You are on page 1of 7

BAB I

Introduction
As we know the word insurance is not new to hear. But the understanding of the
insurance itself in depth, people do not know. That the general public knows about
insurance is just as security and dependability help to people. Though the real
meaning and the role of insurance in this very well and provide benefits between the
two

sides,

both

the

insurance

company

and

its

customers.

With the insurance can provide peace and ease of affairs, because we have insurance
do not need to worry to face risks that will come in the future, and also help us in the
face of affairs if any - time calamity or disaster we do not mess around with the
imposition of risk or losses as it has no company will bear all the corresponding
agreements that have been made previously.
BAB II
Concepts
No one can predict what will happen in the future perfectly, though using a variety of
analysis tools. Any predictions made will not be separated from the calculation errors
that have been made. Cause of the slipping of the results forecast for the future is full
of uncertainties even for certain things simply can not be taken into account such as
death and sustenance. So naturally if the occurrence of something in the future can
only be designed - they alone. Future risks can occur against a person's life such as
death, illness or the risk of being fired from his job. In the business world can be a
risk facing the risk of loss due to fire, damage or loss or other risks. Hence, any risk
that would be faced must be overcome so as not to cause even greater harm.
To reduce the risk that we do not want in the future, such as the risk of loss, risk of
fire, the risk of a breakdown of bank loans or other risks, it would require companies
that want to bear the risk. Is an insurance company that is willing and able to bear
any risks that would be faced by its customers, both individuals and business entities.
This is due to the insurance company is a company that is doing business insurance
terhapad risks that would be faced by its customers. [1] Insurance is one form of risk
control, by diverting / transferring risks from the first party to the other party, in this
case is to the company insurance. Transfer is based on legal rules and principles that
apply universally, adopted by the first party or other parties.
Basically, insurance is an activity that is transferred to the third party risk anything.
So if we get a calamity or disaster, which would replace all the losses we are insurers.
In nominal values, we will seek compensation for all the things that have been

legally recognized between the insured and an insured and can cause it financial and legal obligations. In this case does not apply to contracts of life insurance and accident insurance as perinsip is based on the loss of a financial nature. Implementation of the insurance agreement between the insurance company with the customers can not be done arbitrarily.things that are not desirable in the future between the insurance company with the customers. Indeminity or compensation means controlling tertanggu financial position after a loss as to the position before the loss occurred. So that when a health insurance customers experiencing an emergency. starting and working . it is not that easy to withdraw money in a savings or selling valuables like gold. especially when the money in savings or valuables are not enough.pledged to the insurance company. The goal is to avoid things . 3. Utmost Good Faith. the insurance company would easily carry out the various claims submitted by customers. To make a claim to the insurance company that is actually necessary administrative requirements since the beginning has been agreed. Insurable Interest is based on the law to underwrite a risk related to finance. and hospitals or health clinics that are directly file a claim to the insurance company after serving the insurance customers. Even today the insurance companies have worked with other companies directly. So if there are events or emergencies. It is undeniable that when issuing a claim against the company or demand our rights as a client of the insurance company. 4. Then in this case the need to mention the interests of the insured terhapa furious. insurance customers need not be confused as often experienced by people. in the determination of each contract should be based on good faith between the insured and the insurer regarding all the information both material and non-material. simply show an insurance card. Thus when the administrative requirements have been met. Principles . All this is illustrated by the insurance contract.perinsip insurance in question is as follows: 1. This is mainly as one of the measures to overcome a variety of ways bad guys who exploit this process insurance claims. Any agreement made containing perinsip perinsip insurance. The reason Proximate Cause is an active. 2. efficient which results in occurrence of an event in a chain or sequence or other powers of intervention. such as hospitals or health clinics for this type of health insurance or life insurance.

weighted to represent a yearly average of approximately 70 million children in the civilian.521 children. Using these. 5. Aritnya with this perinsip indemnity may not be greater than the loss actually suffered. MEPS-HC respondents are interviewed 5 times over a 2-year period. and whether it was public or private insurance. with an overlapping panel design. Details about the MEPS-HC are available elsewhere. Our final sample size was 120. The study population included children aged 0 to 17 years.093). BAB III Data Source and Study Population We analyzed data from 1998 through 2011 of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey–Household Component (MEPS-HC). 6.mation for the child or parent was not available for the full year (n ¼ 1524). and 3) being uninsured. in which the person was reported as having no insurance in 1 or more months of the year. and for whom insurance infor. Each year of data constitutes Academic Pediatrics A nationally representative sample. 2) having public insurance if a person was insured in 12 months of the year and had public insurance only. Contribution a perinsip where underwriting is entitled to invite the person . We included those with a . We excluded children for whom no identifiable parent records could be linked (n ¼ 4048).each person is not necessarily equal. although the number of dependents each .ing full-year health insurance type. noninstitutionalized US population Constructing Health Insurances Type Variables The MEPS-HC contains variables for whether a person had health insurance for at least 1 day in each calendar month of each year. Subrogation is the person who has to compensate the insured for the other party to demand that resulted interests suransi experiencing an event loss.another person who has the same interests to join together to pay compensation to the insured person. we constructed variables represent. annual public use files contain data from a single year for 2 consecutive panels. We linked each child with a parent or parents in the same household to construct child–parent pairs.actively from a new and independent source. with responses to at least 1 full year of the survey (n ¼ 126. classified as: 1) having private insurance if a person had insurance in 12 months of the year of which 1 or more months included private insurance (those with a combination of public and private insurance were included in this category).

