Table 2 Summary of articles addressing the effects of uninsurance on access to specialty care.
Author | Year | Sample Size | Data Source | Study Design | Access Measure | Statistic | Comparison | Findings | Endogeneity/Selection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kane et al. [12] | 2005 | 700 | National Survey of CSHCN, single state | Cross-sectional | Unmet needs | Logistic regression; likelihood of unmet need | Ever uninsured vs. insured all year | OR = 8.6, p < 0.001 | No consideration of selection into insurance |
Mayer et al. [13] | 2003 | 38,866 | National Survey of CSHCN | Cross-sectional | Unmet need | Logistic regression; likelihood of unmet need for specialty care | Private insurance vs. uninsured | OR = 4.29, p < 0.01 | No consideration of selection into coverage type |
Park et al. [14] | 2002 | 1,985 | National Health Interview Survey | Cross-sectional | Utilization | Proportion having seen a specialist (exact values not reported) | Uninsured vs. any insurance type | Less likely vs. any insurance | No consideration of selection into coverage type |
Perlstein et al. [15] | 1997 | 544 | Regional cardiac registry | Retrospective cohort | Time to referral | t-test; mean age at referral | Uninsured vs. "commercial" | 251 days vs. 80 days, p < 0.05 | No consideration of selection into coverage type |
Szilagyi, et al. [16] | 2000 | 2,126 | Single SCHIP | Quasi-experimental | Utilization | t-test, difference in number of specialist visits (pre- and post-enrollment) | Uninsured vs. following SCHIP enrollment | Fivefold increase in utilization after SCHIP enrollment | No consideration of selection in program |