Economic Policy Institute
EPI home
EPI home
Search
Navigation tips
Bookstore
Publications archive
Newsroom
Calendar
About EPI
Economists
Contact EPI
Web features
Job postings
Sign up
Support EPI
WEB FEATURES
Datazone
Economic Indicators
Issue Guides
Online calculators
Snapshots
Viewpoints
Audio/video archive

BROWSE OTHER ARTICLES BY
Jared Bernstein


RELATED PUBLICATIONS
Erosion of employer-based health care touches all sectors

Health insecurity across education levels

A Decade of Decline: The Erosion of Employer-Provided Health Care in the United States and California, 1995-2006

Health care insecurity greatest among Hispanics

Canada's health system beats U.S. in cost and results


Email this pageEmail this page

Print this pagePrint this page    Email this pageEmail this page



Economic Snapshots
See Snapshots archive.


Snapshot for September 12, 2007.

SCHIP is not eroding private health coverage

by Jared Bernstein 

The Bush Administration is engaged in a concerted effort to reduce states' ability to offer publicly provided health insurance coverage to children in families with incomes above 250% of poverty (about $50,000 for a family of four).  These new restrictions are partly a reaction to certain states—like New York, New Jersey, California, and others—that planned to offer such insurance through SCHIP (State Child Health Insurance Program) to families with incomes up to 300-400% of the poverty threshold. 

One of the Bush Administration's main rationales for the roadblocks it is erecting to keep states from expanding coverage is that the administration wants to prevent children from moving directly from private employer-based coverage (through an employed parent) into SCHIP.  But how valid is that concern?  Is the availability of SCHIP encouraging employers to drop families from private coverage?

The figure below, from a recently published study by the Urban Institute (UI), shows that this is not the case.  Most SCHIP enrollees (72%) were not covered by private coverage six months before enrollment in the public program.  Another 14% lost coverage within a six month period prior to SCHIP enrollment, due to a lost job, an employer dropping coverage, or change in family structure that led to the child's coverage being dropped (as in a divorce, separation, or death of covered spouse).  

(figure)

This leaves only 14% of SCHIP cases that substituted the public program for private coverage.  But the Urban Institute's study points out that more than half of these cases (8%) cited an inability to afford private coverage as the reason for shifting over to SCHIP.  That is, the cost of the family premium through their job was prohibitively high.

The results of the study pose a stiff challenge for those who want to restrict SCHIP access based on the concern that public coverage is crowding out private coverage.  The fact is that cost pressures and the lack of a public mandate (a requirement that employers cover workers) are leading to the unraveling of the employer-provided system.  We need public insurance to pick up the slack, both for children and their parents.


Check out the archive for past Economic Snapshots.


Sign up to receive announcements of new Economic Snapshots by email:
A value is required.


A weekly presentation of downloadable charts and short analyses designed to graphically illustrate important economic issues, Snapshots are updated every Wednesday.




Did you find this publication helpful? Support EPI's work today!

Copyright © 2008 by The Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.

Readers may redistribute this material to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text, data, and all HTML code remain intact and unaltered in any way. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact EPI at publications@epi.org. Other questions or concerns about this Web site can be directed to webmaster@epi.org.

EPI home