Prologue: With more than 10 percent of the work force unemployed last spring, Congress seemed prepared to enact, over the objections of the Reagan administration, a new federal entitlement program extending health insurance coverage to those individuals who had lost their jobs. Such legislation, backed by Democrats and Republicans alike, cleared the House of Representatives in August, providing $4 billion for a state-administered program of health insurance for the unemployed. Since then, however, the House-passed bill and more modest proposals introduced in the Senate, have languished as a consequence of an improving economy and mounting concern over the massive budget deficits that loom into the indefinite future. But beyond these factors, another consideration emerged: legislators were uncertain about how best to address the issue. Contributing to their unease was a new study underwritten by the National Center for Health Services Research which showed that only 13 percent of the unemployed in 1982 were without health insurance because they were out of work. The study was based upon data taken from the National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, as updated by the 1982 population census. The study shows that most of the unemployed retained health insurance coverage through protection provided by a spouses plan. The authors agreed that being without health insurance coverage is a serious problem for part of the labor force, but most of these individuals are employed. Thus, the study concludes that a new federal program which focuses only on the unemployed might not only displace private efforts to protect these individuals but would raise serious equity issues as well. Alan Monheit and Michael Hagan are economists at the National Center for Health Services Research (NCHSR); Marc Berk is a sociologist at the same federal agency. Gail Wilensky, an economist who formerly worked at NCHSR, is now vice-president of Project HOPE's domestic division.
Read full abstract