Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 2.711
Filter
1.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 43(10): 1448-1454, 2024 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39374463

ABSTRACT

Out-of-pocket spending is a long-standing challenge for privately insured people. New Mexico passed the first US law prohibiting private insurers from applying cost sharing to behavioral health treatment, effective January 1, 2022. We examined the perceptions of key informants, including clinicians, insurers, and state officials, about implementing the No Behavioral Health Cost Sharing law to explore how it might affect downstream outcomes such as spending and access. The law was viewed favorably and implemented without much difficulty. Clinicians noted widespread positive impacts, particularly for those needing intensive treatment. However, they worried about workforce capacity and the exclusion of people covered under self-insured employer plans, which are exempt from state regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. Insurers found the law to be in alignment with their organizational goals, but they expressed concern about the administrative burden caused by increased reviews of claims, and some were monitoring for unintended consequences (for example, waste and fraud) that could lead to increased premiums. Engagement strategies were needed to inform eligible members and facilitate enrollment in eligible plans. The law provides a potential model for states to improve access to behavioral health care, but impacts may be limited by factors such as workforce, awareness, and federal ERISA constraints.


Subject(s)
Cost Sharing , Qualitative Research , Humans , New Mexico , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/economics , Health Expenditures , Health Benefit Plans, Employee/economics , Health Benefit Plans, Employee/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility
2.
Am J Public Health ; 114(10): 1051-1060, 2024 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39146520

ABSTRACT

Insurance coverage for prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and postpartum care for undocumented immigrants consists of a patchwork of state and federal policies, which varies widely by state. According to federal law, states must provide coverage for labor and delivery through Emergency Medicaid. Various states have additional prenatal and postpartum coverage for undocumented immigrants through policy mechanisms such as the Children's Health Insurance Program's "unborn child" option, expansion of Medicaid, and independent state-level mechanisms. Using a search of state Medicaid and federal government websites, we found that 27 states and the District of Columbia provide additional coverage for prenatal care, postpartum care, or both, while 23 states do not. Twelve states include any postpartum coverage; 7 provide coverage for 12 months postpartum. Although information regarding coverage is available publicly online, there exist many barriers to access, such as lack of transparency, lack of availability of information in multiple languages, and incorrect information. More inclusive and easily accessible policies are needed as the first step toward improving maternal health among undocumented immigrants, a population trapped in a complicated web of immigration policy and a maternal health crisis. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(10):1051-1060. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307750).


Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility , Insurance Coverage , Medicaid , State Government , Undocumented Immigrants , Humans , Undocumented Immigrants/legislation & jurisprudence , Undocumented Immigrants/statistics & numerical data , United States , Female , Pregnancy , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Prenatal Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Federal Government , Postnatal Care/legislation & jurisprudence
3.
JAMA Health Forum ; 5(8): e242640, 2024 Aug 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39177982

ABSTRACT

Importance: By expanding health insurance to millions of people in the US, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) may have important health, economic, and social welfare implications for people with criminal legal involvement-a population with disproportionately high morbidity and mortality rates. Objective: To scope the literature for studies assessing the association of any provision of the ACA with 5 types of outcomes, including insurance coverage rates, access to care, health outcomes, costs of care, and social welfare outcomes among people with criminal legal involvement. Evidence Review: The literature search included results from PubMed, CINAHL Complete, APA Psycinfo, Embase, Social Science Database, and Web of Science and was conducted to include articles from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2023. Only original empirical studies were included, but there were no restrictions on study design. Findings: Of the 3538 studies initially identified for potential inclusion, the final sample included 19 studies. These 19 studies differed substantially in their definition of criminal legal involvement and units of analysis. The studies also varied with respect to study design, but difference-in-differences methods were used in 10 of the included studies. With respect to outcomes, 100 unique outcomes were identified across the 19 studies, with at least 1 in all 5 outcome categories determined prior to the literature search. Health insurance coverage and access to care were the most frequently studied outcomes. Results for the other 3 outcome categories were mixed, potentially due to heterogeneous definitions of populations, interventions, and outcomes and to limitations in the availability of individual-level datasets that link incarceration data with health-related data. Conclusions and Relevance: In this scoping review, the ACA was associated with an increase in insurance coverage and a decrease in recidivism rates among people with criminal legal involvement. Future research and data collection are needed to understand more fully health and nonhealth outcomes among people with criminal legal involvement related to the ACA and other health insurance policies-as well as the mechanisms underlying these relationships.


Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility , Insurance Coverage , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Humans , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/economics , United States , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Criminals/statistics & numerical data
4.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(8): e2426402, 2024 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39133489

ABSTRACT

Importance: Many US children and adolescents with mental and behavioral health (MBH) conditions do not access MBH services. One contributing factor is limited insurance coverage, which is influenced by state MBH insurance parity legislation. Objective: To investigate the association of patient-level factors and the comprehensiveness of state MBH insurance legislation with perceived poor access to MBH care and perceived inadequate MBH insurance coverage for US children and adolescents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using responses by caregivers of children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years with MBH conditions in the National Survey of Children's Health and State Mental Health Insurance Laws Dataset from 2016 to 2019. Data analyses were conducted from May 2022 to January 2024. Exposure: MBH insurance legislation comprehensiveness defined by State Mental Health Insurance Laws Dataset (SMHILD) scores (range, 0-7). Main Outcomes and Measures: Perceived poor access to MBH care and perceived inadequacy of MBH insurance were assessed. Multivariable regression models adjusted for individual-level characteristics. Results: There were 29 876 caregivers of children and adolescents with MBH conditions during the study period representing 14 292 300 youths nationally (7 816 727 aged 12-17 years [54.7%]; 8 455 171 male [59.2%]; 292 543 Asian [2.0%], 2 076 442 Black [14.5%], and 9 942 088 White [69.6%%]; 3 202 525 Hispanic [22.4%]). A total of 3193 caregivers representing 1 770 492 children and adolescents (12.4%) perceived poor access to MBH care, and 3517 caregivers representing 1 643 260 of 13 175 295 children and adolescents (12.5%) perceived inadequate MBH insurance coverage. In multivariable models, there were higher odds of perceived poor access to MBH care among caregivers of Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.75) and Asian (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.01-2.84) compared with White children and adolescents. As exposures to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) increased, the odds of perceived poor access to MBH care increased (aORs ranged from 1.68; 95%, CI 1.32-2.13 for 1 ACE to 4.28; 95% CI, 3.17-5.77 for ≥4 ACEs compared with no ACEs). Compared with living in states with the least comprehensive MBH insurance legislation (SMHILD score, 0-2), living in states with the most comprehensive legislation (SMHILD score, 5-7) was associated with lower odds of perceived poor access to MBH care (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99), while living in states with moderately comprehensive legislation (score, 4) was associated with higher odds of perceived inadequate MBH insurance coverage (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, living in states with the most comprehensive MBH insurance legislation was associated with lower odds of perceived poor access to MBH care among caregivers for children and adolescents with MBH conditions. This finding suggests that advocacy for comprehensive mental health parity legislation may promote improved child and adolescent access to MBH services.


Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility , Insurance Coverage , Mental Health Services , Humans , Child , Adolescent , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Male , Female , United States , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Retrospective Studies , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Disorders
6.
J Law Health ; 37(3): 387-410, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38833608

ABSTRACT

The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") contains a section titled "Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage." Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate's constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide the case on grounds of Article III standing. But how would the ACA have fared if the Court had in fact reached the merits? Did resetting the Individual Mandate penalty to zero uncloak the provision from the saving construction of Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius? This Note posits that, had the Court reached the merits, it would have found the Individual Mandate no longer met the requirements for classification as a tax under the rule relied on in NFIB. Moreover, it argues that the Court would have found the unconstitutional provision to be inseverable from the ACA insofar as it was integral to funding both the novel structure of the reformed healthcare system and the prohibition against insurance carriers denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This examination ultimately reveals that an outright repeal of the ACA would have been antidemocratic in the face of current consensus opinion that favors the reform and highlights the impact its abrogation would have had.


Subject(s)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Texas , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , United States , California , Supreme Court Decisions , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/economics
9.
JAMA ; 331(22): 1885-1886, 2024 06 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38739406
10.
JAMA Psychiatry ; 81(7): 641-642, 2024 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38717766

ABSTRACT

This Viewpoint discusses the current state of mental health parity reform, proposed amendments, and the challenges and considerations in play.


Subject(s)
Health Care Reform , Mental Health Services , Humans , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence
11.
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord ; 12(3): 101856, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38551528

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systemically review the literature on Anterior Saphenous Vein (ASV) reflux treatment and insurance impediments to treatment coverage. METHODS: A literature search was performed using a PRISMA framework. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for ASV treatment was evaluated. RESULTS: Published evidence and treatment considerations in the literature for ASV treatment are discussed. In 155 of 226 (68.6%) insurance policies reviewed coverage of ASV ablation was allowed while 62/226 (27.4%) did not specify coverage and 9/226 (4.0%) specified ASV treatment was not covered. Of the 155 that provide ASV coverage, 98 (62.2%) provide coverage with criteria such as requiring prior treatment of the great saphenous vein. CONCLUSIONS: Vein treatment experts should continue to advocate to insurance carriers to update their varicose vein treatment policies to reflect the substantial clinical evidence so that patients with ASV reflux can be appropriately treated.


Subject(s)
Insurance Coverage , Saphenous Vein , Varicose Veins , Venous Insufficiency , Saphenous Vein/surgery , Humans , Varicose Veins/therapy , Varicose Veins/economics , Venous Insufficiency/therapy , Venous Insufficiency/economics , Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Costs/legislation & jurisprudence , Ablation Techniques/economics
12.
JAMA ; 331(10): 882-884, 2024 03 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38345789

ABSTRACT

This study estimates the association between Medicare eligibility and support for recent proposals to expand program participation and benefits.


