Search

Objective: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced reforms to mitigate adverse selection into and within the individual insurance market. We examined the traits and predicted medical spending of enrollees in California post-ACA.Data Sources: Survey of 2,103 enrollees in individual market plans, on- and off-exchange, in 2014.Study Design: We compared actual versus potential participants using data from the 2014 California Health Interview Survey on respondents who were individually insured or uninsured. We predicted annual medical spending for each group using age, sex, self-rated health, body mass index, smoking status, and income.Principal Findings: Average predicted spending was similar for actual ($3,377, 95 percent CI [$3,280-$3,474]) and potential participants ($3,257 [$3,060-$3,454]); however, some vulnerable subgroups were underrepresented. On- versus off-exchange enrollees differed in sociodemographic and health traits with modest differences in spending ($3,448 [$3,330-$3,565] vs. $3,175 [$3,012-$3,338]).Conclusions: We did not find evidence of selection into the overall insurance pool in 2014; however, differences by exchange status reflect the importance of including off-exchange enrollees in analyses and the pool for risk adjustment. California's post-ACA individual market has been a relative success, highlighting the importance of state policies and outreach efforts to encourage participation in the market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is limited information on the protective value of Medicare Part D low-income subsidies (LIS). We compared responses to drug costs for LIS recipients with near-poor (≤200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) and higher income beneficiaries without the LIS., Data Sources/study Setting: Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in 2008., Study Design: We examined three drug cost responses using multivariate logistic regression: cost-reducing behaviors (e.g., switching to generics), nonadherence (e.g., not refilling prescriptions), and financial stress (e.g., going without necessities)., Data Collection: Telephone interviews in a stratified random sample (N = 1,201, 70 percent response rate)., Principal Findings: After adjustment, a comparable percentage of unsubsidized near-poor (26 percent) and higher income beneficiaries reported cost-reducing behaviors (23 percent, p = .63); fewer LIS beneficiaries reported cost-reducing behaviors (15 percent, p = .019 vs near-poor). Unsubsidized near-poor beneficiaries were more likely to reduce adherence (8.2 percent) than higher income (3.5 percent, p = .049) and LIS beneficiaries (3.1 percent, p = .027). Near-poor beneficiaries also more frequently experienced financial stress due to drug costs (20 percent) than higher income beneficiaries (11 percent, p = .050) and LIS beneficiaries (11 percent, p = .015)., Conclusions: Low-income subsidies provide protection from drug cost-related nonadherence and financial stress. Beneficiaries just above the LIS income threshold are most at risk for these potentially adverse behaviors., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)