Source of health insurance and immunization rates: Findings from the 1996 Texas immunization survey

This study was a further investigation of the 1996 Texas Immunization Survey conducted by the Associateship for Disease Control and Prevention of the Texas Department of Health. The 1996 survey was conducted through 4,599 completed telephone interviews of families with a child between the ages of 3–35 months concerning the immunization status of Texas children. The present study determined differences in immunization rates for children aged 3–35 months for the last shot in the immunization series that should be completed before 2 years of age, a total of four shots, both overall and for different health insurance groups. Life tables were used to determine the percentage and distribution over time of completed vaccination rates for each shot. Emphasis was placed on the proportion of children that were immunized at the end of the recommended range of the immunization schedule, and at 2 years of age. Univariate and multivariate analysis was also performed in order to ascertain which risk factors predict whether or not a child will be immunized. RESULTS: Between 80–90% were immunized for the last shot of Hepatitis B; Measles, Mumps, and Rubella; and Polio at 2 years of age. Approximately 2/3 of the sample was immunized for Diphtheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus. Most of the children were immunized by the end of the recommended range of the immunization schedule except for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella. Children of parents with private indemnity insurance were significantly more likely to have received two of the four shots; children of uninsured parents were significantly less likely to have received three of the four shots. In multivariate analysis, maternal education was the only variable that consistently predicted immunization status for the different shots. Results indicate that a substantial gap exists for immunization rates between children with private insurance and uninsured children, despite recent policy changes to provide immunizations free of charge. Health care providers should pay extra attention to the poor and uninsured to make sure that all children receive timely immunizations. ^

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE DEMAND FOR CARE IN A FREE-STANDING EMERGENCY CENTER

Free-standing emergency centers (FECs) represent a new approach to the delivery of health care which are competing for patients with more conventional forms of ambulatory care in many parts of the U.S. Currently, little is known about these centers and their patient populations. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to describe the patients who visited two commonly-owned FECs, and determine the reasons for their visits. An economic model of the demand for FEC care was developed to test its ability to predict the economic and sociodemographic factors of use. Demand analysis of other forms of ambulatory services, such as a regular source of care (RSOC), was also conducted to examine the issues of substitution and complementarity.^ A systematic random sample was chosen from all private patients who used the clinics between July 1 and December 31, 1981. Data were obtained by means of a telephone interview and from clinic records. Five hundred fifty-one patients participated in the study.^ The typical FEC patient was a 26 year old white male with a minimum of a high school education, and a family income exceeding $25,000 a year. He had lived in the area for at least twenty years, and was a professional or a clerical worker. The patients made an average of 1.26 visits to the FECs in 1981. The majority of the visits involved a medical complaint; injuries and preventive care were the next most common reasons for visits.^ The analytic results revealed that time played a relatively important role in the demand for FEC care. As waiting time at the patients' regular source of care increased, the demand for FEC care increased, indicating that the clinic serves as a substitute for the patients' usual means of care. Age and education were inversely related to the demand for FEC care, while those with a RSOC frequented the clinics less than those lacking such a source.^ The patients used the familiar forms of ambulatory care, such as a private physician or an emergency room in a more typical fashion. These visits were directly related to the age and education of the patients, existence of a regular source of care, and disability days, which is a measure of health status. ^