| Title |
High-Risk Pools for the Sick and Uninsured Under Health Reform: Too Little and Thus Too Late
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-010-1490-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Harold A. Pollack |
| Abstract |
Democrats and Republicans have turned to the concept of "high-risk pools" to provide health care for those Americans who face the dual challenge of uninsurance and serious health difficulties. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), these "high-risk" individuals will receive extensive help and regulatory protections, in concert with a new system of health insurance exchanges. However, these federal provisions do not become operational until 2014. As an interim measure, PPACA provides $5 billion for temporary, federally funded high-risk pools, now known as the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). This analysis explores the adequacy of such funding. Using 2005/06 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), we find that approximately 4 million uninsured Americans have been diagnosed with emphysema, diabetes, stroke, cancer, congestive heart failure, angina, or a heart attack. To provide adequate health care for uninsured individuals with chronic diseases, the federal PCIP appropriations would need to be many times higher than either Democrats or Republicans have proposed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 46% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 81% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 22 June 2017.
All research outputs
#517,523
of 25,064,526 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#414
of 8,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,240
of 100,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,064,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 100,296 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.