Young Adult Insurance Coverage Laws Boost Access to Medical Care, Reduce Costs: Report

Health reforms at the state level that permit young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance resulted in better access to medical care, an outcome that likely will broaden under President Barack Obama's health law, which allows children to keep their parents' coverage through age 26, researchers conclude in a new study.

Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York compared young adults in states that already require insurance companies to cover policyholders' children through age 26 with their counterparts in states without such laws. After Colorado, New Jersey and South Dakota enacted mandates in 2005 or 2006, young adults reported increases in health insurance coverage, more physical exams, a greater likelihood of having a primary care physician, and less occasions when they went without medical care because of costs than their counterparts in 17 states that do not mandate insurance coverage for that age group, according to the report published by journal Pediatrics on Monday.

Obama's health reform law requires most health insurance plans to permit customers to enroll their children until they turn 27. Since the rule took effect in September 2010, about 2.5 million uninsured young adults obtained coverage, the Department of Health and Human Services reported last December. The national law could have a greater impact because it has fewer restrictions on eligibility and benefits than most states' laws, the Mount Sinai researchers predict.

"Our results predict that many more young people will have a personal doctor and regular check-ups, and no longer have to go without care due to cost. These are critical components to provide health security to young people just when they are starting out on their own," Mount Sinai Medical School's Alexander Blum, the lead author of the study, said in a press release. Prior to the U.S. law, adults between the ages of 18 and 26 made up 17 percent of the under-65-year-old population but nearly 30 percent of the uninsured, the report says.

Thirty-four states had similar laws in place before the enactment of national health reform, according to the Mount Sinai researchers. While six of those state laws go further than the U.S. rules, others include restrictions the federal law does not. The researchers based their findings on survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and received funding from the Health Resources and Services Administration and the National Institutes of Health, two federal agencies.

Comments

[rpknik]

09:51 AM on 02/14/2012

GOD FORBID THAT THEY SHOULD GET JOBS.

[Ironquill]

11:56 AM on 02/14/2012

My grandchildren all have jobs. They are paying off student loan debt. A comment like yours doesn't advance anyone's cause. It's just uninformed.

[dayzee10]

10:37 PM on 02/14/2012

rpknik is just bloviating retealibanbaggerican Fox BS

[itzkat]

08:24 AM on 02/14/2012

Recently my 22 year old that works two part time jobs had an abscess on his tonsil. This required three surgical procedures to get all the infection out and heal the hemorrhaging. Luckily he was on our insurance and it was covered. We paid our co-pay, but that is better than the three surgery bills we would have been faced with. The whole time we were thinking how good it was that he was on the insurance now instead of being kicked off at 18.

[onenation]

08:18 AM on 02/14/2012

Doesn't this belong on the Front Page with direct access?

[Elyriaohio]

05:29 AM on 02/14/2012

Too bad the GOP can't cut-the-cord with the insurance lobbyists. We wouldn't be rated 37th in the world for healthcare.

[LVNVprog]

02:57 AM on 02/14/2012

Medicare for All, with detaching Insurance from Employers. Add a Medical Insurance Tax similar to Medicare, with a partial contribution from Employers; add a Sales Tax on Non-Food items; Increase Medicare Premiums for Seniors and make Private supplemental Policies unnecessary, eliminate the "Doughnut Hole". Take Insurance Companies away from the Wall Street Profit from Human Misery Model.

[NWBrunette]

02:11 AM on 02/14/2012

This was and is an obviously good idea. Thank you, Mr. President. And republicans, well you can go to the hot place.

[krsones]

08:10 AM on 02/14/2012

good comment. it seems the repubs lost the meaning of being their brother/sisters's keeper.

[dsmith4308111]

01:55 AM on 02/14/2012

Thank you Mr. Obama for caring enough to get more of us insured. It will cost no more than two unfunded wars that were being fought for no good reason and will have no lasting impact on either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Sabrae]

02:51 AM on 02/14/2012

How is this costing you?

[MansfieldX]

12:08 AM on 02/14/2012

My only question is, is this being subsidized? and if so, why?

[Barbara DeZan]

12:22 AM on 02/14/2012

No, it's not being subsidized.

READ the dammed Affordable healthcare Act....it's online.

[MansfieldX]

12:47 AM on 02/14/2012

If it is not subsidized, then who cares and why are we talking about it? If a private insurance company is will to insure something that is their business. Why is government involved in anyway then. GET THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. NOW.

[thecornerangel]

11:20 PM on 02/13/2012

"Our results predict that many more young people will have a personal doctor and regular check-ups, and no longer have to go without care due to cost." Who are they kidding? Most medical insurance is unaffordable unless it is an employer benefit. And we know how those are getting fewer and farther between.

All this study says is that the medical insurance complex is looking forward to getting more insured patients. (From the newly insured kids in those families that still have insurance and can still afford to pay for it.) Last time I looked that the number of families like that were decreasing, not increasing.

