By Martha Heberlein
I wanted to share an interesting tidbit that I couldn’t squeeze into my earlier blog on the supplemental poverty measure (SPM). As I mentioned, one of the new parameters included in the SPM is out-of-pocket spending on medical expenses. Well, if you look at those in poverty under the two definitions, it’s clear that they have an impact.
|
Official Poverty Measure |
Supplemental Poverty Measure |
|
|
Private Coverage |
4.8% |
7.5% |
|
Public Coverage |
37.6% |
31.7% |
|
Uninsured |
29.2% |
30.7% |
Those with public coverage only actually see their rate of poverty decline when out-of-pocket medical expenses are included. (One could assume that this is the result of the cost sharing limitations in Medicaid and CHIP.) On the other hand, the privately-insured and the uninsured both see their rate of poverty rise when medical out-of-pocket spending is taken into account.
Perhaps one of the things that helps reduce the poverty rate for children under the supplemental measure is their coverage in Medicaid and CHIP?
