Search

Many older Americans do not receive needed care for mental health and substance use disorders (MHSUD), and there are substantial racial and ethnic disparities in receipt of this care across the lifespan. Medicare introduced cost-sharing parity for outpatient MHSUD care during the period 2010-14, reducing beneficiaries' out-of-pocket share of MHSUD spending from 50 percent to 20 percent. Among traditional Medicare beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older, we examined changes in MHSUD use and spending during the period 2008-18 for low-income beneficiaries with the cost-sharing reduction versus a control group of beneficiaries with free care throughout the study period among Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian/Alaska Native versus White beneficiaries. Among older Medicare beneficiaries, overall use of MHSUD services increased during this period. For White beneficiaries, MHSUD cost-sharing parity was associated with an increased likelihood of having specialty MHSUD visits and medication use and a reduced likelihood of having unmonitored MHSUD medication use and MHSUD emergency department visits and hospitalizations. However, cost-sharing parity was associated with smaller or no gains in MHSUD services use for racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries compared with White beneficiaries, thus widening racial and ethnic disparities in MHSUD care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The tax penalty for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is to be eliminated starting in 2019. We investigated the potential impact of this change on enrollees' decisions to purchase insurance and on individual-market premiums. In a survey of enrollees in the individual market in California in 2017, 19 percent reported that they would not have purchased insurance had there been no penalty. We estimated that premiums would increase by 4-7 percent if these enrollees were not in the risk pool. The percentages of enrollees who would forgo insurance were higher among those vdth lower income and education, Hispanics, and those who had been uninsured in the prior year, relative to the comparison groups. Compared to older enrollees and those with two or more chronic conditions, respectively, younger enrollees and those with no chronic conditions were also more likely to say that they would not have purchased insurance. Eliminating the mandate penalty alone is unlikely to destabilize the California individual market but could erode coverage gains, especially among groups whose members have historically been less likely to be insured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Affordable Care Act includes financial assistance that reduces both premiums and cost-sharing amounts for lower-income Americans, to increase the affordability of health insurance coverage and care. To receive both types of assistance, enrollees must purchase a qualified health plan through a public insurance exchange, and those eligible for the cost-sharing reduction must purchase a silver-tier plan. We estimate that 31 percent of individual-market enrollees in California who were likely eligible for financial assistance purchased plans that were not silver tier or that were not sold on the state's exchange and thus missed opportunities to receive premium or cost-sharing assistance or both. Lower-income enrollees who chose plans not eligible for subsidies had two to three times higher odds of reporting difficulty paying premiums and out-of-pocket expenses during the year, compared to those who chose eligible plans. Regardless of how the structure of the individual market evolves in the coming years, efforts are likely needed to steer lower-income enrollees away from financially suboptimal plan choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumer-directed health plans are plans with high deductibles that typically require patients to bear no out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, such as annual physicals or screening tests, in order to ease financial barriers and encourage patients to seek such care. We surveyed people in California who had a consumer-directed health plan and found that fewer than one in five understood that their plan exempted preventive office visits, medical tests, and screenings from their deductible, meaning that this care was free or had a modest copayment. Roughly one in five said that they had delayed or avoided a preventive office visit, test, or screening because of cost. Those who were confused about the exemption were significantly more likely to report avoiding preventive visits because of cost concerns. Special efforts to educate consumers about preventive care cost-sharing exemptions may be necessary as more health plans, including Medicare, adopt this model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]