Search

Medicaid churning--the constant exit and reentry of beneficiaries as their eligibility changes--has long been a problem for both Medicaid administrators and recipients. Churning will continue under the Affordable Care Act because, despite new federal rules, Medicaid eligibility will continue to be based on current monthly income. We developed a longitudinal simulation model to evaluate four policy options for modifying or extending Medicaid eligibility to reduce churning. The simulations suggest that two options--extending eligibility either to the end of a calendar year or for twelve months after enrollment--would be the most effective methods for reducing churning. The other options--a three-month extension or eligibility based on projected annual income--would reduce churning to a lesser extent. States should consider implementation of the option that best balances costs while improving access to coverage and, thereby, the health of Medicaid enrollees., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Changes in individual or family circumstances cause many Americans to experience gaps and transitions in public and private health insurance. Using data from the 2004-2007 Survey of Income and Program Participation, this article updates earlier analyses of insurance gaps and transitions. Eighty-nine million people (one third of nonelderly Americans) were uninsured for at least 1 month during those 4 years. Approximately 23 million lost insurance more than once. The analyses call attention to the continuing instability and insecurity of health insurance, can inform implementation of national reforms, and establish a recent baseline that will be helpful in evaluating the reforms' effects on coverage stability.

The Affordable Care Act builds on existing sources of public and private health insurance, while creating new health insurance exchanges and subsidies. A potential disadvantage of preserving many sources of health insurance is the likelihood of abrupt changes in coverage or financial responsibility when individual circumstances change. This brief describes four policy challenges related to such changes: adjusting premium and cost-sharing subsidies when incomes change; coordinating eligibility for premium credits, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program; encouraging and facilitating continuous coverage; and minimizing transitions between individual and small-business exchanges. Policy recommendations to reduce uncertainty, simplify coverage decisions, and minimize insurance transitions include extending coverage to the open enrollment period at the end of the year, generous treatment of income gains in correcting premium tax credits, and unifying the small-business and individual exchanges.

Disabled workers who start receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) must wait twenty-four months to qualify for Medicare. Legislation introduced in Congress would eliminate this waiting period, to guarantee that people with disabilities severe enough to qualify for SSDI will not be uninsured. We provide a longitudinal view of Medicare enrollment before age sixty-five by following a national sample of people ages 55-64. One person in six was covered by Medicare before turning sixty-five. A quarter of new enrollees were uninsured during the waiting period. There were great disparities in reliance on Medicare and coverage in the waiting period.

This study assesses the stability of Americans' health insurance status over a four-year period. Relatively few Americans were continuously uninsured for the four years 1996 to 1999, but a sizable number of the uninsured lacked a stable source of coverage. At least as many people were repeatedly uninsured as experienced a single gap in otherwise stable coverage. Given these dynamics, policymakers should think of "uninsured" as referring not to people, but rather to gaps in coverage over time. Reforms that stop short of universal coverage should be evaluated in terms of their likely effects on the continuity and stability of coverage.

This article provides a systematic evaluation of the options for incremental health insurance reforms aimed at older Americans nearing age sixty-five. It presents three basic arguments for giving special consideration to this age group: (1) early retirement and its effect on access to employer insurance; (2) changes in health and health care expenses associated with increasing age; (3) the vulnerability to unexpected economic or health "shocks" that will affect people throughout their retirement. The analysis of policy options begins by specifying criteria for evaluating alternative approaches to reform. The proposed criteria emphasize that reforms for this age group should be designed to fit with other financial plans and decisions made during such a transitional stage of life. Policy options should be judged according to fundamental goals such as equity and efficiency, not simply ranked according to the number of uninsured who will gain coverage. After offering a comprehensive catalog and evaluation of available options, the analysis identifies and discusses a preferred approach-which preserves choices while offering universal and subsidized access to Medicare before age sixty-five.

Many consumers are offered two or more employer-sponsored health insurance plans, and competition among health plans for subscribers is promoted as a mechanism for balancing health care costs and quality. Yet consumers may not receive the information necessary to make informed health plan choices. This study tests the effects on health plan choice of providing supplemental decision-support materials to inform consumers about expected health plan costs. Our main finding is that such information induces consumers to bear more risk, especially those in relatively good health. Thus our results suggest that working-age, privately insured consumers currently may be over-insuring for medical care.

This is a study of women's health insurance that makes both disaggregated and longitudinal comparisons between men and women to identify and describe gaps and sources of insecurity that are important for women. Income and family status are more important than gender in explaining health insurance differences. In many respects, the health insurance experiences of single women are more similar to those of single men than those of married women. Although married women often depend on their husbands for employer-sponsored insurance, the health insurance of married men and women is otherwise quite similar. Married women are at no greater risk of losing employer-sponsored insurance than married men, and married women experience fewer gaps and changes in coverage than single women (and single men). An expansion of coverage to all poor and uninsured adults would benefit more women than men by a small margin, despite the focus of Medicaid on low-income women. The married uninsured are concentrated just above the poverty line and have a big stake in whether public coverage programs extend above poverty. The main issue for women at higher income levels, especially for single women who cannot fall back on a spouse for coverage, is the danger of losing health insurance as a result of changes in employment.