Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physician utilization disparities between the uninsured and insured. Comparisons of the chronically ill, acutely ill, and well nonelderly populations

Chris Hafner-Eaton·1993·JAMA

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study examines the associations between lack of health insurance coverage and physician utilization for the chronically ill, acutely ill, and well nonelderly populations in the United States. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the 1989 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, were analyzed for the nonelderly population using a correlational, two-group design (N = 102,055). Analytic models, using multiple logistic regression, were tested to predict the odds and likelihood of physician utilization for the uninsured and insured in the three subpopulations (ie, chronically ill, acutely ill, and well), controlling for health status, number of conditions, and geographic, sociodemographic, and economic factors. Disparities in utilization were then calculated between the uninsured and insured for each subpopulation. RESULTS: The nonelderly uninsured were consistently less likely than the insured to have received any health care within 12 months. Moreover, there were differential effects of being uninsured on utilization depending on whether an individual was chronically ill, acutely ill, or well. Whereas chronically ill and well uninsured persons were half as likely to have seen a physician as their insured counterparts (odds ratio, 0.50), acutely ill uninsured persons were almost two thirds as likely to receive physician care (odds ratio, 0.62). Thus, the disparity in physician utilization between the uninsured and insured was larger for the chronically ill and well than for the acutely ill; uninsured acutely ill were less likely to go without care. Of the three populations, those in the well population had average disparities with the largest magnitude (40%), compared with disparities of the chronically ill (20%) and acutely ill (10%). CONCLUSIONS: These disparities represent large inequities in utilization of care by the uninsured, particularly for the chronically ill and well. Whether these disparities result from lower access or individual choice cannot be determined from this study. When viewed in light of other studies examining the impact of utilization on health status, these results provide support for the development of comprehensive health insurance packages with universal coverage and better inclusion of chronic and preventive care models in benefit packages.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1001/jama.269.6.787

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Hafner-Eaton, C.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association
Published
1993-02-10
Volume
269
Issue
6
Pages
787-792
ISSN
0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4256407207
Cited by
170
References
1
FWCI
38.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physician utilization disparities between the uninsured and insured. Comparisons of the chronically ill, acutely ill, and well nonelderly populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.269.6.787
The paper
Hafner-Eaton, C. (1993). Physician utilization disparities between the uninsured and insured. Comparisons of the chronically ill, acutely ill, and well nonelderly populations. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.269.6.787

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.