A Comparison of Health Coverage and Outcomes among Those Insured by Private, Public and Military Providers
Major
Public Health
Department
Health Promotion and Administration
Degree
Graduate
Mentor
Michael Ballard; Derek R. Holcomb
Mentor Department
Health Promotion and Administration
Recommended Citation
Hong, Young Rock; Ballard, Michael; Holcomb, Derek; and Schwartz, Laurel, "A Comparison of Health Coverage and Outcomes among Those Insured by Private, Public and Military Providers" (2015). University Presentation Showcase Event. 23.
https://encompass.eku.edu/swps/2015/graduate/23
Abstract
In the United States, many studies to date have assessed health disparities and inequalities between the uninsured and the insured. Evidence suggests that health insurance is associated with increased access to health care and better health outcomes. However, no known study has determined whether the insurance effects vary according to the type of insurance coverage: 1) employer-based (n=11,032); 2) publicly funded (n=3,185); and 3) provided by the military (n=409). The aim of this study is to highlight disparities and inequalities in general health outcomes and health service utilization between different insurance types. Using data from the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), we compared working-age adults with different insurance coverage on leading health indicators and examined the independent impacts of insurance type on the various aspects of health care service and insurance system. Our results indicate that adults with private coverage had better health outcomes than other insurance groups. Chronic conditions and physical limitation statuses did not differ significantly between the publicly insured and those with military coverage. However, there were distinctive differences in health service utilization between the two groups. In terms of health care experience, the privately and militarily insured were able to obtain better services (e.g., how easy to get an appointment, attitude of health providers, etc.) than the publicly insured. Overall health insurance distrust scores were lower among the militarily insured than the privately or publicly insured. Based on the findings from this study, we could conclude that the type of insurance affects general health, health service utilization, and valuation of received care. Recognition of these disparities and inequalities in health care is crucial for policy makers and health providers in order to provide adequate care. These findings also suggest that coverage provided by the military may work better than a single-payer health care system.
Presentation format
Poster
Poster Number
18
A Comparison of Health Coverage and Outcomes among Those Insured by Private, Public and Military Providers
In the United States, many studies to date have assessed health disparities and inequalities between the uninsured and the insured. Evidence suggests that health insurance is associated with increased access to health care and better health outcomes. However, no known study has determined whether the insurance effects vary according to the type of insurance coverage: 1) employer-based (n=11,032); 2) publicly funded (n=3,185); and 3) provided by the military (n=409). The aim of this study is to highlight disparities and inequalities in general health outcomes and health service utilization between different insurance types. Using data from the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), we compared working-age adults with different insurance coverage on leading health indicators and examined the independent impacts of insurance type on the various aspects of health care service and insurance system. Our results indicate that adults with private coverage had better health outcomes than other insurance groups. Chronic conditions and physical limitation statuses did not differ significantly between the publicly insured and those with military coverage. However, there were distinctive differences in health service utilization between the two groups. In terms of health care experience, the privately and militarily insured were able to obtain better services (e.g., how easy to get an appointment, attitude of health providers, etc.) than the publicly insured. Overall health insurance distrust scores were lower among the militarily insured than the privately or publicly insured. Based on the findings from this study, we could conclude that the type of insurance affects general health, health service utilization, and valuation of received care. Recognition of these disparities and inequalities in health care is crucial for policy makers and health providers in order to provide adequate care. These findings also suggest that coverage provided by the military may work better than a single-payer health care system.
