In-work tax credits for families and their impact on health status in adults

The effect of cash transfers on health in high-income countries: A scoping review

High-income countries use cash transfer programs to mitigate poverty, in part to improve the health of low-income populations and potentially reduce their use of public health care. This review synthesizes evidence from studies that employed experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate the effect of cash transfer interventions on health outcomes or health care utilization in high-income countries. We excluded interventions if they required prior contributions for eligibility, substituted cash transfers for in-kind services, or were contingent on specific health behaviours, and excluded studies published before 1970. We searched 14 academic databases on May 13, 2022 and April 18, 2023, identifying 20,978 unique records. After screening, 164 studies were included. These studies covered interventions in 14 countries, with the largest share from the United States. The most common health outcomes examined were fertility, birth weight, self-rated health, tobacco use, and depression. We classified studies into seven intervention categories and eight health outcome domains, and identified where systematic reviews may be possible. We found relatively few studies examining health care utilization as an outcome and identify this as a knowledge gap. We categorized effects as beneficial or harmful, except for fertility and health care utilization where effects were categorized as increase or decrease. With insufficient consistency of outcomes for meta-analysis, we employed a vote count and sign test to assess the presence of any effect. Across the six relevant health domains, 98 of 130 studies (.75; 95% CI: .67, .82) reported a beneficial median effect, significantly different from the null value of 50% (p = .000). Of 37 studies examining fertility, 23 showed increases (.62; 95% CI: .46, .76) in fertility, which did not clear our threshold for statistical significance using conservative assumptions (p = .094). However, a larger share of studies reported increased fertility for child/family benefits (.69, n = 26) than for employment-related cash transfers (.44, n = 9). Results for health care utilization were evenly distributed (5 increase, 4 inconsistent, 6 decrease), but these are difficult to interpret as outcomes include both preventive and acute care. Our study provides replicable methods to enable future meta-analyses.

Family Economic Security Policies and Child and Family Health

In this review, we examine the effects of family economic security policies (i.e., minimum wage, earned income tax credit, unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) on child and family health outcomes, summarize policy generosity across states in the USA, and discuss directions and possibilities for future research. This manuscript is an update to a review article that was published in 2014. Millions of Americans are affected by family economic security policies each year, many of whom are the most vulnerable in society. There is increasing evidence that these policies impact health outcomes and behaviors of adults and children. Further, research indicates that, overall, policies which are more restrictive are associated with poorer health behaviors and outcomes; however, the strength of the evidence differs across each of the four policies. There is significant diversity in state-level policies, and it is plausible that these policy variations are contributing to health disparities across and within states. Despite increasing evidence of the relationship between economic policies and health, there continues to be limited attention to this issue. State policy variations offer a valuable opportunity for scientists to conduct natural experiments and contribute to evidence linking social policy effects to family and child well-being. The mounting evidence will help to guide future research and policy making for evolving toward a more nurturing society for family and child health and well-being.

In-work tax credits for families and their impact on health status in adults

BACKGROUND

By improving two social determinants of health (poverty and unemployment) in low- and middle-income families on or at risk of welfare, in-work tax credit for families (IWTC) interventions could impact health status and outcomes in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of IWTCs on health outcomes in working-age adults (18 to 64 years).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 16 electronic academic databases, including the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as six grey literature databases between July and September 2012 for records published between January 1980 and July 2012. We also searched key organisational websites, handsearched reference lists of included records and relevant journals, and contacted academic experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials and cohort, controlled before-and-after (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IWTCs in working-age adults. Included primary outcomes were: self rated general health; mental health/psychological distress; mental illness; overweight/obesity; alcohol use and tobacco use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (one CBA and four ITS) comprising a total of 5,677,383 participants (all women) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were synthesised narratively. The in-work tax credit intervention assessed in all included studies is the permanent Earned Income Tax Credit in the United States, established in 1975. This intervention distributed nearly USD 62 billion to over 27 million individuals in 2011, and its administration costs were less than one per cent of its total costs. All included studies carried a high risk of bias (especially from confounding and insufficient control for underlying time trends). Due to the small number of (observational) studies and their high risk of bias, we judged this body of evidence to have very low overall quality.One study found that IWTC had no detectable effect on self rated general health and mental health/psychological distress five years after its implementation (i.e. a considerable change in the generosity of the permanent IWTC) and on overweight/obesity eight years after implementation. One study found no effect of IWTC on tobacco use five years after implementation, one a moderate reduction in tobacco use one year after implementation (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.96), and one differential effects, with no effect in African-Americans and a large reduction in European-Americans two years after implementation (risk difference -11.1%, 95% CI -20.9% to -1.3%). No evidence was available for the effect of IWTC on mental illness and alcohol use. No adverse effects of IWTC were identified.One study also found no detectable effect of IWTC on the number of bad physical health days and of risky biomarkers for inflammation, cardiovascular disease and metabolic conditions eight years after implementation. One study found that IWTC had a large, positive effect on income from wages or salaries one year after implementation. Two studies found no effect on employment two and five years after implementation, whereas two found a moderate increase five and eight years after implementation and one a large increase in employment due to IWTC one year after implementation.No differences in outcomes between groups with different educational status were found for self rated health and mental health/psychological distress. In one study European-American women with lower levels of education were more likely to reduce tobacco use, while tobacco use did not change among African-American women with lower levels of education. However, no differences in tobacco use by educational status were observed in a second study. Two studies found that the intervention may have reduced inequity with respect to employment, where women with less education were more likely to move into employment (although one did not establish whether this difference was statistically significant), while two studies found no such difference and no studies found differences by ethnic group on employment rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the small and methodologically limited existing body of evidence with a high risk of bias provides no evidence for an effect of in-work tax credit for families interventions on health status (except for mixed evidence for tobacco smoking) in adults.