Health services research conducted over the past 25 years makes a compelling case that having health insurance or using more medical care would improve the health of the uninsured. The literature's broad range of conditions, populations, and methods makes it difficult to derive a precise quantitative estimate of the effect of having health insurance on the uninsured's health. Some mortality studies imply that a 4% to 5% reduction in the uninsured's mortality is a lower bound; other studies suggest that the reductions could be as high as 20% to 25%. Although all of the studies reviewed suffer from methodological flaws of varying degrees, there is substantial qualitative consistency across studies of different medical conditions conducted at different times and using different data sets and statistical methods. Corroborating process studies find that the uninsured receive fewer preventive and diagnostic services, tend to be more severely ill when diagnosed, and receive less therapeutic care. Other literature suggests that improving health status from fair or poor to very good or excellent would increase both work effort and annual earnings by approximately 15% to 20%.

Sicker and poorer--the consequences of being uninsured: a review of the research on the relationship between health insurance, medical care use, health, work, and income.

Objective This review evaluates the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies in reducing disparities in health and health care. Data sources We identified papers published in English between 1983 and 2011 from the MEDLINE® database, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Social Science Index, and PsycINFO. Review methods All abstracts and full-text articles were dually reviewed. Studies were eligible if they reported data on effectiveness of QI interventions on processes or health outcomes in the United States such that the impact on a health disparity could be measured. The review focused on the following clinical conditions: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, asthma, major depressive disorder, cystic fibrosis, pneumonia, pregnancy, and end-stage renal disease. It assessed health disparities associated with race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, insurance status, sexual orientation, health literacy/numeracy, and language barrier. We evaluated the risk of bias of individual studies and the overall strength of the body of evidence based on risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Results Nineteen papers, representing 14 primary research studies, met criteria for inclusion. All but one of the studies incorporated multiple components into their QI approach. Patient education was part of most interventions (12 of 14), although the specific approach differed substantially across the studies. Ten of the studies incorporated self-management; this would include, for example, teaching individuals with diabetes to check their blood sugar regularly. Most (8 of 14) included some sort of provider education, which may have focused on the clinical issue or on raising awareness about disparities affecting the target population. Studies evaluated the effect of these strategies on disparities in the prevention or treatment of breast or colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, depression, or diabetes. Overall, QI interventions were not shown to reduce disparities. Most studies have focused on racial or ethnic disparities, with some targeted interventions demonstrating greater effect in racial minorities--specifically, supporting individuals in tracking their blood pressure at home to reduce blood pressure and collaborative care to improve depression care. In one study, the effect of a language-concordant breast cancer screening intervention was helpful in promoting mammography in Spanish-speaking women. For some depression care outcomes, the collaborative care model was more effective in less-educated individuals than in those with more education and in women than in men. Conclusions The literature on QI interventions generally and their ability to improve health and health care is large. Whether those interventions are effective at reducing disparities remains unclear. This report should not be construed to assess the general effectiveness of QI in the health care setting; rather, QI has not been shown specifically to reduce known disparities in health care or health outcomes. In a few instances, some increased effect is seen in disadvantaged populations; these studies should be replicated and the interventions studied further as having potential to address disparities.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 3: quality improvement interventions to address health disparities).

http://directory.umm.ac.id/Data%20Elmu/jurnal/J-g/Journal%20of%20Health%20Economics/Vol19.Issue1.Jan2000/639.pdf

Did the Medicaid expansions for children displace private insurance? An analysis using the SIPP.

To describe income levels and the prevalence of major hardships among women during or just before pregnancy. We separately analyzed 2002–2006 population-based postpartum survey data from California’s Maternal and Infant Health Assessment (n = 18,332) and 19 states participating in CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (n = 143,452) to examine income and several hardships (divorce/separation, domestic violence, homelessness, financial difficulties, spouse/partner’s or respondent’s involuntary job loss or incarceration, and, in California only, food insecurity and no social support) during/just before pregnancy. In both samples, over 30% of women were poor (income ≤100% of federal poverty level [FPL]) and 20% near-poor (101–200% FPL); and around 60% of low-income (poor or near-poor) women experienced at least one hardship. While hardship prevalence decreased significantly as income increased, many non-low-income women also experienced hardships; e.g., in California, 43% of all women and 13% with incomes >400% FPL experienced one or more hardships. These findings paint a disturbing picture of experiences around the time of pregnancy in the United States for many women giving birth and their children, particularly because 60% had previous births. The high prevalence of low income and of serious hardships during pregnancy is of concern, given previous research documenting the adverse health consequences of these experiences and recognition of pregnancy as a critical period for health throughout the life course. Low income and major hardships around the time of pregnancy should be addressed as mainstream U.S. maternal-infant health and social policy issues.

Poverty, Near-Poverty, and Hardship Around the Time of Pregnancy

OBJECTIVE: To conduct the first national study that assesses whether the Medicaid expansions for pregnant women, legislated by Congress over a decade ago, met the policy objectives of improved access to care and birth outcomes for poor and near-poor women. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data on 8.1 million births using the 1980, 1986, and 1993 National Natality Files. We use births from all areas of the United States except California, Texas, Washington, and upstate New York. METHODS: We conduct a before and after analysis that compares obstetrical outcomes by race and socioeconomic status for the periods 1980-86 and 1986-93. We examine whether women of low socioeconomic status showed greater improvements in outcomes during the 1986-93 period compared to the 1980-86 period. We analyze two obstetrical outcomes: the rate of late initiation of prenatal care and the rate of low birth weight. DATA COLLECTION: Natality data were aggregated to race, socioeconomic status, age, and parity groups. RESULTS: During the 1986-93 period, rates of late initiation of prenatal care decreased by 6.0 to 7.8 percentage points beyond changes estimated for the 1980-86 period for both white and African American women of low socioeconomic status. For some white women of low socioeconomic status, the rate of low birth weight was reduced by 0.26 to 0.37 percentage points between 1986 and 1993 relative to the earlier period. Other white women of low socioeconomic status and all African American women of low socioeconomic status showed no relative improvement in the rate of low birth weight during the 1986-93 period. CONCLUSIONS: The expansions in Medicaid lead to significant improvements in prenatal care utilization among women of low socioeconomic status. The emerging lesson from the Medicaid expansions, however, is that increased access to primary care is not adequate if the goal is to narrow the gap in newborn health between poor and nonpoor populations.

Changes in prenatal care timing and low birth weight by race and socioeconomic status: implications for the Medicaid expansions for pregnant women.

Concern about high infant mortality and morbidity in the United States, combined with the erosion of private insurance coverage, sparked major expansions in the Medicaid program in the 1980s. This study examines how the Medicaid expansions for pregnant women affected access to prenatal care for low-income women through case studies conducted in four states early in 1991. Despite the significantly greater share of births covered by Medicaid in the period 1986 to 1991, the timely initiation of prenatal care improved in only one state. Although prenatal services increased in some areas, significant problems persisted in others. The growth in capacity of the prenatal care system was greatest when state and local policies designed to increase supply were also instituted. While the Medicaid expansions eliminated significant barriers to prenatal care for low-income women, other policies that have been designed to reduce the remaining barriers may be necessary in order significantly to expand access to prenatal care and to improve birth outcomes.

Barbara C. Cohen

Papers

Local responses to expanded Medicaid coverage for pregnant women.