Uninsured rural families.

CONTEXT: Although research shows higher uninsured rates among rural versus urban individuals, prior studies are limited because they do not examine coverage across entire rural families. PURPOSE: This study uses the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to compare rural and urban insurance coverage within families, to inform the design of coverage expansions that build on the current rural health insurance system. METHODS: We pooled the 2001 and 2002 MEPS Household Component survey, aggregated to the family level (excluding households with all members 65 and older). We examined (1) differences in urban, rural-adjacent, and rural nonadjacent family insurance coverage, and (2) the characteristics of rural families related to their patterns of coverage. FINDINGS: One out of 3 rural families has at least 1 uninsured member, a rate higher than for urban families-particularly in nonadjacent counties. Yet, three fourths of uninsured rural families have an insured member. For 42% of rural nonadjacent families, this is someone with public coverage (Medicaid/SCHIP or Medicare); urban families are more likely to have private health insurance or a private/public mix. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to expand family coverage through employers may be less effective among rural nonadjacent than urban families. Instead, expansions of public coverage or tax credits enabling entire families to purchase an individual/self-employment plan would better ensure that rural nonadjacent families achieve full coverage. Subsidies or incentives would need to be generous enough to make coverage affordable for the 52% of uninsured rural nonadjacent families living below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Use of critical access hospital emergency rooms by patients with mental health symptoms.

CONTEXT: National data demonstrate that mental health (MH) visits to the emergency room (ER) comprise a small, but not inconsequential, proportion of all visits; however, we lack a rural picture of this issue. PURPOSE: This study investigates the use of critical access hospital (CAH) ERs by patients with MH problems to understand the role these facilities play in rural MH needs and the challenges they face. METHODS: Primary data were collected through the combination of a telephone survey and ER visit logs. Our sampling frame was the universe of CAHs at the time the survey was fielded. KEY FINDINGS: About 43% of CAHs surveyed operate in communities with no MH services, while 9.4% of all logged visits were by patients identified as having some type of MH problem. The most common problems identified were affective disorders, substance abuse, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. Only 32% of CAHs have access to on-site detoxification and 2% have inpatient psychiatric services, meaning that patients in need of these services typically must leave their communities to gain treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of community resources may impact CAHs' ability to assist patients with MH problems. Among those with a primary MH condition, 21% left the ER with no or unknown treatment, as did 51% of patients whose MH condition was secondary to their emergent problem. Patients in need of detoxification or inpatient psychiatric services often must travel over an hour to obtain these services, potentially creating significant issues for themselves and their families.