No insurance, public insurance, and private insurance: do these options contribute to differences in general health?
This paper examines the validity of two of the basic assumptions made about health care insurance and health, namely that having any insurance is associated with better health and, in particular, that having public, welfare-based insurance has better health consequences for the poor than does having no insurance. These questions were addressed using data from the National Medical Expenditure Survey, a national household-based survey in 1987 of more than 36,000 people who were asked to report in detail about their medical care use and expenditures, health insurance coverage, and health and functional status. The results of the analysis indicate that being without insurance is associated with having poorer general health compared to persons with private insurance, and that the health of persons who qualify for public insurance is the poorest of any group--poorer even than those without insurance.
Hahn
B
B
International Pharmacoeconomic Research, Glaxo Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Flood
A B
AB
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006304:Health Status; D006306:Health Surveys; D006801:Humans; D007348:Insurance, Health / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008297:Male; D008484:Medicaid / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008489:Medical Indigency / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017057:Medically Uninsured / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009017:Morbidity; D011203:Poverty / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012494:Sampling Studies; D012946:Social Welfare / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology