Lawmakers Debate Funding Children’s Health Insurance

Reading time: 2 – 3 minutes

The Washington Post is reporting that the decade-old State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which expires in September and was expected to be renewed and possibly expanded, is held up in Congress. The debate is the proper role of government in healthcare.

The $5 billion dollar program annually helps 6.6 million low-income, uninsured American children see doctors when they’re sick. Both the U.S. House and Senate are proposing deals to expand the program and increase funding over the next five years, proposals the President characterizes as attempts to enlarge the federal role of healthcare and reduce private insurance coverage for some children.

According to the article, the President:

… has proposed about $5 billion in new funding for children’s health insurance over five years, for a total of $30 billion – an amount that the Congressional Budget Office says would be too little to keep covering even just the number of children enrolled in the program now.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a U.S. national program for families who earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance. Started in 1997, the program was designed to address an ever-growing problem of children without health insurance.

A recent study that examined the extent to which SCHIP affects access to healthcare and service use found that enrollment improved access to care relative to being uninsured [1]. Children enrolled in SCHIP were more likely to receive office visits, preventive health and dental care, and specialty care. Additionally, they were more likely to have a usual source for medical and dental care and to report better provider communication and accessibility. SCHIP enrollees were less likely to have unmet needs, financial burdens and parental worry associated with meeting their child’s health care needs.

As an alternative to the Senate and House proposals to use tax increases to extend health insurance benefits, President Bush is suggesting tax credits. Whitehouse spokesman Tony Fratto has indicated that senior advisors will recommend the President veto any legislation that would increase funds for children’s health insurance.

Which do you think is better – a tax increase or tax credits?

References

  1. Kenney G. The Impacts of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program on Children Who Enroll: Findings from Ten States. Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1520-43.
    View abstract
About the Author

Walter Jessen is a senior writer for Highlight HEALTH Media.

Comments

  1. This ought to make for some good discussion. I’d like to see if other’s respond and what their thoughts on this are as well.

    It’s such a sad thing, so many people are working so hard, and so many employers are not offering family coverage, or any coverage for that matter, thus we look to these programs. Their employees are willing to pay into it, yet coverage is not offered. Having to get insurance on their own is extremely expensive and draining, and the people having to do that, are the very people that are not making the monetary gains in their positions of employment.

    I am so thankful to have the coverage I do, it isn’t afforded to everyone.

  2. Hi Angel! I hope that others respond – the traffic here at Highlight HEALTH has been increasing lately, so I know many people are reading.

    Overall, I think government programs such as this are a good thing. IMO, if you give people tax credits, the money never gets spent on what the tax credit was designed for in the first place. Sure, we can blame the parents, but in the end it’s the child that suffers.

  3. I agree with you there Walter.

    As far as people commenting, it’s a strange phenomenon if people don’t see a lot of commenting they read and are quiet. Jump in, it’s great to exchange points of view and ideas! Any time I visit, there are other users on line. You have a great site here. It will come. Rob went through this too.