同性婚姻立法对性少数群体中依赖雇主提供保险覆盖范围的适度影响。
Moderate Effects of Same-Sex Legislation on Dependent Employer-Based Insurance Coverage Among Sexual Minorities.
作者信息
Tran Linda Diem
机构信息
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
出版信息
Med Care Res Rev. 2016 Dec;73(6):752-768. doi: 10.1177/1077558715625560. Epub 2016 Jan 12.
A difference-in-difference approach was used to compare the effects of same-sex domestic partnership, civil union, and marriage policies on same- and different-sex partners who could have benefitted from their partners' employer-based insurance (EBI) coverage. Same-sex partners had 78% lower odds (Marginal Effect = -21%) of having EBI compared with different-sex partners, adjusting for socioeconomic and health-related factors. Same-sex partners living in states that recognized same-sex marriage or domestic partnership had 89% greater odds of having EBI compared with those in states that did not recognize same-sex unions (ME = 5%). The impact of same-sex legislation on increasing take-up of dependent EBI coverage among lesbians, gay men, and bisexual individuals was modest, and domestic partnership legislation was equally as effective as same-sex marriage in increasing same-sex partner EBI coverage. Extending dependent EBI coverage to same-sex partners can mitigate gaps in coverage for a segment of the lesbians, gay men, and bisexual population but will not eliminate them.
采用双重差分法来比较同性家庭伴侣关系、民事结合和婚姻政策对可能受益于其伴侣基于雇主的保险（EBI）覆盖范围的同性和异性伴侣的影响。在对社会经济和健康相关因素进行调整后，与异性伴侣相比，同性伴侣获得EBI的几率低78%（边际效应=-21%）。与不承认同性结合的州的同性伴侣相比，生活在承认同性婚姻或同性家庭伴侣关系的州的同性伴侣获得EBI的几率高89%（边际效应=5%）。同性立法对增加女同性恋者、男同性恋者和双性恋者对受抚养人EBI覆盖范围的接受程度的影响不大，并且家庭伴侣关系立法在增加同性伴侣EBI覆盖范围方面与同性婚姻同样有效。将受抚养人EBI覆盖范围扩大到同性伴侣可以缩小女同性恋者、男同性恋者和双性恋人群中一部分人的覆盖差距，但无法消除这些差距。
Zotero 插件