Search

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed with multiple goals in mind, including a reduction in social disparities in health care and health status. This was to be accomplished through some novel provisions and a significant infusion of resources into long-standing public programs with an existing track record related to health equity. In this article, we discuss seven ACA provisions with regard to their intended and realized impact on social inequalities in health, focusing primarily on socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities. Arriving at its 10th anniversary, there is significant evidence that the ACA has reduced social disparities in key health care outcomes, including insurance coverage, health care access, and the use of primary care. In addition, the ACA has had a significant impact on the volume/range of services offered and the financial security of community health centers, and through section 1557, the ACA broadened the civil rights landscape in which the health care system operates. Less clear is how the ACA has contributed to improved health outcomes and health equity. Extant evidence suggests that the part of the ACA that has had the greatest impact on social disparities in health outcomes-including preterm births and mortality-is the Medicaid expansion., (Copyright © 2020 by Duke University Press.)

Eight years after the US Supreme Court's landmark decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , more than two million of the nation's poorest working-age adults continue to feel its effects. These are the people who, because of the decision, remain without a pathway to affordable health insurance coverage because they live in a state that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Closing the coverage gap created by NFIB v. Sebelius represents the ACA's most pressing piece of unfinished business. Several options, which vary in cost and political complexity, exist for closing the gap in ways that respect the ACA's pluralistic approach to insurance coverage while adhering to constitutional principles. These considerations must be balanced against the urgency of the problem and the fact that, constitutionally speaking, Medicaid alone can no longer guarantee a national remedy to the fundamental issue of health insurance inequality for the poorest Americans.

Executive Summary: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's insurance reforms were expected to have significant and positive implications for hospital finances. In particular, state expansion of Medicaid programs held the promise of reducing hospitals' uncompensated care costs as a result of expanding health insurance to many previously uninsured individuals. Recent research indicates that in the early phases of Medicaid expansion, many hospitals did experience a substantial decline in uncompensated care costs. However, studies to date have not considered whether Medicaid expansion resulted in payment shortfalls that offset some of what hospitals saved from lower uncompensated care costs. We examined filings submitted by hospitals to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-one of the few publicly available sources of national data on both uncompensated care costs and Medicaid payment shortfalls. We also compared changes in uncompensated care costs and Medicaid payment shortfalls for hospitals in expansion states with those in nonexpansion states. Our findings indicate that state expansion of Medicaid led to substantial reductions in hospitals' uncompensated care costs, but the savings were offset somewhat by increased Medicaid payment shortfalls. Therefore, studies that focus only on reductions in uncompensated care costs can overstate the benefits of Medicaid expansion on hospitals finances.

This paper discusses Republican efforts to repeal the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) over President Trump's first year in office (2017) and their impact on near-elderly Americans (50-64 years old). We describe how the ACA's provisions for strengthening health care coverage were particularly advantageous for near-elderly Americans: The law shored up employer-sponsored health care, expanded Medicaid, and-most important-created conditions for a strong individual health insurance market. We then describe Republican efforts to undermine the ACA in the years immediately following its passage, followed by detailed discussion of Republican proposals to repeal and replace the ACA during 2017. We conclude by discussing factors informing the fate of Republican legislation in this area, the potential consequences of the legislation that ultimately passed, and the prospects for future attempts to repeal and replace the ACA through the legislative process.

ISSUE: The Affordable Care Act enhanced Medicaid's role as a health care purchaser by expanding eligibility and broadening the range of tools and strategies available to states. All states have embraced delivery and payment reform as basic elements of their programs. GOAL: To examine the effects of reducing the size and scope of Medicaid under legislation to repeal the ACA. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Were the ACA's Medicaid expansion to be eliminated and were federal Medicaid funding to experience major reductions through block grants or per capita caps, the effects on system transformation would be significant. Over 70 percent of Medicaid spending is driven by enrollment in a program that covers 74 million people; on a per capita basis Medicaid costs less than Medicare or commercial insurance. States would need to absorb major financial losses by reducing the number of people served, reducing the scope of services covered, introducing higher cost-sharing, or further reducing already low payments. Far from improving quality and efficiency, these changes would cause the number of uninsured to rise while depriving health care providers and health plans of the resources needed to care for patients and invest in the tools that are essential to system transformation

Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Both before and after the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the US health insurance system is characterized by fragmentation. Pre-ACA, this fragmentation included major coverage gaps, causing significant periods of coverage interruption, especially for lower-income people. The ACA does not end the problem of churning among sources of public financing, but it does hold the potential for enabling people to move among sources of coverage rather than go without insurance. Several strategies for reducing coverage churn exist, but none is foolproof and all are in their early stages. Thus the ability of issuers to participate across multiple public financing arrangements and to offer stable provider networks becomes crucial to achieving continuity of care. Interviews with nine companies involved in developing or operating multimarket strategies confirm the feasibility of this approach while revealing major challenges, especially the challenge of finding providers willing to treat members regardless of the source of coverage. Strategies for increasing multimarket plans and networks represent one of the great areas of future policy and operational focus., (Copyright © 2015 by Duke University Press.)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes essential health benefits as the coverage standard for health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, including the health insurance Marketplaces. "Pediatric services" is one of the required classes of coverage under the ACA. However, other than oral health and vision care, neither the act nor the regulations for implementing it define what these services should be. We investigated how state benchmark plans-the base plan chosen in each state as the standard or benchmark of coverage in that state under ACA rules-address pediatric coverage in plans governed by the essential health benefits standard. Our review of summaries of all the state benchmark plans found that no state specified a distinct pediatric services benefit class. Furthermore, although benchmark plans explicitly included multiple pediatric conditions, many plans also specifically excluded services for children with special health care needs. The Department of Health and Human Services has made a commitment in the essential health benefits regulations to review its approach for the 2016 plan year. Thus, our findings have implications for future regulations regarding the essential health benefits standard for pediatric services., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Through a combination of three needs-based public programs--Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and tax credits for purchasing private plans in the new marketplaces--the Affordable Care Act can potentially ensure continuous coverage for many low- and moderate-income Americans. At the same time, half of individuals with incomes at less than twice the poverty level will experience a form of "churning" in their coverage; as changes occur in their life or work circumstances, they will need to switch among these three coverage sources. For many, churning will entail not only changes in covered benefits and cost-sharing, but also in care, owing to differences in provider networks. Strategies for mitigating churning's effects are complex and require time to implement. For the short term, however, the experiences of 17 states with policies aimed at smoothing transitions between health plans offer lessons for ensuring care continuity.

About one in six people expected to enroll in Medicaid under health reform expansions and nearly one in ten expected to enroll in qualified health plans through the health insurance Marketplaces will have spent some time in jail during the past year. People who have spent time in jail frequently cycle in and out of incarceration; have high rates of chronic physical, mental health, and substance use conditions; and historically have been uninsured and without access to continuous health care. The Affordable Care Act may not change the quality of health care in jails, but its provision of better access to care before and after people are incarcerated could have positive long-term effects on both the health of those individuals and overall health care costs. Achieving these results will require careful planning and coordination among jail health care programs, Medicaid, and Marketplace health plans. The use of electronic health records by jails and community providers could help ensure that treatments are consistent no matter where a patient resides. Policy makers and health plans could also ensure continuity of care by including in their networks some of the same safety-net providers that are under contract to furnish care to jail inmates.

We review the evolution of federal financing for child health care over the past 40 years. The Social Security Amendments of 1967 established the program of early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) as a required Medicaid benefit. The EPSDT amendments directed agencies to cover "early and periodic" screening and diagnostic services to ascertain "defects" and "chronic conditions" in children, as well as health care and treatment needed to "correct or ameliorate" such defects and conditions discovered during the screening examinations. The 1997 enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) shifted federal policy from the use of an early coverage standard to one that gives insurers much more discretion to define medical necessity and coverage exclusions. CHIP programs offer coverage that is narrower than the benefits available under Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires significantly more classes of care to be covered than does CHIP but well below the level of coverage under Medicaid. Implementation of the ACA to date suggests that the US Department of Health and Human Services will only demand pediatric coverage pegged to the commercial insurance market standards, rather than Medicaid's unique pediatric coverage standard. Although EPSDT's emphasis on early, developmental, and ameliorative services might result in more comprehensive benefits for children, particularly those with special health needs, one might still describe the ACA coverage as providing a basic, minimal level of services from a distributive justice perspective. It may, however, vary from state to state. States have the authority to decide whether to use an EPSDT-style approach or to follow the more restrictive approach of commercial insurance plans. Advocacy at the state level will determine which approach different states take.

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the requirement that all Americans have affordable health insurance coverage. But in an unprecedented move, seven justices first declared the mandatory Medicaid eligibility expansion unconstitutional. Then five justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, prevented the outright elimination of the expansion by fashioning a remedy that simply limited the federal government's enforcement powers over its provisions and allowed states not to proceed with expanding Medicaid without losing all of their federal Medicaid funding. The Court's approach raises two fundamental issues: First, does the Court's holding also affect the existing Medicaid program or numerous other Affordable Care Act Medicaid amendments establishing minimum Medicaid program requirements? And second, does the health and human services secretary have the flexibility to modify the pace or scope of the expansion as a negotiating strategy with the states? The answers to these questions are key because of the foundational role played by Medicaid in health reform.

Health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of the private health insurance reforms included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As of May 2012, 13 states, together with the District of Columbia, had taken legal action to establish exchanges, through legislation or executive order. State implementing laws are essential to the translation of broad federal policies into specific state and market practices. Overall, the laws in the 14 jurisdictions vary, but they tend to show a common approach of according exchanges much flexibility in how they will operate and what standards they will apply to the insurance products sold. In all states, these "threshold policies" will be followed by policy decisions, expressed through regulations, guidelines, and health plan contracting and performance standards.

The Affordable Care Act gives states the option of creating a so-called Basic Health Program to provide health insurance coverage for individuals and families whose incomes are low but who do not qualify for Medicaid. The Basic Health Program is intended, in part, to decrease churning, or frequent movement between Medicaid and state-run health insurance exchanges, by increasing the income-based eligibility transition point between the two programs to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. We analyzed data from the 2008 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation and found that among adults likely to participate in Medicaid and exchanges, only somewhat fewer experienced a change in eligibility with a 200 percent federal poverty level eligibility threshold compared with the previous threshold of 138 percent. As a result, we found that a Basic Health Program would prevent churning for 1.8 million adults nationally each year-reducing by about 4 percent the expected churning of low-income Americans between Medicaid and exchanges within a year. Such programs would also decrease the risk that lower-income families would be subject to recouping of premium tax credits. But churning rates would remain very high, and additional policy steps would be required to minimize the effect of coverage disruptions.

In establishing minimum coverage standards for health insurance plans, the Affordable Care Act includes an "essential health benefits" statute that directs the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services not to make coverage decisions, determine reimbursement rates, establish incentive programs, or design benefits in ways that discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability, or expected length of life. This issue brief examines how this statute will help Americans with disabilities, who currently are subject to discrimination by insurers based on health status and health care need. The authors also discuss the complex issues involved in implementing the essential benefits provision and offer recommendations to federal policymakers for ensuring that people with disabilities receive the full insurance benefits to which they are entitled.