Dataset Information

State-level changes in health insurance coverage and parental substance use-associated foster care entry.

ABSTRACT: For many families whose children are placed in foster care, initial contact with the child welfare system occurs due to interactions with the healthcare system, particularly in the context of the opioid epidemic and increased attention to prenatal drug exposure. In the last decade, many previously uninsured families have gained Medicaid health coverage, which has implications for their access to healthcare services and visibility to mandatory reporters. Using administrative foster care case data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Foster Care Files and health insurance data from the American Community Survey, this study analyzes the associations between state-level health insurance coverage and rates of foster care entry due to parental substance use between 2009 and 2019. State-level fixed effects models revealed that public, but not private, health insurance rates were positively associated with rates of foster care entry due to parental substance use. These results support the hypothesis that health insurance coverage may promote greater contact with mandatory reporters among low-income parents with substance use disorders. Furthermore, this study illustrates how healthcare policy may have unintended consequences for the child welfare system.

SUBMITTER: Stritzel H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10168186 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

State-level changes in health insurance coverage and parental substance use-associated foster care entry.

Stritzel Haley H

Social science & medicine (1982) 20220520

For many families whose children are placed in foster care, initial contact with the child welfare system occurs due to interactions with the healthcare system, particularly in the context of the opioid epidemic and increased attention to prenatal drug exposure. In the last decade, many previously uninsured families have gained Medicaid health coverage, which has implications for their access to healthcare services and visibility to mandatory reporters. Using administrative foster care case data ...[more]

PMID: 35649299

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTo estimate recent trends in cigarette use and health insurance coverage for United States adults with and without mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUD).DesignEvent study analysis of smoking and insurance coverage trends among US adults with and without MH/SUD using 2008-19 public use data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual, cross-sectional survey.SettingUSA.ParticipantsA nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized respondents aged 18-64 years (n = 448 762).MeasurementsOutcome variables were three measures of recent cigarette use and one measure of past-year health insurance coverage. We compared outcomes between people with and without MH/SUD (MH disorder: past-year mental illness, predicted from Kessler-6 and the World Health Organization-Disability Assessment Schedule impairment scale; SUD: met survey-based DSM-IV criteria for past-year alcohol, cannabis, cocaine or heroin use disorder) and over time.FindingsComparing pooled data from 2008 to 2009 and from 2018 to 2019, current smoking rates of adults with MH/SUD decreased from 37.9 to 27.9% while current smoking rates of adults without MH/SUD decreased from 21.4 to 16.3%, a significant difference in decrease of 4.9 percentage points (pts) [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.3-6.6 pts]. Daily smoking followed similar patterns (difference in decrease of 3.9 pts (95% CI = 2.3-5.4 pts). Recent smoking abstinence rates for adults with MH/SUD increased from 7.4 to 10.9%, while recent smoking abstinence rates for adults without MH/SUD increased from 9.6 to 12.0%, a difference in increase of 1.0 pts (95% CI = -3.0 to 0.9 pts). In 2018-19, 11% of net reductions in current smoking, 12% of net reductions in daily smoking and 12% of net increases in recent smoking abstinence coincided with greater gains in insurance coverage for adults with MH/SUD compared to those without MH/SUD.ConclusionsImprovements in smoking and abstinence outcomes for US adults with mental health and substance use disorders appear to be associated with increases in health insurance coverage.

Project description:Background46 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have passed laws and regulations mandating that health insurance plans cover diabetes treatment and preventive care. Previous research on state mandates suggested that these policies had little impact, since many health plans already covered the benefits. Here, we analyze the contents of and model the effect of state mandates. We examined how state mandates impacted the likelihood of using three types of diabetes preventive care: annual eye exams, annual foot exams, and performing daily self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).MethodsWe collected information on diabetes benefits specified in state mandates and time the mandates were enacted. To assess impact, we used data that the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System gathered between 1996 and 2000. 4,797 individuals with self-reported diabetes and covered by private insurance were included; 3,195 of these resided in the 16 states that passed state mandates between 1997 and 1999; 1,602 resided in the 8 states or the District of Columbia without state mandates by 2000. Multivariate logistic regression models (with state fixed effect, controlling for patient demographic characteristics and socio-economic status, state characteristics, and time trend) were used to model the association between passing state mandates and the usage of the forms of diabetes preventive care, both individually and collectively.ResultsAll 16 states that passed mandates between 1997 and 1999 required coverage of diabetic monitors and strips, while 15 states required coverage of diabetes self management education. Only 1 state required coverage of periodic eye and foot exams. State mandates were positively associated with a 6.3 (P = 0.04) and a 5.8 (P = 0.03) percentage point increase in the probability of privately insured diabetic patient's performing SMBG and simultaneous receiving all three preventive care, respectively; state mandates were not significantly associated with receiving annual diabetic eye (0.05 percentage points decrease, P = 0.92) or foot exams (2.3 percentage points increase, P = 0.45).ConclusionsEffects of state mandates varied by preventive care type, with state mandates being associated with a small increase in SMBG. We found no evidence that state mandates were effective in increasing receipt of annual eye or foot exams. The small or non-significant effects might be attributed to small numbers of insured people not having the benefits prior to the mandates' passage. If state mandates' purpose is to provide improved benefits to many persons, policy makers should consider determining the number of people who might benefit prior to passing the mandate.

