Search results

OBJECTIVE: To disentangle the relationships among food insecurity, health care utilization, and health care expenditures. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We use national data on 13 465 adults (age ≥ 18) from the 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the first year of the food insecurity measures. STUDY DESIGN: We employ two‐stage empirical models (probit for any health care use/expenditure, ordinary least squares, and generalized linear models for amount of utilization/expenditure), controlling for demographics, health insurance, poverty status, chronic conditions, and other predictors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our results show that the likelihood of any health care expenditure (total, inpatient, emergency department, outpatient, and pharmaceutical) is higher for marginal, low, and very low food secure individuals. Relative to food secure households, very low food secure households are 5.1 percentage points (P < .001) more likely to have any health care expenditure, and have total health care expenditures that are 24.8 percent higher (P = .011). However, once we include chronic conditions in the models (ie, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, emphysema, high cholesterol, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and asthma), these underlying health conditions mitigate the differences in expenditures by food insecurity status (only the likelihood of any having any health care expenditure for very low food secure households remains statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and government agencies are focused on addressing deficiencies in social determinants of health and the resulting impacts on health status and health care utilization. Our results indicate that chronic conditions are strongly associated with food insecurity and higher health care spending. Efforts to alleviate food insecurity should consider the dual burden of chronic conditions. Finally, future research can address specific mechanisms underlying the relationships between food security, health, and health care.

Do job applicants and employees with tattoos suffer a penalty in the labor market because of their body art? Previous research has found that tattooed people are widely perceived by hiring managers to be less employable than people without tattoos. This is especially the case for those who have visible tattoos (particularly offensive ones) that are difficult to conceal. Given this backdrop, our research surprisingly found no empirical evidence of employment, wage or earnings discrimination against people with various types of tattoos. In our sample, and considering a variety of alternative estimation techniques, not only are the wages and annual earnings of tattooed employees in the United States statistically indistinguishable from the wages and annual earnings of employees without tattoos, but tattooed individuals are also just as likely, and in some instances even more likely, to gain employment. These results suggest that, contrary to popular opinion as well as research findings with hiring managers and customers, having a tattoo does not appear to be associated with disadvantage or discrimination in the labor market.

Significant support exists in the United States for legalization of marijuana/cannabis. As of 2021, 36 states and four territories approved the legalization of medical cannabis via medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and 15 states and District of Columbia (DC) have adopted recreational marijuana laws (RMLs). We performed structured and systematic searches of articles published from 2010 through September 2021. We assess the literature pertaining to adolescent marijuana use; opioid use and opioid-related outcomes; alcohol use; tobacco use; illicit and other drug use; marijuana growing and cultivation; employment, earnings, and other workplace outcomes; academic achievement and performance; criminal activity; perceived harmfulness; traffic and road safety; and suicide and sexual activity. Overall, 113 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. Except for opioids, studies on use of other substances (illicit drugs, tobacco, and alcohol) were inconclusive. MMLs and RMLs do not generate negative outcomes in the labor market, lead to greater criminal activity, or reduce traffic and road safety.