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:BackgroundArthroscopic rotator cuff repair is an effective treatment for patients with symptomatic rotator cuff tears. Ensuring timely and appropriate postoperative access to physical therapy (PT) is paramount to the achievement of optimal patient outcomes. Extended immobility due to a lack of formal rehabilitation can lead to decreased range of motion, continued pain, and potential reoperation for stiffness. The purpose of this study is to evaluate national disparities in access to PT services after rotator cuff repair between patients with private vs. Medicaid insurance. This study will further evaluate differences in access to PT services between states that have previously undergone Medicaid expansion as compared with those states which have not.MethodsThe American Physical Therapy Association Website was used to identify 10 physical therapy practices from the capital city in every state. Each physical therapy practice was contacted using a mock-patient script for a patient with Medicaid insurance or private (Blue Cross Blue Shield) insurance. To maintain anonymity, calls were made by two separate investigators. Univariate analysis included independent sample t-test for differences between the study groups for continuous variables. Chi square or Fisher's exact test assessed differences in discrete variables between the study groups.ResultsContact was made with 465 of 510 (91.2%) physical therapy practices. Overall, 52.7% accepted Medicaid insurance, while 94.9% accepted private insurance (P < .001). Medicaid insurance was more likely to be accepted in a Medicaid expansion state than a nonexpansion state (56.1% vs. 46.3%, P = .05). Private insurance was also more likely to be accepted in a Medicaid expansion state than a nonexpansion state (96.7% vs. 91.3%, P = .01). The time to first appointment varied more in Medicaid expansion states (private range: 0-43 days, Medicaid range: 0-72 days) than in nonexpansion states (private range: 0-11 days, medicaid range: 0-10 days).ConclusionSignificantly fewer PT practices accepted Medicaid insurance nationally compared with private insurance, which suggests that patients with Medicaid insurance have greater difficulty accessing PT after rotator cuff repair in the United States compared with patients with private insurance. While Medicaid insurance was more likely to be accepted in a Medicaid expansion state, this finding was only borderline significant, which indicates that patients in Medicaid expansion states are still having difficulty accessing PT, despite efforts to expand government insurance coverage to improve access to care. Orthopedic surgeons should counsel their patients with Medicaid insurance to seek out PT as early as possible in the postoperative period to avoid delays in rehabilitation.

Project description:Importance:Although low-income populations have more eye problems, whether they face greater difficulty obtaining eye care appointments is unknown. Objective:To compare rates of obtaining eye care appointments and appointment wait times for those with Medicaid vs those with private insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this prospective, cohort study conducted from January 1, 2017, to July 1, 2017, researchers made telephone calls to a randomly selected sample of vision care professionals in Michigan and Maryland stratified by neighborhood (urban vs rural) and professional type (ophthalmologist vs optometrist) to request the first available appointment. Appointments were sought for an adult needing a diabetic eye examination and a child requesting a routine eye examination for a failed vision screening. Researchers called each practice twice, once requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid and the other time for a patient with Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) insurance, and asked whether the insurance was accepted and, if so, when the earliest available appointment could be scheduled. Main Outcomes and Measures:Rate of successfully made appointments and mean wait time for the first available appointment. Results:A total of 603 telephone calls were made to 330 eye care professionals (414 calls [68.7%] to male and 189 calls [31.3%] to female eye care professionals). The sample consisted of ophthalmologists (303 [50.2%]) and optometrists (300 [49.8%]) located in Maryland (322 [53.4%]) and Michigan (281 [46.6%]). The rates of successfully obtaining appointments among callers were 61.5% (95% CI, 56.0%-67.0%) for adults with Medicaid and 79.3% (95% CI, 74.7%-83.9%) for adults with BCBS (P < .001) and 45.4% (95% CI, 39.8%-51.0%) for children with Medicaid and 62.5% (95% CI, 57.1%-68.0%) for children with BCBS (P < .001). Mean wait time did not vary significantly between the BCBS and Medicaid groups for both adults and children. Adults with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.59; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.49-3.87; P < .001) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.31-2.79; P < .001). Children with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73; P = .03) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 8.00; 95% CI, 5.37-11.90; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:Callers were less successful in trying to obtain eye care appointments with Medicaid than with BCBS, suggesting a disparity in access to eye care based on insurance status, although confounding factors may have contributed to this finding. Improving access to eye care professionals for those with Medicaid may improve health outcomes and decrease health care spending in the long term.

