| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
FORUM ON WELFARE REFORM |
Susmita Pati is with the Departments of General Pediatrics and General Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City. Diana Romero and Wendy Chavkin are with the Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Susmita Pati, MD, MPH, Division of General Medicine, 622 West 168th St, PH 9 East, Room 105, New York, NY 10032 (e-mail: sp293{at}columbia.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Objectives. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in health insurance and food assistance enrollment following passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
Methods. Extant data sources were used to calculate changes in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and Food Stamp program enrollment in medically underserved Manhattan communities after 1996.
Results. Dramatic declines in TANF enrollment were accompanied by declines in Food Stamp program enrollment and a deceleration in Medicaid enrollment among several communities.
Conclusions. As the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act comes up for reauthorization later in 2002, policymakers should revise legislation so that needy families do not lose health insurance or food assistance support.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
The devolution of welfare responsibility to the states under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act has resulted in more than 50 versions of welfare reform. Previous studies have documented declines in Medicaid and Food Stamp program enrollment at the state level.6,14–16 However, it is important to learn how these policy changes have affected underserved populations at the local level. In New York City, the welfare caseload declined from 1.16 million in 1995 to less than half a million in 2001.17 In 1998, a lawsuit filed by 7 poor New York City residents (Reynolds v Giuliani, 35 F Supp 2d 331 [SDNY 1999]) alleged that the city did not always provide Food Stamps and Medicaid benefits to eligible people who filed applications for cash assistance.18
Our hypothesis was that welfare reform would be adversely associated with use of health insurance and food assistance programs among underserved populations. To test this hypothesis, we examined welfare, Medicaid, and Food Stamp program enrollment data from the 12 community districts in the New York City borough of Manhattan.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Data on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and Food Stamp enrollment were obtained from the New York City Human Resources Administration. Data are reported for each of the 12 community districts in Manhattan. In the case of TANF and Medicaid, enrollment was reported as the number of individuals receiving benefits during the years 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2001. In the case of Food Stamps, enrollment was reported as the number of households receiving benefits in 1996, 1998, and 2001. Overall trends in enrollment before and after enactment of welfare reform are reported according to available data (TANF and Medicaid data were available only for 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2001; Food Stamp data were available only for 1996, 1998, and 2001). To better relate changes in enrollment to welfare policy changes, we also calculated percentage changes in enrollment (based on available data) in each community district for shorter time intervals (1994–1996, 1996–1998, and 1996–2001).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
) have been designated medically underserved areas by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Central Harlem, East Harlem, and Washington Heights/Inwood.19 These districts have larger populations with greater proportions of children and minorities than do the districts not so designated. Among the Manhattan underserved areas, Washington Heights/Inwood has the highest proportion of Hispanic residents; Central Harlem and East Harlem have the highest proportions of African American residents.
|
To assess the temporal relationship between enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and changes in enrollment in these programs more closely, we examined percentage changes in enrollment over shorter time intervals (see Table 2 and Figure 1). During 1994 to 1996, TANF caseloads had already begun to decline throughout Manhattan. Medicaid enrollment increased in the medically underserved community districts but remained steady in other areas.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Other studies conducted at the state level have yielded similar findings.5,6,14,20,21 It has been hypothesized by some that these decreases may be due to an unintended "churning" effect wherein recipients have been categorically denied Medicaid and Food Stamp benefits along with TANF benefits owing to links in the application processes for the 3 programs. In a recent policy analysis of all 50 states, guidelines that deterred TANF application predicted decreases in Medicaid enrollment and increases in the number of people without insurance coverage.14
In South Carolina (P. Bailey, chief, Health and Demographics Section, Office of Research and Statistics, South Carolina State and Budget Control Board, oral communication, November 2001) and Wisconsin,20 identification of "churning" led to changes in the application process, and Medicaid and Food Stamp enrollment subsequently increased. Boston Medical Center’s Department of Pediatrics recently instituted a welfare screening project to assist families by advocating for appropriate benefits.22 Our findings add to the current state of knowledge by focusing on the effects of welfare reform on medically underserved neighborhoods in New York City.
An alternative explanation for these findings is that decreases in TANF, Food Stamp, and Medicaid enrollment were due to former TANF recipients having obtained employment during the economic boom of the 1990s and no longer requiring Food Stamp and Medicaid benefits. However, employment trends do not account for all of the observed decreases in Food Stamp and Medicaid enrollment.23,24 In addition, studies have shown that jobs obtained through welfare-to-work programs have been seasonal or part-time positions rather than entry-level positions that could potentially lead to established careers with steady incomes.25
There were limitations to this study. The analysis involved a single locale, Manhattan; thus, generalizability to other areas may be limited. However, because devolution of responsibility to the states under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act resulted in more than 50 versions of welfare reform, it is difficult to collect data that are generalizable to the state or national level. Given Manhattan is a major urban center with a large population of underserved residents, our results suggest that policy reform may be relevant for other urban centers with areas of concentrated poverty.
