Low-Income Working Families With Employer-Sponsored Insurance Turn To Public Insurance For Their Children.

Many families rely on employer-sponsored health insurance for their children. However, the rise in the cost of such insurance has outpaced growth in family income, potentially making public insurance (Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Plan) an attractive alternative for affordable dependent coverage. Using data for 2008-13 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we quantified the coverage rates for children from low- or moderate-income households in which a parent was offered employer-sponsored insurance. Among families in which parents were covered by such insurance, the proportion of children without employer-sponsored coverage increased from 22.5 percent in 2008 to 25.0 percent in 2013. The percentage of children with public insurance when a parent was covered by employer-sponsored insurance increased from 12.1 percent in 2008 to 15.2 percent in 2013. This trend was most pronounced for families with incomes of 100-199 percent of the federal poverty level, for whom the share of children with public insurance increased from 22.8 percent to 29.9 percent. Among families with incomes of 200-299 percent of poverty, uninsurance rates for children increased from 6.0 percent to 9.2 percent. These findings suggest a movement away from employer-sponsored insurance and toward public insurance for children in low-income families, and growth in uninsurance among children in moderate-income families.

Quality of Health Insurance Coverage and Access to Care for Children in Low-Income Families.

IMPORTANCE: An increasing diversity of children's health coverage options under the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, together with uncertainty regarding reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beyond 2017, merits renewed attention on the quality of these options for children. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care access, quality, and cost outcomes by insurance type (Medicaid, CHIP, private, and uninsured) for children in households with low to moderate incomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A repeated cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the 2003, 2007, and 2011-2012 US National Surveys of Children's Health, comprising 80,655 children 17 years or younger, weighted to 67 million children nationally, with household incomes between 100% and 300% of the federal poverty level. Multivariable logistic regression models compared caregiver-reported outcomes across insurance types. Analysis was conducted between July 14, 2014, and May 6, 2015. EXPOSURES: Insurance type was ascertained using a caregiver-reported measure of insurance status and each household's poverty status (percentage of the federal poverty level). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Caregiver-reported outcomes related to access to primary and specialty care, unmet needs, out-of-pocket costs, care coordination, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Among the 80,655 children, 51,123 (57.3%) had private insurance, 11,853 (13.6%) had Medicaid, 9554 (18.4%) had CHIP, and 8125 (10.8%) were uninsured. In a multivariable logistic regression model (with results reported as adjusted probabilities [95% CIs]), children insured by Medicaid and CHIP were significantly more likely to receive a preventive medical (Medicaid, 88% [86%-89%]; P < .01; CHIP, 88% [87%-89%]; P < .01) and dental (Medicaid, 80% [78%-81%]; P < .01; CHIP, 77% [76%-79%]; P < .01) visits than were privately insured children (medical, 83% [82%-84%]; dental, 73% [72%-74%]). Children with all insurance types experienced challenges in access to specialty care, with caregivers of children insured by CHIP reporting the highest rates of difficulty accessing specialty care (28% [24%-32%]), problems obtaining a referral (23% [18%-29%]), and frustration obtaining health care services (26% [23%-28%]). These challenges were also magnified for privately insured children with special health care needs, whose caregivers reported significantly greater problems accessing specialty care (29% [26%-33%]) and frustration obtaining health care services (36% [32%-41%]) than did caregivers of children insured by Medicaid, and a lower likelihood of insurance always meeting the child's needs (63% [60%-67%]) than children insured by Medicaid or CHIP. Caregivers of privately insured children were also significantly more likely to experience out-of-pocket costs (77% [75%-78%]) than were caregivers of children insured by Medicaid (26% [23%-28%]; P < .01) or CHIP (38% [35%-40%]; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This examination of caregiver experiences across insurance types revealed important differences that can help guide future policymaking regarding coverage for families with low to moderate incomes.

The ACA's pediatric essential health benefit has resulted in a state-by-state patchwork of coverage with exclusions.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes essential health benefits as the coverage standard for health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, including the health insurance Marketplaces. "Pediatric services" is one of the required classes of coverage under the ACA. However, other than oral health and vision care, neither the act nor the regulations for implementing it define what these services should be. We investigated how state benchmark plans-the base plan chosen in each state as the standard or benchmark of coverage in that state under ACA rules-address pediatric coverage in plans governed by the essential health benefits standard. Our review of summaries of all the state benchmark plans found that no state specified a distinct pediatric services benefit class. Furthermore, although benchmark plans explicitly included multiple pediatric conditions, many plans also specifically excluded services for children with special health care needs. The Department of Health and Human Services has made a commitment in the essential health benefits regulations to review its approach for the 2016 plan year. Thus, our findings have implications for future regulations regarding the essential health benefits standard for pediatric services.