• Print
  • PDF
  • Download
  • Copy Chart
  • Embed
    This feature allows you to add a graph to your website or blog. The graph will automatically update whenever data are added to kidsdata.org.

Health Care


Health Insurance Coverage, by Status and Type of Coverage: 2009 See Source and Notes
(Status and Type of Coverage: All)

California Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 52.5%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 38.4%
Privately Purchased 4.3%
Uninsured 4.9%
Alameda County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 68.3%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 23.7%
Privately Purchased 4.7%
Uninsured 3.3%
Butte County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 51.7%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 44.0%
Privately Purchased 3.3%
Uninsured N/A
Contra Costa County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 75.8%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 18.9%
Privately Purchased 4.5%
Uninsured 0.8%
Del Norte, Siskiyou, Lassen, Trinity, Modoc, Plumas, and Sierra Counties Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 48.4%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 48.8%
Privately Purchased N/A
Uninsured 2.2%
El Dorado County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 70.8%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 20.4%
Privately Purchased 2.5%
Uninsured 6.3%
Fresno County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 43.4%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 51.0%
Privately Purchased 1.7%
Uninsured 3.9%
Humboldt County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 58.7%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 31.6%
Privately Purchased 4.2%
Uninsured 5.5%
Imperial County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 49.3%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 44.7%
Privately Purchased 2.2%
Uninsured 3.7%
Kern County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 45.7%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 47.5%
Privately Purchased 1.1%
Uninsured 5.8%
Kings County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 33.8%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 60.8%
Privately Purchased 1.3%
Uninsured 4.1%
Lake County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 43.5%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 52.0%
Privately Purchased N/A
Uninsured N/A
Los Angeles County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 44.4%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 45.2%
Privately Purchased 4.6%
Uninsured 5.8%
Madera County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 38.7%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 47.5%
Privately Purchased 3.2%
Uninsured 10.7%
Marin County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 68.9%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 13.4%
Privately Purchased 17.2%
Uninsured N/A
Mendocino County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 34.9%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 50.1%
Privately Purchased 7.8%
Uninsured 7.3%
Merced County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 48.1%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 43.2%
Privately Purchased 3.3%
Uninsured 5.4%
Monterey County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 34.5%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 58.2%
Privately Purchased 0.8%
Uninsured 6.5%
Napa County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 49.2%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 35.0%
Privately Purchased 9.9%
Uninsured 5.9%
Nevada County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 55.2%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 26.9%
Privately Purchased 6.9%
Uninsured 11.0%
Orange County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 52.1%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 36.1%
Privately Purchased 5.9%
Uninsured 5.8%
Placer County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 77.7%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 11.8%
Privately Purchased 4.1%
Uninsured 6.3%
Riverside County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 55.9%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 36.9%
Privately Purchased 3.4%
Uninsured 3.8%
Sacramento County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 63.1%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 32.6%
Privately Purchased 1.6%
Uninsured 2.7%
San Benito County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 53.2%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 36.7%
Privately Purchased 4.7%
Uninsured 5.4%
San Bernardino County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 47.7%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 41.6%
Privately Purchased 3.2%
Uninsured 7.5%
San Diego County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 55.2%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 34.5%
Privately Purchased 5.7%
Uninsured 4.6%
San Francisco County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 65.3%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 30.0%
Privately Purchased 4.4%
Uninsured N/A
San Joaquin County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 39.3%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 54.0%
Privately Purchased 3.9%
Uninsured 2.8%
San Luis Obispo County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 58.3%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 24.7%
Privately Purchased 3.6%
Uninsured 13.4%
San Mateo County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 81.2%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 15.6%
Privately Purchased 1.9%
Uninsured 1.3%
Santa Barbara County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 36.6%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 54.6%
Privately Purchased 2.9%
Uninsured 6.0%
Santa Clara County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 66.4%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 26.0%
Privately Purchased 5.2%
Uninsured 2.3%
Santa Cruz County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 42.8%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 40.9%
Privately Purchased 8.4%
Uninsured 7.9%
Shasta County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 56.1%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 37.6%
Privately Purchased 3.6%
Uninsured 2.7%
Solano County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 54.6%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 34.8%
Privately Purchased 4.7%
Uninsured 5.8%
Sonoma County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 63.2%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 24.1%
Privately Purchased 8.3%
Uninsured 4.3%
Stanislaus County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 62.0%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 33.6%
Privately Purchased 1.0%
Uninsured 3.4%
Sutter County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 40.8%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 55.3%
Privately Purchased N/A
Uninsured 2.2%
Tehama, Glenn, and Colusa Counties Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 37.4%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 49.9%
Privately Purchased 4.7%
Uninsured 8.0%
Tulare County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 37.2%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 58.2%
Privately Purchased N/A
Uninsured 4.6%
Tuolumne, Calaveras, Amador, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, and Alpine Counties Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 40.0%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 39.6%
Privately Purchased 7.2%
Uninsured 13.2%
Ventura County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 62.0%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 22.7%
Privately Purchased 8.2%
Uninsured 7.2%
Yolo County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 63.4%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 28.6%
Privately Purchased 2.3%
Uninsured 5.7%
Yuba County Percent
Employment-Based Insurance 47.5%
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families / Other Public 46.4%
Privately Purchased N/A
Uninsured 5.3%

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 by status and type of health insurance coverage.

Data Source: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, California Health Interview Survey. Accessed online at http://www.chis.ucla.edu/  (March 2011).

Footnote: These estimates are based on a survey of the population and are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. In 2009, the margin of error at the 95% confidence level for the percentage of children in California with employment-based health insurance was ±1.2. Margins of error for individual counties were larger. LNE (Low Number Events) refers to data that have been suppressed because there were fewer than 50 unweighted cases in the denominator. N/A means that data are not available. For more information about the California Health Interview Survey and for detailed margins of error around specific data points, see http://www.chis.ucla.edu/.

Learn More About this Topic

Measures of Health Care on Kidsdata.org

Kidsdata.org includes the following health care measures:

For many families, health insurance is provided by an employer. State programs such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families also are available for eligible low-income families, although undocumented immigrants generally are excluded from these programs. Some counties have Children's Health Initiatives, which help provide coverage for low-income children who are ineligible for state programs, including those who are undocumented.

The American Academy of Pediatrics describes the medical home as a model of delivering primary care that is "accessible, continuous, comprehensive, family-centered, coordinated, compassionate, and culturally effective." For more information on the medical home model see http://www.medicalhomeinfo.org/

Why This Topic Is Important

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, every child should receive high quality, coordinated, comprehensive, and preventive health care (1). This care is best offered through a “medical home,” an ongoing family-centered partnership with a child health professional or team, in which all of the patient’s needs are met (1). Children who receive care in the context of a medical home are more like to have annual, preventive check-ups (which can lead to the early identification and treatment of problems) and are less likely to have unmet medical and dental needs (2). In 2009, 6% of U.S. children lacked a usual source of health care (3). Not surprisingly, children with health insurance are far more likely to have a usual source of care than uninsured children. Approximately 7.5 million U.S. children (10% of all kids) were uninsured in 2009 (3).

One convenient way for children and youth to access needed health services is through school-based health centers. Nearly 2,000 centers currently operate nationwide (4). These health centers, whether located on school property or in the vicinity of a school, offer a range of services to underserved or uninsured students, including primary medical care, behavioral health, dental care, substance abuse counseling, and nutrition education (4). Research has found that school-based health centers can lead to improved health care access, increased school attendance, and reduced inappropriate emergency room visits among youth (5).

For more information on health care, see kidsdata.org’s Research & Links section.

Sources for this narrative:

  1. Hagan, J. F., Shaw, J. S., & Duncan, P. M. (Eds.). (2008). Bright futures: Guidelines for health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents (3rd ed.). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved from: http://brightfutures.aap.org/pdfs/Guidelines_PDF/1-BF-Introduction.pdf
  2. Strickland, B. B., Jones, J. R., Ghandour, R. M., Kogan, M. D., & Newacheck, P. W. (2011). The medical home: Health care access and impact for children and youth in the United States. Pediatrics, 127(4), 604-611. Retrieved from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/03/14/peds.2009-3555
  3. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2011). Health care. America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/care.asp
  4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. (2011). School-based health centers. Retrieved from: http://www.hrsa.gov/ourstories/schoolhealthcenters/
  5. National Association on School-Based Health Care. (n.d.) Benefits of school based health care: Fact sheet. Retrieved from:  http://www.nasbhc.org/site/c.ckLQKbOVLkK6E/b.7526255/k.9AF9/SBHC_Fact_Sheets.htm

Policy Implications

Providing quality, accessible, and affordable health care to children requires comprehensive insurance coverage for all children; an appropriately trained and compensated provider base; parental understanding about what care is needed and how to access it; and effective systems of care, including a “medical home.” When children have health insurance, they are more likely to receive preventive care and acute care, miss less school, and their families are at less financial risk from unpaid medical bills (1, 2). Immigrant children, especially those with undocumented parents or those who are themselves undocumented, are at particular risk of being uninsured and without regular health care (3).

According to research and subject experts, policy options that could improve children’s health care include:

  • Maintaining continuous Healthy Families and Healthy Kids insurance coverage for all eligible children, including immigrant children (1, 2, 3)
  • Ensuring that every child has access to family-centered, culturally competent and coordinated care within a medical home, particularly children with special health care needs (4, 5, 6)
  • Ensuring that training is provided to general pediatricians on medical home implementation and management of care for children with special health care needs; and ensuring that there is an adequate number of trained pediatric specialty care providers (6, 7)
  • Adopting, funding, and supporting effective use of efficient application and enrollment processes, such as web-based systems that provide a one-stop approach to enrollment in various public and private health, social service, and other programs (8, 9)
  • Ensuring that public insurance reimbursement for pediatric visits covers the time required to focus on child/youth development, family-centered care and – for youth – sexual and reproductive health (2, 5, 10, 11)
  • Expanding access to health education and consultation services for parents/guardians and service providers in the range of programs that serve young children, including child care settings, nutrition programs, and foster care homes (5)

For more policy ideas and research on this topic see Research & Links on this page or visit the California HealthCare Foundation, the 100% Campaign, the National Center for Medical Home Implementation, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Also see Policy Implications on kidsdata.org under Prenatal Care and Dental Care.

Sources for this narrative:

  1. Galbraith, A. A., Wong, S. T., Kim, S. E., & Newacheck, P. W. (2005). Out-of-pocket financial burden for low-income families with children: Socioeconomic disparities and effects of insurance. Health Services Research, 40(6 Pt. 1), 1722-1736. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361224/
  2. 100% Campaign. (2010). Why coverage is important. Retrieved from: http://sites.activatedirect.com/100percentcampaign.org/coverage/?_c=xxd8fb5l61pyn7
  3. Artiga, S., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Health insurance coverage and access to care for low-income non-citizen children. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Retrieved from: http://www.kff.org/medicaid/7643.cfm
  4. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2002). Policy statement: The medical home. Pediatrics, 110(1), 184-186. Retrieved from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/1/184.full?sid=25cb6a37-1d6b-496e-b4ad-a456ffb80ab4
  5. Zero to Three. (2009).  Ensuring good physical health of our infants and toddlers. Retrieved from: http://main.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/HealthSinglesMar5.pdf?docID=7888
  6. National Center for Medical Home Implementation. (2011). Educating medical students and residents on medical home. American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved from: http://www.medicalhomeinfo.org/training/residency.aspx
  7. Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health. (2010). Children with special health care needs: A profile of key issues in California. Retrieved from: http://www.lpfch.org/specialneeds/
  8. Ange, E., Chimento, L., Park, C., & Wilk, A. (2008). Assessment of one-e-App: A web-based application and enrollment application for public health insurance programs. The Lewin Group for the California Endowment and the California HealthCare Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.lewin.com/~/media/lewin/site_sections/publications/oneeappfinalrpt.pdf
  9. Ange, E., Chimento, L., Park, C., & Wilk, A. (2009). Using web technology for public program enrollment: Assessing one-e-app in three California counties. The Lewin Group for the California HealthCare Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2009/06/using-web-technology-for-public-program-enrollment-assessing-oneeapp-in-three-california-counties 
  10. Gold, R. B. (2009). Unintended consequences: How insurance processes inadvertently abrogate patient confidentiality. Guttmacher Policy Review, 12(4). Retrieved from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120412.html
  11. Goldenring, J., & Rosen, D. S. (2004). Getting into adolescent heads: An essential update. Contemporary Pediatrics, 21(1), 64-90. Retrieved from: http://www.aap.org/pubserv/PSVpreview/pages/Files/HEADSS.pdf

How Children Are Faring

In 2009, an estimated 95% of California children ages 0-17 had health insurance, an increase from about 91% in 2001. Roughly half of children (53%) received health care coverage through employment-based insurance in 2009, and about 38% of children had public insurance, such as Medi-Cal or Healthy Families. Health care coverage varies by county, with figures ranging from about 87% to nearly 100% of children insured in 2009.

The percentage of California children who did not receive needed health care or whose care was delayed at least one year was about 5% in 2009. At the county/regional level, the percentage of children with delayed or no health care ranged from approximately 2-15%.

Among youth ages 12-17, 86% received a routine health check-up within the past 12 months in 2009, up from an estimated 77% in 2001. However, only about 50% of California children ages 0-17 had access to a “medical home,” compared to 58% nationwide, according to the most recent data (2007). Overall, older, low-income, Latino/Hispanic, and African American/Black children and youth were less likely to have a medical home.

School health centers provide access to health care for many children. In 2012, there were 200 school health centers serving California public schools, up from 153 in 2009. However, school health centers are not dispersed equally across the state. In fact, in 2012, a majority of counties (32 of 58) had zero school health centers, and Los Angeles County alone had one-third of all health centers in the state.

A 2010 survey of California parents found that most children are in good or excellent physical health (93%) and have good/excellent health care (90%). However, children from low-income households are more likely to be in poor/fair health and receive poor/fair health care, according to parents.

Research and Links

Websites with Related Information

Key Reports

County/Regional Reports