IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1999896868-874_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The prevalence of low income among childbearing women in California: Implications for the private and public sectors

Author

Listed:
  • Braveman, P.
  • Egerter, S.
  • Marchi, K.

Abstract

Objectives. This study examined the income distribution of childbearing women in California and sought to identify income groups at increased risk of untimely prenatal care. Methods. A 1994/95 cross-sectional statewide survey of 10 132 postpartum women was used. Results. Sixty-five percent of all childbearing women had low income (0%-200% of the federal poverty level), and 46% were poor (0%-100% of the federal poverty level). Thirty-five percent of women with private prenatal coverage had low income. Most low-income women with Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid) or private coverage received their prenatal care at private-sector sites. Compared with women with incomes over 400% of the poverty level, both poor and near-poor women were at significantly elevated risk of untimely care after adjustment for insurance, education, age, parity, marital status, and ethnicity (adjusted odds ratios = 5.32 and 3.09, respectively). Conclusions. This study's results indicate that low-income women are the mainstream maternity population, not a 'special needs' subgroup; even among privately insured childbearing women, a substantial proportion have low income. Efforts to increase timely prenatal care initiation cannot focus solely on women with Medicaid, the uninsured, women in absolute poverty, or those who receive care at public-sector sites.

Suggested Citation

  • Braveman, P. & Egerter, S. & Marchi, K., 1999. "The prevalence of low income among childbearing women in California: Implications for the private and public sectors," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(6), pages 868-874.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1999:89:6:868-874_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1999:89:6:868-874_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.