Dataset Information

Preventing Financial Strain for Low- and Moderate-Income Adults: a Comparison of Medicaid, Marketplace, and Employer-Sponsored Insurance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Medicaid expansion and subsidized private plans purchased on the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Marketplaces accounted for most of the ACA's coverage gains.

Objective

Compare access to care and financial strain between Medicaid and Marketplace plans, and benchmark these against employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) plans.

Design

Cross-sectional survey PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative, non-institutionalized sample of 37,219 non-elderly adults with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level between 2015 and 2018, and a sub-group of individuals with chronic diseases.

Main measures

Self-reported barriers to accessing care, cost-related medication non-adherence, and financial strain.

Key results

Marketplace enrollees were more likely than Medicaid enrollees to delay or avoid care due to cost (19.3% vs 10.0%; adjusted difference (AD), 8.6 [95% CI, 6.8 to 10.4]) and report difficulties affording specialty care (7.7% vs 6.6%; AD, 1.8% [95% CI, 0.3% to 3.3%]), while there were no differences in having insurance accepted by a doctor or ability to afford dental care. Marketplace enrollees were also more likely to report cost-related medication non-adherence (21.5% vs 20.0%; AD, 4.0 [CI, 1.5 to 6.4]), be very worried about not being able to pay medical costs in case of a serious accident (32.3% vs 25.8%; AD, 6.4 [CI, 4.2 to 8.6]), have expenses exceeding $2000 (22.4% vs 5.4%; AD, 8.3 [CI, 6.2 to 10.3]), and have problems paying medical bills (18.4% vs 15.6%; AD, 1.8 [CI, 0.3 to 3.9]). Marketplace-Medicaid differences were larger among persons with a chronic disease. Individuals in ESI plans fared better for most, but not all, outcomes.

Conclusion

Medicaid offers better protections than Marketplace plans on most measures of access and financial strain.

SUBMITTER: Saluja S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442638 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe 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.ObjectiveTo assess the association between income eligibility for Medicaid vs marketplace coverage and insurance enrollment among low-income adults in Colorado.Design setting and participantsUsing 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsThe 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 relevanceIn 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.

Project description:ObjectiveWe investigate the factors driving the downward trend in employer sponsored health insurance (ESI) coverage between 1999 and 2002 for low- and middle-income workers, and assess their insurance options in the absence of ESI coverage.DataWe use the 1999 and 2002 rounds of the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), supplemented with ESI premiums from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, as well as other state- and county-level data from a variety of sources. The sample includes workers between the ages of 19 and 64.Study designWe first estimate linear probability models of the probability of having an ESI offer and, for those with an offer, the probability of taking up ESI coverage, using two-stage least square regression on the 2002 worker sample. We then use Oaxaca-Blinder regression-based decomposition methods to identify the factors that explain the changes in ESI offer and take-up between 1999 and 2002.Principal findingsWe find that while low-income workers are more likely to be uninsured and are most vulnerable to the loss of ESI coverage, many middle-income workers are also in a precarious position when faced with the loss of ESI coverage. Many low- and middle-income workers have few coverage options in the absence of ESI. This is particularly problematic for low-income workers: only 13 percent have a spouse with an ESI offer and the nongroup premium they face increased at a much higher rate than for middle-income workers. Finally, we find that the drop in ESI offers between 1999 and 2002 was driven largely by changes in nature of the workers' jobs, while the drop in ESI take-up was driven largely by rising ESI premiums.ConclusionsPolicies that shore up the ESI system are important for both low- and middle-income workers, as both are vulnerable to a loss of insurance coverage in the absence of ESI. Over time, the potential coverage options available to low- and middle-income workers in the absence of ESI have narrowed as nongroup premiums have increased. While public coverage has provided some protection from that increase for low-income workers, middle-income workers are much less likely to have access to public protection.