Besides, having health insurance does not automatically equate to better care.
More money spent in the medical insurance complex perhaps, but healthier outcomes? No way.

[Barbara DeZan]

12:24 AM on 02/14/2012

That is exactly why single payer will be the eventual outcome of this Act..

Insurance companies do nothing except collect premiums, take a huge cut for themselves, and pass the rest to the provider.

They are not needed. We need NO middle men at all.

[thecornerangel]

01:49 AM on 02/14/2012

ditto ezactly

[dsmith4308111]

01:57 AM on 02/14/2012

That's the idea

[Archie Bonker]

10:40 PM on 02/13/2012

Why does it not cover children 27 to 65 years of age. Thats not fair.

[Barbara DeZan]

12:25 AM on 02/14/2012

It is assumed that by 27, most children are out of college or some sort of higher education and are able to either purchase their own insurance or it is provided by an employer.

[an seanchus mor]

08:43 AM on 02/14/2012

Only an appropriate assumption in a functional economy.

[ProudToBeVeryLiberal]

10:24 PM on 02/13/2012

What I like best about the HCR is its provision to get rid of the "pre-existing condition" clause that prevented people from switching provider, thus guaranteeing insurance companies profits for the entire life of the patient. Unfortunately, the HCR has no provision whatsoever to cap premiums. Which means that insurance companies will accept people with pre-existing conditions but only at the price they decide, which they will inevitably collude to make double or triple the price "healthy" customers pay. Which, of course, will result in people with pre-existing conditions not being able to switch. In other words, nothing will really change.

[irocker350]

09:26 PM on 02/13/2012

By the time I was 17 in 1974 I was not dependent on my parents for anything, had a job and my own place, joined the Army 2 weeks after my 18th b-day. growing up has been put on hold for many younger people that seem to think that they are entitled to a good, high paying job even if they aren't qualified for it, I had a friend like that, he thought that one day a fortune 500 company would approach him and ask him to be their CEO even though he was not even remotely qualified for anything other than maybe being an office boy, he really thought that he would be handed an opportunity on a silver platter, which seems to be what many (not all, I;m sure that there are young people that work hard for what they want out there) want, many do not want to work up the company ladder, or go to school and work for a nice cushy high paying job, they just want to be handed a cushy job on a silver platter, they feel entitled to it because they have not been prepared to deal with failure and rejection by an educational system that is obviously broken, where everyone wins, all the time and competition is a dirty word and if you don't want to work for the reward, that's ok, you'll get the reward anyway because we wouldn't want anyone to feel rejected and unwanted because they're lazy.

[MyNameIsJames]

10:28 PM on 02/13/2012

This is silly talk. Why not tell the real story. The real story Einstein is that the economy of 1974 was structured differently than the economy is now. If you don't talk about that then your whole narrative is meaningless. How do we know this because we have the 1990's that demonstrated that young people were willing to work many hours when the economy was hot. By 1997 you had high schoolers who were working long hours programming computer languages for Fortune 500 companies. Young entrepreneurs were all over the place. Did you forget this? Don't start this silly lecture because it is false on its face. I know because I saw the 70's 80's 90's and 2000's. Who are you trying to fool?

[justanoldhippie]

10:37 PM on 02/13/2012

I had a job when I was 17. I left home too. I went to college, while working. There was a period that I slept in my car because a landlord tried to jump me, and kept my security deposit, and last month's rent. That's how it was for women on their own..

I would go to a Denny's at 1am, park my car next to the truck stop, drink coffee and study.

So, my life was hard and often crappy in the beginning... I still don't want my fellow Americans to go through what I went through.

I especially don't want any of my fellow Americans to lose their life's savings because of an accident or illness, in a society as rich (figuratively) as ours.

You are making wide-sweeping, nasty characterizations that lead me to believe that you are not as "grounded" or stunningly awesome as you appear in the mirror.

I do NOT believe that great suffering is necessary to be a responsible, hard working, kind, caring, and even, wealthy American.

I believe that it is the combination of parenting, education, and the feeling that one "belongs", that they matter, that creates the greatest potential for success for all of us.

A society that tells its citizens that they are "on their own" will create members who scowl and fight for what seem like diminishing resources... like how we are behaving now.

[nannews]

10:57 PM on 02/13/2012

{{ Applause!!}} Congratulations for surmounting those difficult times. Already a fan; faved with thanks for a thoughtful and well-stated comment.

[T4]

09:11 PM on 02/13/2012

This is mobius strip thinking at it's finest - only from Hp Obamaphile authors. States are aleady doing this practice but somehow with Obama irt gets better? What is says is you don;t need Obama and insurance slavery - it also says that you do not need Obamacare and it'sprice supports. There is no cost savings whatsoever. Vpstsavings on incure when doc, drugs, and hosps lower charges wihcthey ahve nit. grow up HP wuthors and get your our of where the sun doesn't shine for your logic. Try reading on inference logic more.

