Why do some eligible families forego public insurance for their children? A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Central to health insurance reform discussions was the recurring question: why are eligible children not enrolled in public insurance programs? We interviewed families with children eligible for public insurance to (1) learn how they view available services and (2) understand their experiences accessing care.

METHODS

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 24 parents of children eligible for public coverage but not continuously enrolled were conducted. We used a standard iterative process to identify themes, followed by immersion/crystallization techniques to reflect on the findings.

RESULTS

Respondents identified four barriers: (1) confusion about insurance eligibility and enrollment, (2) difficulties obtaining public coverage and/or services, (3) limited provider availability, and (4) non-covered services and/or coverage gaps. Regardless of whether families had overcome these barriers, all had experienced stigma associated with needing and using public assistance. There was not just one point in the process where families felt stigmatized. It was, rather, a continual process of stigmatization. We present a theoretical framework that outlines how families continually experience stigma when navigating complex systems to obtain care: when they qualify for public assistance, apply for assistance, accept the assistance, and use the public benefit. This framework is accompanied by four illustrative archetypes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides further insight into why some families forego available public services. It suggests the need for a multi-pronged approach to improving access to health care for vulnerable children, which may require going beyond incremental changes within the current system.

Comparing type of health insurance among low-income children: a mixed-methods study from Oregon

We employed a mixed-methods study of primary data from a statewide household survey and in-person interviews with parents to examine-quantitatively and qualitatively-whether low-income children experienced differences between public and private insurance coverage types. We carried out 24 in-depth interviews with a subsample of respondents to Oregon's 2005 Children's Access to Healthcare Study (CAHS), analyzed using a standard iterative process and immersion/crystallization cycles. Qualitative findings guided quantitative analyses of CAHS data that assessed associations between insurance type and parental-reported unmet children's health care needs. Interviewees uniformly reported that stable health insurance was important, but there was no consensus regarding which type was superior. Quantitatively, there were only a few significant differences. Cross-sectionally, compared with private coverage, public coverage was associated with higher odds of unmet specialty care needs (odds ratio [OR] 3.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-8.24). Comparing full-year coverage patterns, those with public coverage had lower odds of unmet prescription needs (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-0.99) and unmet mental health counseling needs (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.63), compared with privately covered children. Low-income Oregon parents reported few differences in their child's experience with private versus public coverage.