Subject(s)
Eligibility Determination , Medicare , Aged , Humans , Insurance Benefits , Medicare/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence
14.
JAMA ; 330(3): 238-246, 2023 07 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37462705

ABSTRACT

Importance: Professional medical organizations recommend that adults receive routine postpartum care. Yet, some states restrict public insurance coverage for undocumented immigrants and recently documented immigrants (those who received legal documentation status within the past 5 years). Objective: To examine the association between public insurance coverage and postpartum care among low-income immigrants and the difference in receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pooled, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System for 19 states and New York City including low-income adults with a live birth between 2012 and 2019. Exposure: Giving birth in a state that offered public insurance coverage for postpartum care to recently documented or undocumented immigrants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported receipt of postpartum care by the category of coverage offered (full coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care regardless of immigration status; moderate coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully residing immigrants without a 5-year waiting period, but did not offer postpartum care to undocumented immigrants; no coverage: states that did not offer publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully present immigrants before 5 years of legal residence or to undocumented immigrants). Results: The study included 72 981 low-income adults (20 971 immigrants [29%] and 52 010 nonimmigrants [71%]). Of the 19 included states and New York City, 6 offered full coverage, 9 offered moderate coverage, and 4 offered no coverage; 1 state (Oregon) switched from offering moderate coverage to offering full coverage. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, receipt of postpartum care among immigrants was 7.0-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -10.6 to -3.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and 11.3-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -13.9 to -8.8 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. The differences in the receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants were also associated with the coverage categories. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, there was a 3.3-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -5.3 to -1.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and a 7.7-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -10.3 to -5.0 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with states without insurance restrictions, immigrants living in states with public insurance restrictions were less likely to receive postpartum care. Restricting public insurance coverage may be an important policy-driven barrier to receipt of recommended pregnancy care and improved maternal health among immigrants.


Subject(s)
Emigrants and Immigrants , Health Policy , Health Services Accessibility , Insurance Coverage , Medicaid , Postnatal Care , Adult , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emigrants and Immigrants/legislation & jurisprudence , Emigrants and Immigrants/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/statistics & numerical data , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Postnatal Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Postnatal Care/statistics & numerical data , Public Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , United States/epidemiology , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Poverty/statistics & numerical data , Undocumented Immigrants/legislation & jurisprudence , Undocumented Immigrants/statistics & numerical data
17.
JAMA ; 329(10): 819-826, 2023 03 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36917051

ABSTRACT

Importance: Gender-affirming surgery is often beneficial for gender-diverse or -dysphoric patients. Access to gender-affirming surgery is often limited through restrictive legislation and insurance policies. Objective: To investigate the association between California's 2013 implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits insurers and health plans from limiting benefits based on a patient's sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression, and utilization of gender-affirming surgery among California residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population epidemiology study of transgender and gender-diverse patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery (facial, chest, and genital surgery) between 2005 and 2019. Utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California before and after implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act in July 2013 was compared with utilization in Washington and Arizona, control states chosen because of geographic similarity and because they expanded Medicaid on the same date as California-January 1, 2014. The date of last follow-up was December 31, 2019. Exposures: California's Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, implemented on July 9, 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of gender-affirming surgery, defined as undergoing at least 1 facial, chest, or genital procedure. Results: A total of 25 252 patients (California: n = 17 934 [71%]; control: n = 7328 [29%]) had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Median ages were 34.0 years in California (with or without gender-affirming surgery), 39 years (IQR, 28-49 years) among those undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states, and 36 years (IQR, 22-56 years) among those not undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states. Patients underwent at least 1 gender-affirming surgery within the study period in 2918 (11.6%) admissions-2715 (15.1%) in California vs 203 (2.8%) in control states. There was a statistically significant increase in gender-affirming surgery in the third quarter of July 2013 in California vs control states, coinciding with the timing of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act (P < .001). Implementation of the policy was associated with an absolute 12.1% (95% CI, 10.3%-13.9%; P < .001) increase in the probability of undergoing gender-affirming surgery in California vs control states observed in the subset of insured patients (13.4% [95% CI, 11.5%-15.4%]; P < .001) but not self-pay patients (-22.6% [95% CI, -32.8% to -12.5%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation in California of its Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act was associated with a significant increase in utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California compared with the control states Washington and Arizona. These data might inform state legislative efforts to craft policies preventing discrimination in health coverage for state residents, including transgender and gender-diverse patients.


Subject(s)
Gender Identity , Insurance, Health , Sex Reassignment Surgery , Sexual and Gender Minorities , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , California/epidemiology , Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health/economics , Insurance, Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance, Health/statistics & numerical data , Medicaid/economics , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Sex Reassignment Surgery/economics , Sex Reassignment Surgery/legislation & jurisprudence , Sex Reassignment Surgery/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Washington/epidemiology , Arizona/epidemiology , Young Adult , Middle Aged , Sexual and Gender Minorities/legislation & jurisprudence , Sexual and Gender Minorities/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL