Syracuse University, USA.
University of Missouri, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jan;220:203-211. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.001. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
Anecdotal and descriptive evidence has led to the claim that some low-income households may face a "eat or breathe" tradeoff, but quantitative evidence is scarce. We link Medicaid claims data to monthly Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) participation data from the state of Missouri from 2010 to 2013 to explore monthly patterns in children's emergency room (ER) claims for asthma and to examine whether these patterns are sensitive to the timing and amount of SNAP benefits. This allows us to empirically test whether SNAP households with Medicaid insurance face trade-offs between food and medicine that increases the likelihood that a child in a SNAP and Medicaid household will go to the ER for asthma at the end of the month. While we do not find overwhelming evidence that the timing of SNAP benefits receipt are associated with the timing of asthma-related ER visits, we do find clear evidence that increased SNAP benefits are associated with a reduction in the overall probability of an asthma-related ER visit.
一些低收家庭可能面临“食与医”的权衡取舍，这一说法来自轶事和描述性证据，但定量证据却十分匮乏。我们将密苏里州 2010 至 2013 年间的医疗补助索赔数据与每月补充营养援助计划（SNAP）参与数据相关联，以探索儿童急诊室（ER）哮喘索赔的月度模式，并检验这些模式是否对 SNAP 福利的时间和金额敏感。这使我们能够通过实证检验 Medicaid 保险的 SNAP 家庭是否面临食品和药品之间的权衡取舍，这种取舍增加了 SNAP 和 Medicaid 家庭的孩子在月底因哮喘去急诊室的可能性。虽然我们没有发现压倒性的证据表明 SNAP 受益时间的接收与哮喘相关急诊就诊的时间有关，但我们确实发现了明确的证据表明，SNAP 受益的增加与哮喘相关急诊就诊的总体概率降低有关。
