Association Between California's State Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act and Utilization of Gender-Affirming Surgery.

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.

Changing Pediatric Hospice and Palliative Care Through Medicaid Partnerships.

Since its inception in 2010, the Concurrent Care for Children Provision of the Affordable Care Act has enabled seriously ill pediatric patients and their families to access comprehensive, supportive hospice services while simultaneously receiving ongoing treatment-directed therapies. Although this groundbreaking federal legislation has resulted in improvements in care for vulnerable pediatric patients, the implementation of the law has varied from state to state through Medicaid programming. The pediatric professional community is called to consider how Medicaid services can more effectively be delivered by leveraging legislative mandates and collaborative relationships between clinicians, Medicaid administrators, and policy makers. In this article, we examine ways concurrent care has been executed in 3 different states and how key stakeholders in care for children with serious illness advocated to ensure effective implementation of the legislation. The lessons learned in working with state Medicaid programs are applicable to any advocacy issue impacting children and families .

ACA Medicaid expansion reduced disparities in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. METHODS: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion.

Acquisition of Medicaid at the time of injury: An opportunity for sustainable insurance coverage.

INTRODUCTION: Uninsured trauma patients are at higher risk of mortality, limited access to postdischarge resources, and catastrophic health expenditure. Hospital Presumptive Eligibility (HPE), enacted with the 2014 Affordable Care Act, enables uninsured patients to be screened and acquired emergency Medicaid at the time of hospitalization. We sought to identify factors associated with successful acquisition of HPE insurance at the time of injury, hypothesizing that patients with higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (ISS >15) would be more likely to be approved for HPE. METHODS: We identified Medicaid and uninsured patients aged 18 to 64 years with a primary trauma diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) in a large level I trauma center between 2015 and 2019. We combined trauma registry data with review of electronic medical records, to determine our primary outcome, HPE acquisition. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 2,320 trauma patients, 1,374 (59%) were already enrolled in Medicaid at the time of hospitalization. Among those uninsured at arrival, 386 (40.8%) acquired HPE before discharge, and 560 (59.2%) remained uninsured. Hospital Presumptive Eligibility patients had higher ISS (ISS >15, 14.8% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001), longer median length of stay (2 days [interquartile range, 0-5 days] vs. 0 [0-1] days, p < 0.001), were more frequently admitted as inpatients (64.5% vs. 33.6%, p < 0.001), and discharged to postacute services (11.9% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001). Patient, hospital, and policy factors contributed to HPE nonapproval. In adjusted analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (vs. non-Hispanic Whites: aOR, 1.58; p = 0.02) and increasing ISS (p ≤ 0.001) were associated with increased likelihood of HPE approval. CONCLUSION: The time of hospitalization due to injury is an underused opportunity for intervention, whereby uninsured patients can acquire sustainable insurance coverage. Opportunities to increase HPE acquisition merit further study nationally across trauma centers. As administrative and trauma registries do not capture information to compare HPE and traditional Medicaid patients, prospective insurance data collection would help to identify targets for intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level IV.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women with gynecologic cancer face socioeconomic disparities in care that affect survival outcomes. The Affordable Care Act offered states the option to expand Medicaid enrollment eligibility criteria as a means of improving timely and affordable access to care for the most vulnerable. The variable uptake of expansion by states created a natural experiment, allowing for quasi-experimental methods that offer more unbiased estimates of treatment effects from retrospective data than the traditional regression adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To use a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference framework to create unbiased estimates of impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a quasi-experimental retrospective cohort study from the National Cancer Database files for women with invasive cancers of the uterus, ovary and fallopian tube, cervix, vagina, and vulva diagnosed from 2008 to 2016. Using a marker for state Medicaid expansion status, we created difference-in-difference models to assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on the outcomes of access to and timeliness of care. We excluded women aged <40 years owing to the suppression of the state Medicaid expansions status in the data and women aged ≥65 years owing to the universal Medicare coverage availability. Our primary outcome was the rate of uninsurance at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included Medicaid coverage, early-stage diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and any treatment or surgery within 30 days of diagnosis. Models were run within multiple subgroups and on a propensity-matched cohort to assess the robustness of the treatment estimates. The assumption of parallel trends was assessed with event study time plots. RESULTS: Our sample included 335,063 women. Among this cohort, 121,449 were from nonexpansion states and 213,614 were from expansion states, with 79,886 posttreatment cases diagnosed after the expansion took full effect in expansion states. The groups had minor differences in demographics, and we found occasional preperiod event study coefficients diverging from the mean, but the outcome trends were generally similar between the expansion and nonexpansion states in the preperiod, satisfying the necessary assumption for the difference-in-difference analysis. In a basic difference-in-difference model, the Medicaid expansion in January 2014 was associated with significant increases in insurance at diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and treatment within 30 days of diagnosis (P<.001 for all). In an adjusted model including all states and accounting for variable expansion implementation time, there was a significant treatment effect of Medicaid expansion on the reduction in uninsurance at diagnosis (-2.00%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3 to -1.7; P<.001), increases in early-stage diagnosis (0.80%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.4; P=.02), treatment at an academic facility (0.83%; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.5; P=.02), treatment within 30 days (1.62%; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.3; P<.001), and surgery within 30 days (1.54%; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.3; P<.001). In particular, large gains were estimated for women living in low-income zip codes, Hispanic women, and women with cervical cancer. Estimates from the subgroup and propensity-matched cohorts were generally consistent for all outcomes besides early-stage diagnosis and treatment within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was significantly associated with gains in the access and timeliness of treatment for nonelderly women with gynecologic cancer. The implementation of Medicaid expansion could greatly benefit women in nonexpansion states. Gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists should advocate for Medicaid expansion as a means of improving outcomes and reducing socioeconomic and racial disparities.

