The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is an association of the federal government with the states whose aim is to give health insurance compensation to children from low-income families younger than 19 years old who are not fit for Medicaid (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2007). Unlike Medicaid, SCHIP is designated not to individuals but states (NCSL, 2007). The states allocate the costs differently depending on the number of children in need and the health problems which they need to solve. One of the problems with SCHIP is that dental care is not compulsory under its regulations (Booth & Edelstein, 2006). Due to this crucial sphere of healthcare being optional, SCHIP makes the care system insecure, vulnerable, and irregular. It has been established that preventive dentistry is highly required among children whose families fit for SCHIP. Moreover, there is evidence of preventive dental care being rather cost-effective (Booth & Edelstein, 2006). Unfortunately, there is no settled standard in the allocation of costs for dentistry in every state. Such way of things leads to the decline of the number of healthcare services associated with dental care (Booth & Edelstein, 2006). Furthermore, the situation is aggravated because of the suggestion to implement cost sharing in SCHIP.
I think that the idea of cost sharing may impact the families eligible for SCHIP in a rather adverse way. The core idea of such programs as Medicare and SCHIP is to support the families who do not have enough resources to pay for the insurance. Consequently, they cannot afford to pay for healthcare services as a part of the program. Thus, cost sharing may lead to the restraint of these children’s chances to receive proper medical care (NCSL, 2007). Because of the implementation of cost sharing, the yearly allowances for the families eligible for SCHIP have been significantly reduced, leading to the impossibility of dental care for the children (NCSL, 2007). In my opinion, cost sharing should be considered very cautiously when it comes to those who are in Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Some families aided by these projects may afford copayments or premiums. However, most of the families cannot cover such expenditures and, as a result, are not able to obtain the necessary care. This situation is particularly common in the families with low income and serious or numerous health issues. The National Conference of State Legislatures (2007) remarks that the resilience allotted to the states in creating their SCHIP programs makes it possible to initiate some advantageous healthcare projects. However, I think that the problem of cost sharing outweighs the positive features of SCHIP. The government should take care of those who cannot afford insurance. Thus, before the implementation of cost sharing, a detailed plan should be developed which would make it possible to differentiate between the families who can participate in cost sharing and those who cannot do that. By doing so, the government will not deprive the children of the healthcare they need. Dental care demands a lot of expenses, and thorough consideration should be paid to its allotment. Children whose families cannot afford to pay for dental care should be eligible to receive it for free. Cost sharing may be a good idea, but it should only be applied to the families whose income allows them to cover a part of their healthcare expenses.
References
Booth, M., & Edelstein, B. (2006). State children’s health insurance program (SCHIP): A decade of optional dental coverage for kids.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2007). Frequently asked questions… SCHIP.