[jmdziuban1]

09:31 PM on 02/13/2012

It says that the young adult population has better coverage in states with such a mandate, than in states without such a law. It also says that the ACA improves coverage beyond what is covered in the majority of even the states that do have such laws. Health care reform is improving the coverage and the health care of young adults in all but six states. Those six states already have laws that exceed provisions in the ACA.

[Lincoln212]

09:31 PM on 02/13/2012

You should learn to read better. Yes, Obamacare as the know-nothing crowd likes to call the Affordable Care Act (an act of Congress, BTW, Congress, not just Obama) has increased the number of insured young Americans by 2.5 million. The article was not about costs; it was about adding to the insurance rolls. As a society we should be at least as interested in providing coverage for as many Americans as we are in holding down costs, which is important too. For that, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals all need to weigh in and be heard by the politicians. When you have a closed mind to what is clearly stated, all your trumped up inferences don't add up to a penny's worth.

[chickline]

09:06 PM on 02/13/2012

Many high school and college graduates and their parents must feel a bit of relief. How many graduates of high school and college were told that they had better find a job that offers insurance since one was no longer on one's parents insurance. Many just kept their fingers crossed that they would not get sick in between the time of graduatiion and employment. This is also a relief for many going on to further their education and are not yet 26 or 27. Instead of wanting to " kill Obamacare" Republicans and Democrats alike should be thrilled that it exists.

[Life With HC]

09:41 PM on 02/13/2012

Why should an employer be thrilled. If the employer pays a portion of the employees' insurance coverage, all this law does is make the employer pay for more kids' insurance. The employer may say forget the whole thing, drop insurance for all employees, and pay the fine which is less than providing coverage.

How will the employees be better off then?

[tnanimation]

10:45 PM on 02/13/2012

Good luck holding onto your employees long term.

[Barbara DeZan]

12:28 AM on 02/14/2012

Not true.

My daughters son is 21 and is covered on her policy. HER insurance rates went up, zippy....not the employers.

[dsmith4308111]

02:02 AM on 02/14/2012

I'm thrilled!

[Steve Rockett]

08:54 PM on 02/13/2012

God bless president Obama and the democrats who voted for Obamacare.

[T4]

09:12 PM on 02/13/2012

did you read this or are you onmeds or just absent a few brain cells. This said we don;t need obamacare price supports for doc and big pharama that everything can be done at a state level witout insurance slavery - that iswhat it say or gave totaslly lost - whenhas big fed govt project everyw orked in your lifetime?

[Bonita Goodrich]

09:57 PM on 02/13/2012

state governments don't seem to be doing too well either. They come to the Fed with open hands. Many corporations find it very expensive to follow 50 different sets of laws. And I for one enjoy things like flying, eating, driving. Not to mention fed mandated immunizations. Some things belong to the state and others to the Fed - things like air traffic control and food safety (as poor as it is) would not exist without the fed and while these are not called out in the constitution they are covered by the preamble. We all vote, we all get a say. Right now many in the the 1% have us so busy tearing each other apart while they continue to suck up whatever wealth they can - brilliant tactic.

[justanoldhippie]

11:29 PM on 02/13/2012

Did you miss the part where we had a Financial Market Wipeout, millions of Americans who lost jobs, States who had to rely upon American Recovery Act monies to fill in around the losses of property taxes (foreclosure crisis), revenue drops in sales and local taxes (unemployment), and with so many Americans without employers, and that penniless states could NOT have made taking care of the health of its citizens its top priority?

Removing health insurers from employer's as+s holes, making them fight directly for consumer dollars isn't the picture of a gift that you paint!

Every state of this union had the option to do what mine did, and use federal startup monies to achieve the goals of more Americans with health insurance coverage.

Your idea that we are slaves being forced to buy something we shouldn't have misses the bigger problem!

I suppose you are okay with my family paying premiums that are 30% higher to offset the costs of the uninsured and which are/were the equivalent of buying a moderately priced auto, EVERY YEAR? And that part of our 28-35% in income taxes go to also offset the costs of the uninsured who show up for medical care at the most expensive outlet, hospitals?

Do you wonder how many other industries would have loved to get a piece of that part of our "disposable" income?

You would rather us pay an insurer an outrageous amount monthly, for little or nothing, "just in case"? Wow.

[Life With HC]

09:43 PM on 02/13/2012

Why do you want to make employers pay for coverage for more people. This raises the costs to the employer and the probability the employer will drop coverage altogether. Then the employees and their kids will all have no coverage.

[Bonita Goodrich]

09:59 PM on 02/13/2012

by this logic all the money should go to the shareholders and we should just work for food. At what point does the greed end?

[Barbara DeZan]

12:30 AM on 02/14/2012

How silly.

The INSURED person sees the increase in rate.

AND, employers are required to provide insurance for their employers or face fees and fines.