State Policies on Access to Vaccination Services for Low-Income Adults.

Importance: State vaccination benefits coverage and access for adult Medicaid beneficiaries vary substantially. Multiple studies have documented lower vaccination uptake in publicly insured adults compared with privately insured adults. Objective: To evaluate adult Medicaid beneficiaries' access to adult immunization services through review of vaccination benefits coverage in Medicaid programs across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A public domain document review with supplemental semistructured telephone survey was conducted between June 1, 2018, and June 14, 2019, to evaluate vaccination services benefits in fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements for adult Medicaid beneficiaries in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (total, 51 Medicaid programs). Exposures: Document review of benefits coverage for adult immunization services and supplemental survey with validation of document review findings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Benefits coverage for adult Medicaid beneficiaries and reimbursement amounts for vaccine purchase and administration. Results: Public domain document review was completed for all 51 jurisdictions. Among these, 44 Medicaid programs (86%) validated document review findings and completed the survey. Only 22 Medicaid programs (43%) covered all 13 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended adult immunizations under both fee-for-service and managed care organization arrangements. Most fee-for-service arrangements (37 of 49) reimbursed health care professionals using any of the 4 approved vaccine administration codes; however, 8 of 49 programs did not separately reimburse for vaccine administration to adult Medicaid beneficiaries. Depending on administration route, median reimbursement for adult vaccine administration ranged from $9.81 to $13.98 per dose. Median per-dose reimbursement for adult vaccine purchase was highest for 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine ($204.87) and lowest for Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine ($18.09). Median reimbursement was below the private sector price for 7 of the 13 included vaccines. Conclusions and Relevance: Even in programs with complete vaccination benefits coverage, reimbursement amounts to health care professionals for vaccine purchase and administration may not fully cover vaccination provision costs. Reimbursement amounts below costs may reduce incentives for health care professionals to vaccinate low-income adults and thereby limit Medicaid adult beneficiary access to vaccination.

The effect of Medicaid expansion on prescriptions for breast cancer hormonal therapy medications.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effects of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion on prescriptions for effective breast cancer hormonal therapies (tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) among Medicaid enrollees. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Medicaid State Drug Utilization Database (SDUD) 2011-2018, comprising the universe of outpatient prescription medications covered under the Medicaid program. STUDY DESIGN: Differences-in-differences and event-study linear models compare population rates of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole) use in expansion and nonexpansion states, controlling for population characteristics, state, and time. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Relative to nonexpansion states, Medicaid-financed hormonal therapy prescriptions increased by 27.2 per 100 000 nonelderly women in a state. This implies a 28.8 percent increase from the pre-expansion mean of 94.2 per 100 000 nonelderly women in expansion states. The event-study model reveals no evidence of differential pretrends in expansion and nonexpansion states and suggests use grew to 40 or more prescriptions per 100 000 nonelderly women 3-5 years postexpansion. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion may have had a meaningful impact on the ability of lower-income women to access effective hormonal therapies used to treat breast cancer.

The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion and Impact Along the Cancer-Care Continuum: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Health reform and the merits of Medicaid expansion remain at the top of the legislative agenda, with growing evidence suggesting an impact on cancer care and outcomes. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the association between Medicaid expansion and the goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the context of cancer care. The purpose of this article is to summarize the currently published literature and to determine the effects of Medicaid expansion on outcomes during points along the cancer care continuum. METHODS: A systematic search for relevant studies was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Three independent observers used an abstraction form to code outcomes and perform a quality and risk of bias assessment using predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies were identified. The most common outcomes assessed were the impact of Medicaid expansion on insurance coverage (23.4% of studies), followed by evaluation of racial and/or socioeconomic disparities (17.4%) and access to screening (14.5%). Medicaid expansion was associated with increases in coverage for cancer patients and survivors as well as reduced racial- and income-related disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion has led to improved access to insurance coverage among cancer patients and survivors, particularly among low-income and minority populations. This review highlights important gaps in the existing oncology literature, including a lack of studies evaluating changes in treatment and access to end-of-life care following implementation of expansion.

Health Insurance Coverage of Permanent Hair Removal in Transgender and Gender-Minority Patients.

Importance: Hair removal can be an essential component of the gender affirmation process for gender-minority (GM) patients whose outward appearance does not align with their gender identity. Objective: To examine the health insurance policies in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace and Medicaid policies for coverage of permanent hair removal for transgender and GM patients and to correlate the policies in each state with statewide protections of coverage for gender-affirming care. Design and Setting: Private health insurance policies available on the ACA marketplace and statewide Medicaid policies were examined in a cross-sectional study from September 1 to October 31, 2019, and January 17 to 30, 2020. Policies were assessed for coverage of permanent hair removal. Language concerning hair removal was found in each policy's medical or clinical coverage guidelines and separated into general categories. Main Outcomes and Measures: Logistic regression analyses were performed to compare Medicaid policies and ACA policies in states with and without transgender protections. Results: A total of 174 policies were analyzed, including 123 private insurance policies and 51 statewide Medicaid policies. Of these policies, 8 (4.6%) permitted the coverage of permanent hair removal without explicit restrictions. The remaining 166 policies (95.4%) broadly excluded or did not mention gender-affirming care; prohibited coverage of hair removal or did not mention it; or only permitted coverage of hair removal preoperatively for genital surgery. The ACA marketplace policies in states without transgender care protections were less likely to cover hair removal without restrictions than ACA policies in states with protections (2 of 85 policies [2.4%] in states without transgender care protections vs 5 of 38 policies [13.2%] in states with transgender care protections), and Medicaid policies were less likely to cover preoperative or nonsurgical hair removal compared with ACA policies (6 of 51 Medicaid policies [11.8%] vs 47 of 123 ACA policies [38.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite adoption of statewide restrictions on GM health care exclusions by several states, most Medicaid and ACA policies examined in this study did not cover permanent hair removal for transgender patients. Many GM patients seeking hair removal may be required to pay out-of-pocket costs, which could be a barrier for gender-affirming care.

Medicaid for the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon.

Medicaid is a complex federally and state funded health insurance program in the United States that insures an estimated 76 million individuals, approximately 20 percent of the U.S. population. Many physicians may not receive formal training or education to help understand the complexities of Medicaid. Plastic surgeons, residents, and advanced practice practitioners benefit from a basic understanding of Medicaid, eligibility requirements, reimbursement methods, and upcoming healthcare trends. Medicaid is implemented by states with certain federal guidelines. Eligibility varies from state to state (in many states it's linked to the federal poverty level), and is based on financial and nonfinancial criteria. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 permitted states to increase the federal poverty level eligibility cutoff to expand coverage for low-income adults. The aim of this review is to provide a brief history of Medicaid, explain the basics of eligibility and changes invoked by the Affordable Care Act, and describe how federal insurance programs relate to plastic surgery, both at academic institutions and in community practice environments.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion on Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion increased Medicaid eligibility such that all adults with an income level up to 138% of the federal poverty threshold in 2014 qualified for Medicaid benefits. Prior studies have shown that the ACA Medicaid expansion was associated with increased access to care. The impact of the ACA Medicaid expansion on patients undergoing complex care for major vascular pathology has not been evaluated. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database was used to identify patients undergoing care for major vascular pathology in 6 states from 2010 to 2014. The analysis cohort included adult patients between the ages of 18 and 64 years who underwent a nonemergent surgical procedure for an abdominal aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic aneurysm, carotid artery stenosis, peripheral vascular disease, or chronic kidney disease. Poisson regression was used to determine the incidence rate ratios (IRRs). RESULTS: There were a total of 83,960 patients in the study cohort. Compared with nonexpansion states, inpatient admissions for Medicaid patients with an abdominal or thoracic aneurysm and carotid stenosis diagnosis increased significantly (IRR, 1.20, 1.27, 1.06, respectively; P < 0.05) in states that expanded Medicaid. Vascular-related surgeries increased for carotid endarterectomy, lower extremity revascularization, lower extremity amputation, and arteriovenous fistula in expansion states (IRR, 1.24, 1.10, 1.11, 1.16, respectively; P < 0.05) compared with nonexpansion states. CONCLUSIONS: In states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the ACA, the rate of vascular-related surgeries and admissions for Medicaid patients increased. We conclude that expanding insurance coverage results in enhanced access to vascular surgery.

The impact of Medicaid expansion on trauma-related emergency department utilization: A national evaluation of policy implications.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the 2014 Affordable Care Act (ACA) upon national trauma-related emergency department (ED) utilization is unknown. We assessed ACA-related changes in ED use and payer mix, hypothesizing that post-ACA ED visits would decline and Medicaid coverage would increase disproportionately in regions of widespread policy adoption. METHODS: We queried the National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) for those with a primary trauma diagnosis, aged 18 to 64. Comparing pre-ACA (2012) to post-ACA (10/2014 to 09/2015), primary outcomes were change in ED visits and payer status; secondary outcomes were change in costs, discharge disposition and inpatient length of stay. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed, including difference-in-differences analyses. We compared changes in ED trauma visits by payer in the West (91% in a Medicaid expansion state) versus the South (12%). RESULTS: Among 21.2 million trauma-related ED visits, there was a 13.3% decrease post-ACA. Overall, there was a 7.2% decrease in uninsured ED visits (25.5% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001) and a 6.6% increase in Medicaid coverage (17.6% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001). Trauma patients had 40% increased odds of having Medicaid post-ACA (vs. pre-ACA: aOR 1.40, p < 0.001). Patients in the West had 31% greater odds of having Medicaid (vs. South: aOR 1.31, p < 0.001). The post-ACA increase in Medicaid was greater in the West (vs. South: aOR 1.60, p < 0.001). Post-ACA, inpatients were more likely to have Medicaid (vs. ED discharge: aOR 1.20, p < 0.001) and there was a 25% increase in inpatient discharge to rehabilitation (aOR 1.24, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Post-ACA, there was a significant increase in insured trauma patients and a decrease in injury-related ED visits, possibly resulting from access to other outpatient services. Ensuring sustainability of expanded coverage will benefit injured patients and trauma systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level III.

Lifting the burden: State Medicaid expansion reduces financial risk for the injured.

