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%.

No abstract

Lack of health insurance was the single most important factor in white-Hispanic differences for all three measures and for two of the white-African American differences. Income differences were the second most important factor, with one exception. Community characteristics generally were much less important, with one exception. The positive effects of insurance coverage in reducing disparities outweigh benefits of increasing physician charity care or access to emergency rooms.

Instrumental variable analysis may be a useful technique in comparative effectiveness studies of cancer treatments if an acceptable instrument can be identified.

Policymakers attempting to control Medicare costs by reducing differences in Medicare spending across geographic areas need better information about the specific source of the differences, as well as better methods for adjusting spending levels to account for underlying differences in beneficiaries' health measures.

Objective. To understand how proximity to safety net clinics and hospitals affects a variety of measures of access to care and service use by uninsured persons. Data Sources. The 1998–1999 Community Tracking Study household survey, administered primarily by telephone survey to households in 60 randomly selected communities, linked to data on community health centers, other free clinics, and safety net hospitals. Study Design. Instrumental variable estimation of multivariate regression models of several measures of access to care (having a usual source of care, unmet or delayed medical care needs, ambulatory service use, and overnight hospital stays) against endogenous measures of distances to the nearest community health center and safety net hospital, controlling for characteristics of uninsured persons and other area characteristics that are related to access to care. The models are estimated with data from a nationally representative sample of uninsured people. Principal Findings. Shorter distances to the nearest safety net providers increase access to care for uninsured persons. Failure to account for the endogeneity of distance to safety net providers on access to care generally leads to finding little or no safety net effects on access. Conclusions. Closer proximity to the safety net increases access to care for uninsured persons. However, the improvements in access to care are relatively small compared with similar measures of access to care for insured persons. Modest expansion of the safety net is unlikely to provide a full substitute for insurance coverage expansions.

No abstract

BACKGROUNDTo evaluate associations between race and breast carcinoma treatment.METHODSData from 984 black and 849 white Medicare beneficiaries 67 years or older with local breast carcinoma and a subset of 732 surviving women interviewed 3–4 years posttreatment were used to calculate adjusted odds of treatment, controlling for age, comorbidity, attitudes, region, and area measures of socioeconomic and health care resources.RESULTSSixty‐seven percent of women received a mastectomy and 33% received breast‐conserving surgery. The odds of radiation omission were 48% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.19) for blacks than for whites after considering covariates, but the absolute number of women who failed to receive this modality was small (11%). In race‐stratified models, the odds of having radiation omitted were significantly higher among blacks living greater distances from a cancer center (vs. lesser) or living in areas with high poverty (vs. low), but these factors did not affect radiation use among whites. Among those interviewed, blacks reported perceiving more ageism and racism in the health care system than whites (P = 0.001). The independent odds of receiving mastectomy (vs. breast conservation and radiation) were 2.72 times higher (95% CI 1.25–5.92) among women reporting the highest quartile of perceived ageism scores, compared with the lowest, and higher perceived ageism tended to be associated with higher odds of radiation omission (P = 0.06).CONCLUSIONSOlder black women with localized breast carcinoma may have a different experience obtaining treatment than their white counterparts. The absolute number of women receiving nonstandard care was small and the effects were small to moderate. However, if these patterns persist, it will be important to evaluate whether such experiences contribute to within‐stage race mortality disparities. Cancer 2002;95:1401–14. © 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10825