Project description:ImportancePostpartum Medicaid eligibility extensions are likely to shift enrollees from commercial to Medicaid coverage in the postpartum year; however, the potential implications for health care use and spending are unknown.ObjectiveTo compare health care use and spending among individuals with a Medicaid-paid birth who had continuous Medicaid vs continuous commercial insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study using linked all-payer claims, birth records, and income data for Medicaid-paid births in the Colorado All Payer Claims Database from 2014 to 2019 to estimate the association between continuous Medicaid vs commercial insurance and health care use and spending during months 3 to 12 post partum.ExposureContinuous enrollment in Medicaid vs commercial insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were the rate and number of primary care and outpatient visits, and total out-of-pocket spending during months 3 to 12 post partum. Secondary outcomes were the rate and number of emergency department visits and hospitalizations during months 3 to 12 post partum.ResultsThe 44 471 individuals in the sample had a mean (SD) age of 26.8 (5.50) years. Self-reported race and ethnicity included 1279 (2.9%) Asian individuals, 4028 (9.1%) Black individuals, 33 534 (75.4%) White individuals, as well as 5630 (12.7%) individuals of other race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaskan Native; Other Pacific Islander; and unspecified). Of these, 19 337 (43.5%) self-identified as Hispanic individuals. The sample included 42 989 individuals continuously enrolled in Medicaid and 1482 individuals continuously enrolled in commercial insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum. Compared with those continuously enrolled in Medicaid, commercially insured enrollees were older (32.2% of commercial enrollees were between the ages of 30-39 vs 27.5% of Medicaid enrollees, P < .001), less likely to be Hispanic (38.9% in commercial vs 43.7% in Medicaid, P < .001) or born in the US (15.6% in commercial vs 19.6% in Medicaid, P < .001), and more likely to be married (62.8% in commercial vs 54.8% in Medicaid, P < .001), have completed college (32.9% in commercial vs 16.5% in Medicaid, P < .001), and initiated early prenatal care (79.7% in commercial vs 72.5% in Medicaid, P < .001). In multivariable models, individuals with commercial insurance were 2.46 percentage points (95% CI, 2.12-2.79 percentage points; P < .001) more likely to attend a primary care visit and had 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.92; P < .001) additional primary care visits total during months 3 to 12 post partum. Individuals enrolled in commercial insurance were 7.92 percentage points (95% CI, -8.44 to -7.40 percentage points; P = .006) less likely to visit an emergency department compared with those enrolled in Medicaid. Total adjusted per person spending was $1110 (95% CI, $509-$1710; P < .001) higher, and total out-of-pocket spending per person was $796 (95% CI, $754-$838; P < .001) higher for those enrolled in commercial insurance vs Medicaid.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, primary care use was higher and emergency department use was lower among those continuously enrolled in commercial vs Medicaid insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum. Medicaid rather than commercial insurance was associated with decreased exposure to out-of-pocket costs during months 3 to 12 postpartum for individuals with low income.

Project description:ImportancePrior research has reported undertreatment among patients with cancer who are insured by Medicaid, but this finding may be due, in part, to incomplete data in cancer registries.ObjectiveTo compare disparities in radiation and hormone therapy between women with breast cancer covered by Medicaid and those with private insurance using the Colorado Central Cancer Registry (CCCR) and CCCR data supplemented with All Payer Claims Data (APCD).Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study included women aged 21 to 63 years who received breast cancer surgery. We linked the CCCR and Colorado APCD to identify Medicaid and privately insured women who were newly diagnosed with invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017. In the radiation treatment analysis, we narrowed the sample to women who received breast-conserving surgery (Medicaid, n = 1408; private, n = 1984) and in the hormone therapy analysis, we selected women who were hormone-receptor positive (Medicaid, n = 1156; private, n = 1667).Main outcomes and measuresWe used logistic regression to estimate the likelihood of treatment within 12 months to assess whether the results varied between data sources.ResultsThere were 3392 and 2823 participants in the radiation and hormone therapy cohorts, respectively. The mean (SD) age was 51.71 (8.30) years in the radiation therapy cohort, and 52.00 (8.16) years in the hormone therapy cohort. Among the participants, there were 140 (4%) and 105 (4%) who were Black non-Hispanic, 499 (15%) and 406 (14%) who were Hispanic, 2602 (77%) and 2190 (78%) were White, and 151 (4%) and 122 (4%) were other/unknown in the radiation and hormone therapy cohorts, respectively. A higher percentage of women were aged 50 years or younger in the Medicaid samples (40% vs 34% in the privately insured sample) and identified as non-Hispanic Black (about 7%) or Hispanic (approximately 24%). Treatment was underreported in both sources, but to a lesser extent in the APCD (2.5% and 2.0% for Medicaid and private insurance, respectively) compared with CCCR (19.5% and 13.3% for Medicaid and private insurance, respectively). Using CCCR data, Women with Medicaid insurance were 4 (95% CI, -8 to -1; P = .02) and 10 (95% CI, -14 to -6; P < .001) percentage points less likely to have a record of radiation and hormone therapy compared with privately insured women, respectively. Using combined CCCR and APCD, no statistically significant disparity was observed in radiation or hormone therapy between Medicaid-insured and privately insured women.Conclusions and relevanceAmong women with breast cancer covered by Medicaid vs private insurance, cancer treatment disparities may be overestimated if based solely on cancer registry data.