BACKGROUND: Injuries are unanticipated and can be expensive to treat. Patients without sufficient health insurance are at risk for financial strain because of high out-of-pocket (OOP) health care costs relative to their income. We hypothesized that the 2014 Medicaid expansion (ME) in Washington (WA) state, which extended coverage to more than 600,000 WA residents, was associated with a reduction in financial risk among trauma patients. METHODS: We analyzed all trauma patients aged 18 to 64 years admitted to the sole level 1 trauma center in WA from 2012 to 2017. We defined 2012 to 2013 as the prepolicy period and 2014 to 2017 as the postpolicy period. We used a multivariable linear regression model to evaluate for changes in length of stay, inpatient mortality, and discharge disposition. To evaluate for financial strain, we used WA state and US census data to estimate postsubsistence income and OOP expenses for our sample and then applied these two estimates to determine catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) risk as defined by the World Health Organization (OOP health expenses ≥40% of estimated household postsubsistence income). RESULTS: A total of 16,801 trauma patients were included. After ME, the Medicaid coverage rate increased from 20.4% to 41.0%, and the uninsured rate decreased from 19.2% to 3.7% (p < 0.001 for both). There was no significant change in private insurance coverage. Medicaid expansion was not associated with significant changes in clinical outcomes or discharge disposition. Estimated CHE risk by payer was 81.4% for the uninsured, 25.9% for private insurance, and less than 0.1% for Medicaid. After ME, the risk of CHE for the policy-eligible sample fell from 26.4% to 14.0% (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: State ME led to an 80% reduction in the uninsured rate among patients admitted for injury, with an associated large reduction in the risk of CHE. However, privately insured patients were not fully protected from CHE. Additional research is needed to evaluate the impact of these policies on the financial viability of trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic analysis, level II.

Bariatric surgery among vulnerable populations: The effect of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.

BACKGROUND: Obesity disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. Bariatric surgery is an effective long-term treatment for obesity-related complications; however, bariatric surgical rates are lower among racial minorities and low-income and publicly insured patients. The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion improved access to health insurance, but its impact on bariatric surgical disparities has not been evaluated. We sought to determine the impact of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on disparate utilization rates of bariatric surgery. METHODS: A total of 47,974 nonelderly adult bariatric surgical patients (ages 18-64 years) were identified in 2 Medicaid-expansion states (Kentucky and Maryland) versus 2 nonexpansion control states (Florida and North Carolina) between 2012 and 2015 using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Database. Poisson interrupted time series were conducted to determine the adjusted incidence rates of bariatric surgery by insurance (Medicaid/uninsured versus privately insured), income (high income versus low income), and race (African American versus white). The difference in the counts of bariatric surgery were then calculated to measure the gap in bariatric surgery rates. RESULTS: The adjusted incidence rate of bariatric surgery among Medicaid or uninsured and low-income patients increased by 15.8% and 5.1% per quarter, respectively, after the Affordable Care Act in expansion states (P < .001). No marginal change was seen in privately insured and high-income patients in expansion states. The adjusted incidence rates increased among African American and white patients, but these rates did not change significantly before and after the Affordable Care Act in expansion states. CONCLUSION: The gap in bariatric surgery rates by insurance and income was reduced after the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, but racial disparities persisted. Future research should track these trends and identify factors to reduce racial disparity in bariatric surgery.

Impact of Medicaid Expansion of the Affordable Care on the Outcomes of Lower Extremity Bypass for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative Database.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the utilization and outcomes of surgery after Medicaid Expansion (ME) for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Recent studies have demonstrated increased insurance coverage and improved care with the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) state expansion of Medicaid. METHODS: Infrainguinal bypass procedures performed due to occlusive pathology in the Vascular Quality Initiative database between 2010 and 2017 were included. Primary outcomes including postoperative mortality and major adverse limb events (MALE) at 1-year of follow-up were analyzed using interrupted time-series analysis (ITS). RESULTS: Out of 26,446 infrainguinal bypass procedures, 13,955 (52.8%) were included in this analysis. ME states witnessed an annual decrease in infrainguinal surgery for acute ischemia [annual change in post vs pre-ME period (95% confidence interval): -4.3% (-7.5% to -1.0%), P = 0.02] and an increase in revascularization for claudication [3.7% (1.7%-5.6%), P = 0.01]. Among nonacute cases, elective procedures increased in ME states [3.9% (0.1%-7.7%), P = 0.05] along with a significant annual decrease in in-hospital mortality [-0.4% (-0.8 to -0.02), P = 0.04) and MALE at 1 year of follow up [-9.0% (-20.3 to 2.3), P = 0.09]. These results were statistically significant after comparing them with the annual trend changes in states which did not adopt ME. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of ME in 2014 was associated with significant increase in the use of infrainguinal bypass for nonsevere and elective cases, along with improved in-hospital mortality and MALE at 1 year. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the impact of ME on other aspects of care and longer term outcomes of PAD patients.

Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Patterns Among Women With Medicaid and Commercial Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Despite healthcare reforms mandating expanded insurance coverage and reduced out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, cancer screening rates remain relatively static. No study has measured cancer screening rates for multiple tests among non-Medicare patients. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based claims analysis, conducted in 2016-2017, of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured women aged 30-59 years enrolled in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases (containing approximately 90 and 17 million enrollees, respectively) during 2010-2015 describes screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Key outcomes were (1) proportion screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer among the age-eligible population compared with accepted age-based recommendations and (2) proportion with longer-than-recommended intervals between tests. RESULTS: One half (54.7%) of commercially insured women aged 40-59 years (n=1,538,444) were screened three or more times during the 6-year study period for breast cancer; for Medicaid-insured women (n=78,897), the rates were lower (23.7%). One third (43.4%) of commercially insured and two thirds (68.9%) of Medicaid-insured women had a >2.5-year gap between mammograms. Among women aged 30-59 years, 59.3% of commercially insured women and 31.4% of Medicaid-insured women received two or more Pap tests. The proportion of patients with a >3.5-year gap between Pap tests was 33.9% (commercially insured) and 57.1% (Medicaid-insured). Among women aged 50-59 years, 63.3% of commercially insured women and 47.2% of Medicaid-insured women were screened at least one time for colorectal cancer. Almost all women aged 30-59 years (commercially insured, 99.1%; Medicaid-insured, 98.9%) had at least one healthcare encounter. CONCLUSIONS: Breast and cervical cancer screenings remain underutilized among both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured populations, with lower rates among the Medicaid-insured population. However, almost all women had at least one healthcare encounter, suggesting opportunities for better coordinated care.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Disparities in Private and Medicaid Insurance Coverage Among Patients Under 65 With Newly Diagnosed Cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of the Affordable Care Act on racial and rural-urban disparities in insurance coverage for patients under age 65 with cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data from 2011 to 2015, we calculated the proportions of uninsured, Medicaid, and non-Medicaid insured (including private insurance) patients before and after the Medicaid expansion. We calculated the absolute percent change and difference in differences (DiD) to evaluate whether the Medicaid expansion had an impact on the distribution of types of insurance. Adjusted DiD analyses accounted for age, race, sex, county-level median household income, and rural-urban residence. RESULTS: There was a greater decrease in uninsured rate in expansion states (-3.0%) versus nonexpansion states (-0.9%, DiD -2.1%), particularly among Black (DiD -3.4%), Hispanic (-3.9%), and rural patients (-4.8%). In expansion states, an increase in the proportion of patients with Medicaid coincided with a decrease in the proportion with non-Medicaid insurance; the opposite was observed in nonexpansion states. The decrease in non-Medicaid insurance varied by patient race: Asian/Pacific Islanders (adjusted DiD -9.7%), Hispanic (-4.2%), non-Hispanic black (-4.0%), and non-Hispanic white (-2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion versus nonexpansion states observed a slightly greater reduction in the uninsured rate, but Medicaid expansion states also observed a corresponding shift from non-Medicaid (including private) to Medicaid insurance, which may paradoxically exacerbate disparities in access to care and cancer outcomes. Long-term outcomes and continued study are required to fully understand the impact of the Affordable Care Act on disparities in cancer care.