Health Care Affordability Gap Widens between the Rich and the Poor

Monday, September 29, 2014

By YiLi Chien, Senior Economist

Between 1991 and 2012, health care costs increased an average of 4.2 percent per year, while inflation increased an average of 2.5 percent per year. This increase in health care costs, together with an increase in income inequality, may have made health care unaffordable for lower-income groups, enlarging the medical consumption inequality between the rich and poor.

To shed light on this issue, we examined annual survey data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The BRFSS data are broken down by income group, and one of the survey questions asked, “Was there a time in the past 12 months when you needed to see a doctor but could not because of cost?” Therefore, the data are suitable for investigating the relationship between affordability of health care and income. We examined the data for the period 1995-2012, excluding 2001 and 2002 due to changes in the questionnaire, and we classified households into five groups according to their income quintile.1 Given each group, we computed the “unaffordability percentage,” or the percentage of interviewees who gave a positive answer to the above question, which indicates the unaffordability of health care for that income group.

The figure below plots the unaffordability percentage for all households in each income quintile over time. The first quintile represents the poorest 20 percent of the population, and the fifth quintile represents the richest 20 percent.

health care affordability

Clearly, for each given year, the index level is negatively associated with income. It is not surprising that health care is more affordable for high-income households than it is for low-income households. Over time, the unaffordability index of all households showed an upward trend. From 1995 to 2012, the index increased from 11.8 percent to 16.8 percent, showing that the rapidly increasing cost of health care, in fact, burdened more U.S. households.

More importantly, there was a diverging trend of the index between the rich and the poor. The bottom quintile percentage rose from 23.3 percent in 1995 to 32.7 percent in 2012, exhibiting an almost 10-percentage-point surge. Similarly, the second quintile was also heavily affected. The index increased from 15.1 percent to 24.2 percent, also an almost 10-percentage-point escalation.

On the other hand, the top two quintiles were much less affected. Their indexes were much lower and exhibited a slightly upward, but insignificant, trend. The middle quintile also suffered, though not as much as the bottom two quintiles. The diverging trends clearly indicate that higher health care costs significantly enlarged the gap of accessibility to health care across the income distribution over the past two decades.

This post only provides a rough look at this issue, while the result delivers a somewhat surprising message. We might expect that low-income households would be covered by social insurance programs like Medicare or Medicaid. Hence, the poor should not be affected as much as shown in the data. On the contrary, the poor were more affected by the rising cost of health care than the rich.

Notes and References

1 Around 12 percent to 14 percent of the sample did not report income data, so those responses are excluded from the calculation. In addition, the raw data only provide a fixed range of income for each household. Therefore, the income quintile is imputed.

Additional Resources

Posted In Financial  |  Tagged health careincome inequalityyili chien
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.


Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email mediainquiries@stls.frb.org. For all other blog-related questions or comments, email on-the-economy@stls.frb.org.

Categories