and uninsured/unin. or 1 parent had public only and the other parent was uninsured. parental insurance was considered uninsured if both par. If the parent and child had the same type of health insurance. and if the insurance type was different between parent and child. design weights. parental insurance was considered public if both parents had public insurance only.ents were uninsured. The FPL for a family of 4 was $16. We do not report results from high-income families because the majority (88%) had private insurance for both child and parent. parent insurance was considered private if at least 1 parent had any private insurance. uninsured/public. and high income as $400% FPL. In cases where a child had 2 parents linked. We used sampling stratification variables. near-poor. public/uninsured. public/public. private/public.surance status or type. and low categories. their coverage type was considered discordant. We then created a combined variable that paired full.year health insurance type for a child with that of his or her parent.combination of public and private insurance in the private category to match MEPSHC health insurance variable categorization. and a robust variance estimator in accordance with MEPS guidelines to account for the complex sample design of the survey. their coverage was considered concordant.surance into 9 mutually exclusive categories (child type/ parent type): private/private.350 in 2011. and all categories had either no statistically significant changes or too few subjects to assess changes (n < 30).sured. middle income as 200% to less than 400% FPL. private/unin. We grouped child and parent type of health in. We defined low income as less than 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL). combining the MEPS-HC poor. We based household income stratifications on established MEPS-HC categories. BAB IV Analysis Analyses were stratified by family income categories. uninsured/private. we considered those who did not have insurance in 1 or more months of a given year as uninsured because previous research has shown that preventive service rates for patients with partial health insurance are different from those with full-year coverage and are similar to those with no coverage. regardless of the other parent’s in. . This accounts for both the intracluster correlation of children within families and intraperson correlation across years. public/private.450 in 1998 and $22.sured.

able. This approach has been used to assess temporal trends in health insurance and other health care outcomes. Surveillance Research Program.cally significant changes were those that increased or decreased .1 (Research Triangle Institute. with one exception: the child public/parent private. non-Hispanic nonwhite. and the alternative hypothesis was a significant increase or decrease in the prevalence of each health insurance coverage pattern. Statistical Methodology and Applications Branch.We examined the following demographic characteristics for the entire study period as one pooled sample and report the weighted percentage of each characteristic: age (child categories 0–4.wise regression or segmented regression) to determine if and when coverage patterns showed significant changes throughout the entire study period (Joinpoint Regression Software 4. National Cancer Institute). The minimum number of joinpoints allowed was 0 (ie. We used joinpoint regression (sometimes called piece. 14–17 years. Hispanic). Research Triangle Park. South. and child’s perceived health status (excellent/very good or good/fair/poor). We conducted descriptive analyses of the prevalence of all 9 possible patterns of coverage type for children paired with a parent or parents. a straight line over time). and yearly percentage point changes were calculated for each segment. parent categories $24. parental employment (currently employed or unemployed). The null hypothesis in this analysis was no change in trend. parental education (<12 years or $12 years). 5–9.4. Midwest. child race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white. $45 years).0. We assessed differences in the distribution of childparent health insurance type between 1998 and 2011 with chisquare tests of association using SUDAAN 11. indicating no change in child and parent health insurance coverage patterns over time. West).0. May 2013. 10–13. The maximum number of joinpoints was set at 2 on the basis of an algorithm taking into account the number of time points available. A Monte Carlo permutation method was used to select the model with the best fit. 25–44. middle-income group was limited to only 1 joinpoint as a result of small cell sizes (n < 30) in the years 1998 to 2000 and thus had fewer time points avail. family composition (1 parent or 2 parents). Statisti. NC). as well as concordant versus discordant insurance coverage. Joinpoint regression is often used for 2 simultaneous goals: to identify statistically significant changes in trend over time (in direction or rate of decrease or increase) and to quantify that change through an annual percentage of change statistic. region (North.

however. as they are known to influence health insurance coverage. Our institutional review board deemed the study exempt. Multinomial logistic regression models were conducted and marginal effects were calculated using STATA 11. we used trend segments identified in joinpoint regression analyses with multinomial logistic regression to allow inclusion of potential confounders.ance type was the outcome variable (9 categories) and year was the primary independent variable. the child private/parent public and child uninsured/parent public categories were excluded as a result of small and/or zero cells (n < 30). all 9 categories were included in the outcome var. College Station. Throughout this article. In these models. BAB V Conclusion From 1998 to 2011. for the middle-income models. there was a rise in discordant coverage patterns.over time and were significantly different than an annual percentage change of 0 (no change over time). we do not report estimates based on sample sizes of fewer than 30 because estimates based on such sample sizes are not reliable. We adjusted for all demographic characteristics examined.05 was considered statistically significant. Tex). low.2 IC (StataCorp.iable. Marginal effects for year were calculated for each model and are represented as an adjusted yearly percentage point change. To account for potential differences between child and parent health insurance types in our analysis of change patterns over time. the child and parent combined health insur.This study was financially supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (grant 1 R01 HS018569).and middle-income US families experienced a decrease in the percentage of child– parent pairs with private health insurance and pairs without insurance. Concurrently. mainly publicly insured children with uninsured parents. AP value of <. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Health Systems Cycle I. For the low-income models. .

the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (grant 1 R01 CA181452 01).2012). and the Ohio State University Department of Family Medicine . the Oregon Health & Science University Department of Family Medicine.