Search

The article focuses on state program, Medicaid. Topics include Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA's) action against Medicaid programs; supporters views including high health care access, improvement in the finances of low-income families and mental health outcomes; and reductions in early mortality rates.

Context The Affordable Care Act provides new Medicaid coverage to an estimated 12 million low-income adults. Barriers to access or quality could hamper the program's success. One of these barriers might be the stigma associated with Medicaid or poverty. Methods Our mixed-methods study involved 574 low-income adults and included data from an in-person survey and follow-up interviews. Our analysis of the interviews showed that many participants who were on Medicaid or uninsured described a perception or fear of being treated poorly in the health care setting. We defined this experience as stigma and merged our qualitative interviews coded for stigma with our quantitative survey data to see whether stigma was related to other sociodemographic characteristics. We also examined whether stigma was associated with access to care, quality of care, and self-reported health. Findings We were unable to identify other sociodemographic characteristics associated with stigma in this low-income sample. The qualitative interviews suggested that stigma was most often the result of a provider-patient interaction that felt demeaning, rather than an internalized sense of shame related to receiving public insurance or charity care. An experience of stigma was associated with unmet health needs, poorer perceptions of quality of care, and worse health across several self-reported measures. Conclusions Because a stigmatizing experience in the health system might interfere with the delivery of high-quality care to new Medicaid enrollees, further research and policy interventions that target stigma are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsThe Paycheck Plus randomized controlled trial tested a fourfold increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for single adults without dependent children over 3 years in New York and Atlanta.In New York, the intervention improved economic, mental, and physical health outcomes. In Atlanta, it had no economic benefit or impact on physical health and may have worsened mental health.In Atlanta, tax filing and bonus receipt were lower than in the New York arm of the trial, which may explain the lack of economic benefits. Lower mental health scores in the treatment group were driven by disadvantaged men, and the study sample was in good mental health. Context: The Paycheck Plus experiment examined the effects of an enhanced Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for single adults on economic and health outcomes in Atlanta, GA and New York City (NYC). The NYC study was completed two years prior to the Atlanta study and found mental and physical benefits for the subgroups that responded best to the economic incentives provided. In this article, we present the findings from the Atlanta study, in which the uptake of the treatment (tax filings and EITC bonus) were lower and economic and health benefits were not observed. Methods: Paycheck Plus Atlanta was an unblinded randomized controlled trial that assigned n = 3,971 participants to either the standard federal EITC (control group) or an EITC supplement of up to $2,000 (treatment group) for three tax years (2017–2019). Administrative data on employment and earnings were obtained from the Georgia Department of Labor and survey data were used to examine validated measures of health and well‐being. Findings: In Atlanta, the treatment group had significantly higher earnings in the first project year but did not have significantly higher cumulative earnings than the control group overall (mean difference = $1,812, 95% CI = −150, 3,774, p = 0.07). The treatment group also had significantly lower scores on two measures of mental health after the intervention was complete: the Patient Health Questionnaire 8 (mean difference = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.32, p = 0.005) and the Kessler 6 (mean difference = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.27, p = 0.012). Secondary analyses suggested these results were driven by disadvantaged men, but the study sample was in good mental health. Conclusions: The EITC experiment in Atlanta was not associated with gains in earnings or improvements in physical or mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]