Also, because ours was an ecological study, we could not identify specific attributes of individuals who may have lost benefits. However, the intent of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was to decrease cash assistance caseloads while maintaining Medicaid and Food Stamp enrollment, and thus examination of rates of enrollment rather than individual attributes is appropriate.26
Low socioeconomic status has been repeatedly and persistently shown to have harmful effects on the health status of children and families.27–31 National studies, state-level data, and our findings all suggest that welfare reform has influenced the well-being of poor children and their families through changes in the availability of family resources (i.e., access to health insurance and food assistance). There is evidence that decreases in family resources, including food assistance32 and food sufficiency,33,34 have the potential to lead to predictable consequences in terms of child health. These consequences include impaired academic performance and psychosocial development,34 both of which may impede future success in adulthood. Uninsured populations, especially low-income groups, have limited access to health care services.35,36 Policy reform is a crucial component of efforts to reduce health disparities between socioeconomic groups.
In conclusion, declines in cash assistance enrollment in the wake of welfare reform have been accompanied by decelerations in Medicaid enrollment and declines in Food Stamp enrollment in the underserved communities of Manhattan. These declines have occurred at a time when the needs of underserved populations in New York City are clearly increasing and the city is facing an economic recession. In the 6 weeks following the tragedies of September 11, more than 75 000 families in New York City enrolled in a temporary Medicaid program created to offer 4 months of relief to all low-income New York City residents, not only those directly affected by the attacks.37 This was one of the largest single enrollment increases in Medicaid history,38 demonstrating the need for streamlined and simplified administration of benefits.
In New York City neighborhoods with large proportions of immigrants, there has been an increase in the number of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program benefit checks left uncollected, and investigators suspect that this increase may have been due to confusion about eligibility.39 Between September 2001 and March 2002, nearly 33 000 New Yorkers applied for Food Stamps,40 but the newly appointed commissioner of the city’s Human Resources Administration refused to accept a federal waiver that would have allowed unemployed heads of households to continue receiving Food Stamps beyond the current limit of 3 months in a 3-year period.41 As the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act comes up for reauthorization later in 2002, policymakers should consider revisions to improve access to health insurance and food assistance for underserved populations.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Human Participant Protection
This project was approved by the institutional review board of Columbia–Presbyterian Medical Center.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
S. Pati was responsible for study conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, and article preparation. D. Romero and W. Chavkin contributed to study conception, data interpretation, and critical revision of the article.
Accepted for publication May 1, 2002.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
2. Cunningham PJ, Park MH. Recent Trends in Children’s Health Insurance Coverage: No Gains for LowIncome Children. Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change; 2000.
3. Change in Welfare Caseloads Since Enactment of New Welfare Law. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 1999.
4. Change in TANF Caseloads Since Enactment of New Welfare Law. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 2000.
5. The Decline in Food Stamp Participation: A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US Dept of Agriculture; 2001.
6. Medicaid Enrollment: Amid Declines, State Efforts to Ensure Coverage After Welfare Reform Vary. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 1999.
7. Losing Health Insurance: The Unintended Consequences of Welfare Reform. Washington, DC: Families USA Foundation; 1999.
8. deMause N. Food stamp probe spurs Fed probe. In These Times. December 27, 1998:8.
9. Polner R. A welfare ‘mess’: Fed report, state official fault city’s food stamp policy. Newsday. January 21, 1999:A3.
10. Mann CM, Hudman J, Salganicoff A, Folsom A. Five years later: poor women’s health care coverage after welfare reform. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2002;57:16–22.
11. Zedlweski SR. Leaving welfare often severs families’ connections to the Food Stamp program. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2002;57:23–27.
12. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. The Uninsured and Their Access to Health Care. Washington, DC: Families USA Foundation; 1999.
13. Vastag B. Education needed to expand SCHIP eligibility. JAMA. 2002;287:1101.
14. Chavkin W, Romero D, Wise PH. State welfare reform policies and declines in health insurance. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:900–908.
15. Romero D, Chavkin W, Wise PH, Hess C, VanLandeghem K. State welfare reform policies and maternal and child health services: a national study. Maternal Child Health J. In press.