Project description:Importance:Although opioids can be effective medications in certain situations, they are associated with harms, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Studies have revealed unexplained prescribing variation and prescribing mismatched with patient-reported pain for many indications. Objective:To summarize opioid prescribing frequency, dosages, and durations, stratified across numerous painful medical indications. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 2017 US administrative claims data among outpatient clinical settings, including postsurgical discharge. Participants had any of 41 different indications associated with nonsurgical acute or chronic pain or postsurgical pain or pain associated with sickle cell disease or active cancer and were enrolled in either private insurance (including Medicare Advantage) in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse data set (n = 18 016 259) or Medicaid in the IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Database (n = 11 453 392). OptumLabs data were analyzed from October 2018 to March 2019; MarketScan data were analyzed from January to April 2019. Exposures:Nonsurgical acute or chronic pain or postsurgical pain; pain related to sickle cell disease or active cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures:Indication-specific opioid prescribing rates; days' supply per prescription; daily opioid dosage in morphine milligram equivalents; and for chronic pain indications, the number of opioid prescriptions. Results:During the study period, of 18 016 259 eligible patients with private insurance, the mean (95% CI) age was 42.7 (42.7-42.7) years, and 50.3% were female; of 11 453 392 eligible Medicaid enrollees, the mean (95% CI) age was 20.4 (20.4-20.4) years, and 56.1% were female. A pain-related indication under study occurred in at least 1 visit among 6 380 694 patients with private insurance (35.4%) and 3 169 831 Medicaid enrollees (27.7%); 2 270 596 (35.6% of 6 380 694) privately insured patients and 1 126 508 (35.5% of 3 169 831) Medicaid enrollees had 1 or more opioid prescriptions. Nonsurgical acute pain opioid prescribing rates were lowest for acute migraines (privately insured, 4.6% of visits; Medicaid, 6.6%) and highest for rib fractures (privately insured, 44.8% of visits; Medicaid, 56.3%), with variable days' supply but similar daily dosage across most indications. Opioid prescribing for a given chronic pain indication varied depending on a patient's opioid use history. Days' supply for postoperative prescriptions was longest for combined spinal decompression and fusion (privately insured, 9.5 days [95% CI, 9.4-9.7 days]) or spinal fusion (Medicaid, 9.1 days [95% CI, 8.9-9.2 days]) and was shortest for vaginal delivery (privately insured, 4.1 days [95% CI, 4.1-4.1 days] vs Medicaid, 4.2 days [95% CI, 4.2-4.2 days]). Conclusions and Relevance:Indication-specific opioid prescribing rates were not always aligned with existing guidelines. Potential inconsistencies between prescribing practice and clinical recommendations, such as for acute and chronic back pain, highlight opportunities to enhance pain management and patient safety.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with increased unemployment rates and long periods when individuals were without health insurance. Little is known about how Medicaid expansion facilitates Medicaid enrollment as a buffer to coverage loss owing to unemployment.ObjectiveTo compare changes in health insurance coverage status associated with pandemic-related unemployment among previously employed adults in states that have vs have not expanded Medicaid eligibility.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study included US adults aged 27 to 64 years who were employed at baseline in the 2020 to 2021 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, which included calendar years 2019 to 2020 (32 462 person-years). Data analyses were conducted between November 2021 and April 2022.ExposuresJob loss (ie, new unemployment) experienced during 2020.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were coverage status (ie, uninsured status) and source of coverage (ie, employer sponsored, marketplace, and Medicaid). Using 2-way person-by-year fixed-effects regression models, changes in coverage status associated with unemployment in states that expanded Medicaid were compared with states that did not expand Medicaid. Additional analyses were performed based on prepandemic coverage status.ResultsThe cohort included 16 231 adults (mean age, 46.8 [95% CI, 46.6-47.0] years; 51.6% women). New unemployment was associated with an increase of 2.9 (95% CI, 1.1-4.6) percentage points (P = .002) in the proportion of uninsured adults in Medicaid expansion states and an increase of 10.7 (95% CI, 2.4-18.9) percentage points (P = .01) in nonexpansion states. Workers were 5.4 (95% CI, 1.9-8.9) percentage points (P = .003) more likely to enroll in Medicaid after a job loss if they lived in a Medicaid expansion state compared with workers experiencing job loss in nonexpansion states.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of US adults, unemployment-related Medicaid enrollment was more frequent in Medicaid expansion states during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medicaid expansion led to a smaller increase in uninsured adults because those who lost private insurance coverage (eg, employer sponsored) appeared more able to transition to Medicaid after job loss.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Utilization, Costs, and Quality of Medicaid vs Subsidized Private Health Insurance for Low-Income Adults.

Publications

Comparison of Utilization, Costs, and Quality of Medicaid vs Subsidized Private Health Insurance for Low-Income Adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets