↓ Skip to main content

“They Treat you a Different Way:” Public Insurance, Stigma, and the Challenge to Quality Health Care

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
“They Treat you a Different Way:” Public Insurance, Stigma, and the Challenge to Quality Health Care
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11013-016-9513-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna C. Martinez-Hume, Allison M. Baker, Hannah S. Bell, Isabel Montemayor, Kristan Elwell, Linda M. Hunt

Abstract

Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid Expansion programs are extending Medicaid eligibility and increasing access to care. However, stigma associated with public insurance coverage may importantly affect the nature and content of the health care beneficiaries receive. In this paper, we examine the health care stigma experiences described by a group of low-income public insurance beneficiaries. They perceive stigma as manifest in poor quality care and negative interpersonal interactions in the health care setting. Using an intersectional approach, we found that the stigma of public insurance was compounded with other sources of stigma including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and illness status. Experiences of stigma had important implications for how subjects evaluated the quality of care, their decisions impacting continuity of care, and their reported ability to access health care. We argue that stigma challenges the quality of care provided under public insurance and is thus a public health issue that should be addressed in Medicaid policy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 14%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Psychology 7 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,771,138
of 24,224,854 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#65
of 625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,166
of 428,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,224,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.