Project description:ImportanceThe association of state-level immigrant policies with uninsurance among Latino youths remains unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of state-level immigrant integration and criminalization policies with health insurance coverage among US-born Latino youths by maternal citizenship.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed secondary data from the American Community Survey, January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, for US-born Latino youths (age, ≤17 years) and their mothers (age, 18-64 years) as well as state-level indicators of immigrant integration and criminalization policies (in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).ExposuresImmigrant integration and criminalization policies.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was maternal reports of youth uninsurance status at the time of the American Community Survey interview. Variation in youth uninsurance by maternal citizenship, state immigrant integration policy context, and state immigrant criminalization policy context were examined. All analyses were conducted with weighted survey data.ResultsOf the 226 691 US-born Latino youths (115 431 [50.92%] male; mean [SD] age, 7.66 [4.92] years) included in the study, 36.64% (95% CI, 36.21%-36.92%) had noncitizen mothers. Overall, 7.09% (95% CI, 6.78%-7.41%) of noncitizen mothers reported that their youths were uninsured compared with 4.68% (95% CI, 4.49%-4.88%) of citizen mothers. Of uninsured youths who resided in states with a low level of immigrant integration policies, 9.10% (8.22%-10.06%) had noncitizen mothers and 4.75% (95% CI, 4.19%-5.37%) had citizen mothers; of uninsured youths who resided in states with high criminalization policies, 9.37% (95% CI, 8.90%-9.87%) had noncitizen mothers and 5.91% (95% CI, 5.64%-6.20%) had citizen mothers. In states with few immigrant integration policies, the probability of uninsurance among youths with noncitizen mothers was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.4%) higher than that among youths with citizen mothers. Among youths with noncitizen mothers, the difference in the probability of uninsurance between those residing in states with a low level vs a high level of immigrant integration policies was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-3.6%). Among youths residing in states with high levels of immigrant criminalization policies, those with noncitizen mothers had a 2.6% (95% CI, 1.9%-3.0%) higher probability of being uninsured compared with those whose mothers were citizens. Among youths with noncitizen mothers, the difference in the probability of uninsurance between those who resided in a state with a low level vs a state with a high level of immigrant criminalization policies was 1.7% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.7%).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that among US-born Latino youths, disparities in uninsurance by maternal citizenship are associated with state-level immigrant integration and criminalization policies and that anti-immigrant policies may be associated with disparities in health care access for US-born Latino youths.

Project description:ImportanceProfessional medical organizations recommend that adults receive routine postpartum care. Yet, some states restrict public insurance coverage for undocumented immigrants and recently documented immigrants (those who received legal documentation status within the past 5 years).ObjectiveTo examine the association between public insurance coverage and postpartum care among low-income immigrants and the difference in receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants.Design, setting, and participantsA pooled, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System for 19 states and New York City including low-income adults with a live birth between 2012 and 2019.ExposureGiving birth in a state that offered public insurance coverage for postpartum care to recently documented or undocumented immigrants.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported receipt of postpartum care by the category of coverage offered (full coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care regardless of immigration status; moderate coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully residing immigrants without a 5-year waiting period, but did not offer postpartum care to undocumented immigrants; no coverage: states that did not offer publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully present immigrants before 5 years of legal residence or to undocumented immigrants).ResultsThe study included 72 981 low-income adults (20 971 immigrants [29%] and 52 010 nonimmigrants [71%]). Of the 19 included states and New York City, 6 offered full coverage, 9 offered moderate coverage, and 4 offered no coverage; 1 state (Oregon) switched from offering moderate coverage to offering full coverage. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, receipt of postpartum care among immigrants was 7.0-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -10.6 to -3.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and 11.3-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -13.9 to -8.8 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. The differences in the receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants were also associated with the coverage categories. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, there was a 3.3-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -5.3 to -1.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and a 7.7-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -10.3 to -5.0 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage.Conclusions and relevanceCompared with states without insurance restrictions, immigrants living in states with public insurance restrictions were less likely to receive postpartum care. Restricting public insurance coverage may be an important policy-driven barrier to receipt of recommended pregnancy care and improved maternal health among immigrants.

Dataset Information

State-level changes in health insurance coverage and parental substance use-associated foster care entry.

Publications

State-level changes in health insurance coverage and parental substance use-associated foster care entry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets