Search

As of September 2023, thirty-seven states and Washington, D.C., had adopted the option in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to extend pregnancy Medicaid eligibility to one year postpartum. To inform state initiatives to support this newly covered population, we conducted a representative survey of postpartum people in six states and New York City from January 2021 to March 2022. Compared with respondents who had commercial insurance at the time of childbirth, Medicaid respondents were less likely to have a usual source of care and reported less use of primary, specialty, and dental care in the postpartum year. Depression symptoms and social concerns such as food insecurity, intimate partner violence, and financial strain were significantly higher in the Medicaid population. Rates of anxiety symptoms, delaying or not getting needed care, and unsatisfactory child care were similar in both populations. Our findings suggest that postpartum Medicaid extensions should be coupled with state initiatives to address beneficiaries' health and social needs. National investments in data collection on postpartum people will be critical to support evidence-based policy making to improve maternal health and well-being.

Background: This study examined the association between Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and births among low-income women of reproductive age in the United States. Materials and Methods: We used data from the 2008 to 2019 American Community Survey to estimate the association between state adoption of Medicaid expansion under the ACA and the percent of low-income women of reproductive age with a birth in the past year using a difference-in-difference research design. Subgroup analysis was explored by race and ethnicity, age group, educational attainment, marital status, and number of children. Results: We found that Medicaid expansion was associated with a small reduction in births among low-income women of reproductive age by 0.45 percentage points (95% confidence interval: -0.84 to -0.05). In subgroup analyses, we found reductions in births among Hispanic women, American Indian or Alaska Native women, women 25-29 years of age, women 35-39 years of age, unmarried women, and women with more than three children. Conclusions: Reductions in births associated with Medicaid expansion could suggest that expanding Medicaid addressed previously unmet reproductive health care needs among low-income women of reproductive age. The reductions in births among low-income women that we observe were occurring among some groups with higher unintended pregnancy rates, including Hispanic women, American Indian or Alaska Native women, young women, and unmarried women. These findings underscore the importance of reproductive health care access through insurance coverage on empowering women to have control over their reproductive decision-making and timing.

Importance: Increasing prices of antidiabetic medications in the US have raised substantial concerns about the effects of drug affordability on diabetes care. There has been little rigorous evidence comparing the experiences of patients with diabetes across different types of insurance coverage., Objective: To compare the utilization patterns and costs of prescription drugs to treat diabetes among low-income adults with Medicaid vs those with Marketplace insurance in Colorado during 2014 and 2015., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included diabetic patients enrolled in Colorado Medicaid and Marketplace plans who were aged 19 to 64 years and had incomes between 75% and 200% of the federal poverty level during 2014 and 2015. Data analysis was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021., Exposures: Health insurance through Colorado Medicaid or Colorado's state-based Marketplace., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were drug utilization (prescription drug fills) and drug costs (total costs and out-of-pocket costs). The secondary outcome was months with an active prescription for noninsulin antidiabetic medications. An all payer claims database was combined with income data, and linear models were used to adjust for clinical and demographic confounders., Results: Of 22 788 diabetic patients included in the study, 20 245 were enrolled in Medicaid and 2543 in a Marketplace plan. Marketplace-eligible individuals were older (mean [SD] age, 52.12 [10.60] vs 47.70 [11.33] years), and Medicaid-eligible individuals were more likely to be female (12 429 [61.4%] vs 1413 [55.6%]). Medicaid-eligible patients were significantly more likely than Marketplace-eligible patients to fill prescriptions for dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (adjusted difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -5.3 to -2.1; P < .001) and sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, -6.6%; 95% CI, -8.9 to -4.3; P < .001). Overall rates of insulin use were similar in the 2 groups (adjusted difference, -2.3%; -5.1 to 0.5; P = .11). Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin medications were 84.4% to 95.2% lower and total costs were 9.4% to 54.2% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans. Out-of-pocket costs for insulin were 76.7% to 94.7% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans, whereas differences in total insulin costs were mixed. The percentage of months of apparent active medication coverage was similar between the 2 groups for 4 of 5 drug classes examined, with Marketplace-eligible patients having a greater percentage of months than Medicaid-eligible patients for sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, 5.3%; 95% CI, 0.3%-10.4%; P = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, drug utilization across multiple drug classes was higher and drug costs were significantly lower for adults with diabetes enrolled in Medicaid than for those with subsidized Marketplace plans. Patients with Marketplace coverage had a similar percentage of months with an active prescription as patients with Medicaid coverage.

Importance: Policy makers are considering insurance expansions to improve maternal health. The tradeoffs between expanding Medicaid or subsidized private insurance for maternal coverage and care are unknown., Objective: To compare maternal coverage and care by Medicaid vs marketplace eligibility., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study using a difference-in-difference research design was conducted from March 14, 2020, to April 22, 2021. Maternal coverage and care use were compared among women with family incomes 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) residing in 10 Medicaid expansion sites (exposure group) who gained Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act and in 5 nonexpansion sites (comparison group) who gained marketplace eligibility before (2011-2013) and after (2015-2018) insurance expansion implementation. Participants included women aged 18 years or older from the 2011-2018 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey., Exposures: Eligibility for Medicaid or marketplace coverage under the Affordable Care Act., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included coverage in the preconception and postpartum periods, early and adequate prenatal care, and postpartum checkups and effective contraceptive use., Results: The study population included 11 432 women age 18 years and older (32% age 18-24 years, 33% age 25-29 years, 35% age ≥30 years) with incomes 100% to 138% FPL: 7586 in a Medicaid state (exposure group) and 3846 in a nonexpansion marketplace state (comparison group). Women in marketplace states were younger, had higher educational level and marriage rates, and had less racial and ethnic diversity. Medicaid relative to marketplace eligibility was associated with increased Medicaid coverage (20.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 12.8 to 30.0 percentage points), decreased private insurance coverage (-10.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.3 to -7.5 percentage points), and decreased uninsurance (-8.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -20.1 to -0.1 percentage points) in the preconception period, increased postpartum Medicaid (17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.7 to 34.3 percentage points) and increased adequate prenatal care (4.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 11.0 percentage points) in difference-in-difference models. No evidence of significant differences in early prenatal care, postpartum check-ups, or postpartum contraception was identified., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, eligibility for Medicaid was associated with increased Medicaid, lower preconception uninsurance, and increased adequate prenatal care use. The lower rates of preconception uninsurance among Medicaid-eligible women suggest that women with low incomes were facing barriers to marketplace enrollment, underscoring the potential importance of reducing financial barriers for the population with low incomes.

Importance: The Affordable Care Act created 2 new coverage options for uninsured adults: Medicaid expansion, which in most states provides comprehensive coverage without premiums and deductibles; and private marketplace coverage, which requires a premium contribution and cost-sharing, though with generous federal subsidies at lower incomes. How enrollment rates compare in the marketplace vs Medicaid is an important policy question as states continue to weigh alternative coverage options such as Medicaid buy-in programs, enrolling Medicaid-eligible populations into marketplace plans, or creating a public option., Objective: To assess the association between income eligibility for Medicaid vs marketplace coverage and insurance enrollment among low-income adults in Colorado., Design Setting and Participants: Using 2014 and 2015 all-payer claims data from Colorado and detailed income eligibility information, we used a regression discontinuity design to assess the difference in Medicaid and marketplace enrollment just below and just above 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), the eligibility threshold between the 2 programs. The sample included nonpregnant adults aged 19 to 64 years with incomes between 75% to 400% FPL. We stratified our analysis by age, sex, chronic condition status, and urban vs rural residence. Analysis was conducted from January to October 2020., Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was total enrollment in either Medicaid or marketplace coverage during marketplace's Open Enrollment period. Income-based health insurance eligibility was assessed as a percentage of FPL at the time of initial application for coverage., Results: The primary analytical sample included 32 091 enrollees in 2014 and 55 451 in 2015, with incomes ranging from 120% to 156% FPL. Most enrollees were women (59.26% in 2014, 59.20% in 2015), resided in urban areas (70.36% in 2014, 73.08% in 2015), and had no chronic conditions (74.66% in 2014, 76.11% in 2015). For age, in 2014 and 2015, respectively, 13.22% and 13.93% were aged 19 to 25 years, 27.85% and 28.54% were aged 26 to 34 years, 23.58% and 24.34% were aged 35 to 44 years, 18.35% and 17.75% were aged 45 to 54 years, and 17.00% and 15.44% were aged 55 to 64 years. Marketplace enrollment was 81.3% (95% CI, -86.0% to -75.0%) lower than Medicaid enrollment in 2014 and 88.6% (95% CI, -90.8% to -86.0%) lower in 2015 among those close to the 138% FPL eligibility threshold. The drop-off in marketplace enrollment was largest among younger adults, aged 26 to 34 and 35 to 44 years: relative drop off -88.7% (95% CI, -93.3% to -80.8%) and -87.8% (95% CI, -90.8% to -83.9%) in 2014, and relative drop off -91.9% (95% CI, -94.5% to -87.9%) and -93.0% (95% CI, -94.5% to -91.1%) in 2015, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study using a regression-discontinuity analysis, meaningful gaps in insurance enrollment may have existed for those with incomes just above the eligibility threshold for Medicaid expansion, especially among younger adults. Policies expanding Medicaid income eligibility or zero-dollar premium marketplace plans are likely to be more effective at inducing enrollment than subsidized private plans with premium requirements., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sommers is currently on leave from Harvard and serving in the US Department of Health and Human Services; however, this article was conceived and drafted while Dr Sommers was employed at the Harvard School of Public Health, and the findings and views in this article do not reflect the official views or policy of the Department of Health and Human Services., (Copyright 2021 Bhanja A et al. JAMA Health Forum.)

The United States is facing a maternal health crisis with rising rates of maternal mortality and morbidity and stark disparities in maternal outcomes by race and socioeconomic status. Among the efforts to address this issue, one policy proposal is gaining particular traction: extending the period of Medicaid eligibility for pregnant women beyond 60 days after childbirth. The authors examine the legislative and regulatory pathways most readily available for extending postpartum Medicaid, including their relative political, economic, and public health trade-offs. They also review the state and federal policy activity to date and discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prospects for policy change., (Copyright © 2021 by Duke University Press.)

Importance: There has been little rigorous evidence to date comparing public vs private health insurance. With policy makers considering a range of policies to expand coverage, understanding the trade-offs between these coverage types is critical., Objective: To compare months of coverage, utilization, quality, and costs between low-income adults with Medicaid vs those with subsidized private (Marketplace) insurance., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a propensity score-matched sample of adults enrolled in either Medicaid or Marketplace plans at any point between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. The sample was restricted to individuals with incomes narrowly above and below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), which represented the eligibility cutoff between the programs. Data were obtained from 3 state agencies merging comprehensive insurance claims with income eligibility data for Colorado Medicaid expansion and Marketplace enrollees. Income data were linked with an all-payer claims database, and generalized linear models were used to adjust for clinical and demographic confounders. Participants included 8182 low-income nonpregnant adults aged 19 to 64 years enrolled in Medicaid or Marketplace coverage during the 2014 to 2015 period, with incomes between 134% and 143% of the FPL., Exposures: Health insurance through Colorado Medicaid or Colorado's state-based Marketplace., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary analytical approach was a multivariate regression analysis of the propensity score-matched sample. Primary outcomes were months of coverage in Medicaid or Marketplace insurance, office and emergency department (ED) visits, ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations, and total costs. For secondary quality outcomes, the propensity score-matched sample was widened to 129% to 148% of the FPL to ensure adequate sample size. Secondary outcomes included prescription drug utilization, types of ED visits, hospitalizations, out-of-pocket costs, and clinical quality measures. Primary data analysis was between September 2018 to July 2019, with revisions finalized in November 2020., Results: The propensity score-matched narrow-income sample included a total of 8182 participants (4091 Medicaid eligible [50%]: mean [SD] age, 42.8 [13.6] years; 2230 women [54.5%]; 4091 Marketplace eligible [50%]: mean [SD] age, 42.7 [13.9] years; 2229 women [54.5%]). Demographic differences across the 2 groups were well balanced, with all standardized mean differences less than 0.10. Marketplace coverage was associated with fewer ED visits (mean, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.32-0.40] visits vs 0.56 [95% CI, 0.50-0.62] visits; P < .001) and more office (outpatient) visits than Medicaid (mean, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.11-2.32] visits vs 1.73 [95% CI, 1.64-1.81] visits; P < .001). No differences in ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations were found (0.004 [95% CI, 0.001-0.006] vs 0.007 [95% CI, 0.002-0.011]; P = .15). Total costs were 83% higher in Marketplace coverage (mean, $4553 [95% CI, $3368-$5738] vs $2484 [95% CI, $1760-$3209]; P < .001) owing almost entirely to higher prices, and out-of-pocket costs were 10 times higher (mean, $569 [95% CI, $337-$801] vs $45 [95% CI, $26-$65]; P < .001). Five of 12 secondary quality measures favored private insurance, and 1 favored Medicaid., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional propensity score-matched study, Medicaid and Marketplace coverage differed in important ways. Public coverage through Medicaid was associated with more ED visits and fewer office visits than private Marketplace coverage, which may reflect barriers to outpatient care or lower cost-sharing barriers to ED care in Medicaid. Results suggest that Medicaid coverage was substantially less costly to beneficiaries and society than private coverage, with mixed results on health care quality.

Objectives. To evaluate the effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansions on national rates of home eviction and eviction initiation in the United States. Methods. Using nationally representative administrative data from The Eviction Lab at Princeton University, we estimated the effects of the ACA Medicaid expansions on county-level evictions and filings from 2000 to 2016 with a difference-in-difference regression design. Results. We found that Medicaid expansions were associated with an annual reduction in the rate of evictions by 1.15 per 1000 renter-occupied households ( P  < .001), a reduction of 1.59 eviction filings per 1000 renter-occupied households ( P  < .001), and a reduction in the average number of evictions by 46 ( P  < .05). We found additional evidence that increasing rates of African American residents in a county was associated with a greater rate of evictions filed, and increased rates of poverty and rent burdens relative to income were associated with more evictions both filed and completed. Conclusions. Evictions decreased after Medicaid expansion, demonstrating further evidence of the substantive financial protections afforded by this coverage. The reduction in the eviction filing rate suggests that Medicaid expansion could be reducing evictions by preventing the court proceeding entirely.

Evictions are increasingly recognized as a serious concern facing low-income households. This study evaluated whether expansions of Medicaid can prevent evictions from occurring. We examined data from a privately licensed database of eviction records in fourteen states (286 counties) and used a difference-in-differences research design to compare rates of eviction before and after California's early Medicaid expansion (51 counties). Early Medicaid expansion in California was associated with a reduction in the number of evictions, with 24.5 fewer evictions per month in each county from a pre-expansion average of 224.7. These results imply that for every thousand new Medicaid enrollees in California, Medicaid expansion was associated with roughly twenty-two fewer evictions per year. Additionally, we found a 2.9-percentage-point reduction in evictions per capita associated with early expansion. The effects were concentrated among counties with the highest pre-expansion rates of uninsurance. We conclude that health insurance coverage is associated with improved housing stability.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of Medicaid coverage on dental care outcomes, a major health concern for low-income populations., Data Sources: Primary and secondary data on health care use and outcomes for participants in Oregon's 2008 Medicaid lottery., Study Design: We used the lottery's random selection to gauge the causal effects of Medicaid on dental care needs, medication, and emergency department visits for dental care., Data Collection: Data were collected for lottery participants over 2 years, including mail surveys (N = 23,777) and in-person questionnaires (N = 12,229). Emergency department (ED) records were matched to lottery participants in Portland (N = 24,646)., Principal Findings: Medicaid coverage significantly reduced the share of respondents who reported needing dental care (-9.8 percentage points, p < .001) or having unmet dental care needs (-13.5 percentage points, p < 0.001). Medicaid doubled the share visiting the ED for dental care (+2.6 percentage points, p = .003) and the use of anti-infective medications often prescribed for dental care, but it had no detectable effect on uncovered dental care or out-of-pocket spending., Conclusions: Expansion of Medicaid covering emergency dental care substantially reduced unmet need for dental care, increasing ED dental visits and medication use, while not changing patient use of uncovered dental services., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Medicaid expansions through the Affordable Care Act began in January 2014, but we have little information about what is happening in rural areas where provider access and patient resources might be more limited. In 2008, Oregon held a lottery for restricted access to its Medicaid program for uninsured low-income adults not otherwise eligible for public coverage. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment used this opportunity to conduct the first randomized controlled study of a public insurance expansion. This analysis builds off of previous work by comparing rural and urban survey outcomes and adds qualitative interviews with 86 rural study participants for context. We examine health care access and use, personal finances, and self-reported health. While urban and rural populations have unique demographic profiles, rural populations appear to have benefited from Medicaid as much as urban. Qualitative interviews revealed the distinctive challenges still facing low-income uninsured and newly insured rural populations.

Medicaid expansions will soon cover millions of new enrollees, but insurance alone may not ensure that they receive high-quality care. This study examines health care interactions and the health perceptions of an Oregon cohort three years after they gained Medicaid coverage. During in-depth qualitative interviews, 120 enrollees reported a wide range of interactions with the health care system. Forty percent of the new enrollees sought care infrequently because they were confused about coverage, faced access barriers, had bad interactions with providers, or felt that care was unnecessary. For the 60 percent who had multiple health care interactions, continuity and ease of the provider-patient relationship were critical to improved health. Some newly insured Medicaid enrollees recounted rapid improvements in health. However, most reported that gains came after months or years of working closely and systematically with a provider. Our findings suggest that improving communication with beneficiaries and increasing the availability of coordinated care across settings could reduce the barriers that new enrollees are likely to face.

In 2008 Oregon allocated access to its Medicaid expansion program, Oregon Health Plan Standard, by drawing names from a waiting list by lottery. The lottery was chosen by policy makers and stakeholders as the preferred way to allocate limited resources. At the same time, it also gave rise to the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: an unprecedented opportunity to do a randomized evaluation - the gold standard in medical and scientific research - of the impact of expanding Medicaid. In this article we provide historical context for Oregon's decision to conduct a lottery, discuss the importance of randomized controlled designs for policy evaluation, and describe some of the practical challenges in successfully capitalizing on the research opportunity presented by the Oregon lottery through public-academic partnerships. Since policy makers will always face tough choices about how to distribute scarce resources, we urge thoughtful consideration of the opportunities to incorporate randomization that can substantially improve the evidence available to inform policy decisions without compromising policy goals.

The recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes a major expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults in 2014. This paper describes the Oregon Health Study, a randomized controlled trial that will be able to shed some light on the likely effects of such expansions. In 2008, Oregon randomly drew names from a waiting list for its previously closed public insurance program. Our analysis of enrollment into this program found that people who signed up for the waiting list and enrolled in the Oregon Medicaid program were likely to have worse health than those who did not. However, actual enrollment was fairly low, partly because many applicants did not meet eligibility standards.

The article focuses on a study which examined the effects of the expanding Medicaid coverage for low-income adults in the U.S. using the 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon. Results revealed no significant effect of the coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for the conditions. It concludes that the coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in its first two years of implementation.