more in keeping with biblical calls to love of neighbor and to building communities of the beloved.

The state of American health care: November 2016 to November 2020, a look forward

The election of Donald Trump, coupled with the retention of Republican majorities in the US House of Representatives and Senate, raises questions about future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the structure and funding of the country’s public health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid and the Child Health Insurance Program – and the direction of health policy in the United States, more generally. Political scientists are not renowned for their capacity to predict the future and many of those who forecast election results have received criticism in recent weeks for failing to predict the Trump victory. While the future is uncertain, it is possible for social scientists to offer a ‘conditional causal analysis’ about the future. This essay is an effort to think about the likely shape of American health care between now and the next US presidential election.