16. Romero D, Chavkin W, Wise PH. The impact of welfare reform policies on child protective services: a national study. J Soc Issues. 2000;56:799–810.
17. New York City Human Resources Administration. Public assistance recipients in NYC: 1955–2001. Available at: http://www.NYC.gov.html/hra/home.html. Accessed December 6, 2001.
18. Lipton E. In settlement, welfare offices will become city job centers. New York Times. February 15, 2001:B3.
19. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Scores of medically underserved areas within the United States of America. Available at: http://bphc.hrsa.gov/databases/newmua. Accessed December 10, 2001.
20. Willis E, Malloy M, Kliegman RM. Welfare reform consequences for children: the Wisconsin experience. Pediatrics. 2000;106:E83.[Medline]
21. Kronebusch K. Medicaid for children: federal mandates, welfare reform, and policy backsliding. Health Aff. 2001;20:97–111.
22. Lawton E, Leiter K, Todd J, Smith L. Welfare reform: advocacy and intervention in the health care setting. Public Health Rep. 1999;114:540–549.[Medline]
23. Holzer HJ, Wissoker D. How Can We Encourage Job Retention and Advancement for Welfare Recipients? Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2001.
24. Bavier R. Welfare reform data from the Survey of Income and Program Participants. Monthly Labor Rev. 2001;124(7):13–24.
25. Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 2001.
26. Schwarz S, Carpenter KM. The right answer for the wrong question: consequences of type III error for public health research. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1175–1180.
27. Wise PH, Meyer A. Poverty and child health. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1988;35:1169–1186.[Medline]
28. Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ. The effects of poverty on children. Future Child. 1997;7:55–71.[Medline]
29. Askew GL, Wise PH. The neighborhood: poverty, affluence, geographic mobility, and violence. In: Levine M, Carey W, Crocker A, eds. Developmental–Behavioral Pediatrics. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1999:177–187.
30. Parker S, Greer S, Zuckerman G. Double jeopardy: the impact of poverty on early childhood development. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1988;35:1227–1240.[Medline]
31. Garfield R, Greene D, Abramson D, Burkhardt S, eds. Washington Heights/Inwood: The Health of a Community II. New York, NY: Health of the Public Program, Columbia University; 1997.
32. Smith LA, Wise PH, Chavkin W, Romero D, Zuckerman B. Implications of welfare reform for child health: emerging challenges for clinical practice and policy. Pediatrics. 2000;106:1117–1125.
33. Alaimo K, Olson CM, Frongillo EA, Breifel RR. Food insufficiency, family income, and health in US preschool and school-aged children. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:781–786.[Abstract]
34. Alaimo K, Olson CM, Frongillo EA. Food insufficiency and American school-aged children’s cognitive, academic, and psychosocial development. Pediatrics. 2001;108:44–53.
35. Wyn R, Teleki S, Brown ER. Differences in Access to Health Care Among the Moderate- and Low-Income Population Across Urban Areas. Los Angeles, Calif: Center for Health Policy Research, University of California, Los Angeles, 1998:1–4.
36. Kuttner R. The American health care system—health insurance coverage. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:163–168.
37. Finkelstein KE. Disaster gives the uninsured wider access to Medicaid. New York Times. November 23, 2001:D1.
38. Russakoff D. Out of tragedy, NY finds way to treat Medicaid need: streamlined post-crisis process draws record enrollment through multilingual grapevine. Washington Post. November 26, 2001:A2.
39. Jessop D, Finkelstein R, Rosenberg T, et al. The Impact of Recent Immigration Policy Changes on the Receipt of WIC Services: An Aggregate Analysis. New York, NY: Medical Health Research Association; 1999.
40. Barton T. 9/11 six months on: New York factfile. The Observer. March 10, 2002:2.
41. Bernstein N. New welfare director defends stance on food stamp waiver. New York Times. March 15, 2002:B3.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Satchell and S. Pati Insurance Gaps Among Vulnerable Children in the United States, 1999-2001 Pediatrics, November 1, 2005; 116(5): 1155 - 1161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. L. Holl, K. S. Slack, and A. B. Stevens Welfare Reform and Health Insurance: Consequences for Parents Am J Public Health, February 1, 2005; 95(2): 279 - 285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Braveman, S. A. Egerter, C. Cubbin, and K. S. Marchi An Approach to Studying Social Disparities in Health and Health Care Am J Public Health, December 1, 2004; 94(12): 2139 - 2148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Pati, R. Keren, E. A. Alessandrini, and D. F. Schwarz Generational Differences In U.S. Public Spending, 1980-2000 Health Aff., September 1, 2004; 23(5): 131 - 141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
