Formulary Coverage of Esketamine and Ketamine for Depression in Ohio Health Insurance Marketplace and Medicaid Plans.

For more than 2 decades, intravenous ketamine has been demonstrated to have rapid antidepressant effects. However, access to this generic drug is limited due to insurers claiming it is "experimental" because ketamine does not have a Food and Drug Administration indication for depression. In contrast, intranasal esketamine, an enantiomer of ketamine, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for depression and is still under patent. The goal of this column is to provide a clearer understanding of formulary coverage of these similar medications by insurers. Formularies of all 2023 Ohio Health Insurance Marketplace and Medicaid plans were reviewed to determine the inclusion status of intravenous ketamine and intranasal esketamine for depression. This review found that intravenous ketamine was not covered by any Marketplace or Medicaid plan for depression, while intranasal esketamine was on 72.7% and 100% of formularies, respectively. Thus, members of the analyzed insurance plans can more easily access intranasal esketamine than intravenous ketamine for depression, despite the latter being more cost-effective and possibly more efficacious.

Georgia's Reinsurance Waiver Associated With Decreased Premium Affordability And Enrollment.

Sixteen states have used Section 1332 waivers to implement reinsurance programs that aim to reduce premiums and increase enrollment in the Affordable Care Act's health insurance Marketplaces. Although reinsurance programs have successfully reduced premiums for unsubsidized enrollees, little is known about how reinsurance affects Marketplace premiums, minimum cost of coverage, and enrollment for the large majority of Marketplace enrollees who receive premium subsidies. Using a difference-in-differences analysis of matched counties straddling Georgia's borders to examine Georgia's 2022 implementation of its reinsurance program, we found that reinsurance increased the minimum cost of enrolling in subsidized Marketplace coverage by approximately 30 percent and decreased enrollment by roughly a third for Marketplace enrollees with incomes of 251-400 percent of the federal poverty level. Marketplace reinsurance programs may have the unintended consequences of increasing the minimum cost of subsidized coverage and reducing enrollment. These outcomes are especially relevant in the present policy context of enhanced subsidies, which have substantially reduced the number of unsubsidized enrollees who would benefit most from reinsurance.

Health Plan Switching and Health Care Utilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) helped make health insurance premiums more affordable with premium tax credits, ACA marketplace enrollees continue to face barriers to care. Objective: To investigate the effect of informational emails on plan switching and health care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted during the 2021 special enrollment period in California's Affordable Care Act marketplace among households that reported receiving unemployment insurance and were enrolled in non-silver-tier plans. The trial targeted 42 470 households that became temporarily eligible for cost-sharing reduction (CSR) silver plans that covered 94% of medical costs (CSR silver 94 plans) as a result of the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. Intervention: Households were randomized to either a no-email control group or to a treatment group receiving 2 informational emails encouraging households to switch to CSR plans. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the switch rate to a CSR silver plan by July 31, 2021. Secondary outcomes include various measures of health care utilization in the second half of 2021 (July 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021). Health care utilization was measured by rates of practitioner visits, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and prescription fills. Results: Of the 42 470 households (head of household mean [SD], age, 41.4 [13.3] years; 51.7% male), 10 650 (25.1%) were in the control group and 31 820 (74.9%) were in the treatment group. The emails led to a statistically significant 3.1-percentage point (95% CI, 2.6-3.6 percentage points) increase in CSR silver 94 enrollment (a 74.8% relative increase) by July 31, 2021, and a 1.3-percentage point (95% CI, 0.2-2.4 percentage points) increase (a 2.3% relative increase) in practitioner visits by December 31, 2021. The emails had no detectable effect on prescription fills, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial provide experimental evidence that, with access to more affordable health care, individuals are more likely to visit practitioners. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05891418.

Small Marketplace Premiums Pose Financial And Administrative Burdens: Evidence From Massachusetts, 2016-17.

Health insurance premiums are primarily understood to pose financial barriers to coverage. However, the need to remit monthly premium payments may also create administrative burdens that negatively affect coverage, even in cases where affordability is a negligible concern. Using 2016-17 data from the Massachusetts health insurance Marketplace and a natural experiment, we evaluated how coverage retention was affected by the introduction of nominal (less than $10 for most enrollees) monthly premiums for plans that previously had $0 premiums. Compared with plans that maintained $0 premiums, those that took on nominal premiums saw enrollment fall by 14 percent over the following year. This attrition was attributable to terminations for nonpayment; most terminations occurred at the end of January, implying that a significant number of affected enrollees never initiated premium payments. These findings suggest that even very small premiums act as enrollment barriers, which may sometimes reflect administrative burdens more than financial hardship. Several policy approaches could mitigate adverse coverage outcomes related to nominal premiums.

Effects of Cost Sharing on Ophthalmic Care Utilization in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace.

PURPOSE: To determine the distribution and quantity of ophthalmic care consumed on Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, the demographics of the population utilizing these services, and the relationship between ACA insurance coverage plan tier, cost sharing, and total cost of ophthalmic care consumed. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed ACA individual and small group market claims data from the Wakely Affordable Care Act (WACA) 2018 dataset, which contains detailed claims, enrollment, and premium data from Edge Servers for 3.9 million individual and small group market lives. We identified all enrollees with ophthalmology-specific billing, procedure, and national drug codes. We then analyzed the claims by plan type and calculated the total cost and out-of-pocket (OOP) cost. RESULTS: Among 3.9 million enrollees in the WACA 2018 dataset, 538,169 (13.7%) had claims related to ophthalmology procedures, medications, and/or diagnoses. A total of $203 million was generated in ophthalmology-related claims, with $54 million in general services, $42 million in medications, $20 million in diagnostics and imaging, and $86 million in procedures. Average annual OOP costs were $116 per member, or 30.9% of the total cost, and were lowest for members with platinum plans (16% OOP) and income-driven cost sharing reduction (ICSR) subsidies (17% OOP). Despite stable ocular disease distribution across plan types, beneficiaries with silver ICSR subsidies consumed more total care than any other plan, higher than platinum plan enrollees and almost 1.5× the cost of bronze plan enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmic care for enrollees on ACA plans generated substantial costs in 2018. Plans with higher OOP cost sharing may result in lower utilization of ophthalmic care.

States' racial resentment correlates with administrative distancing and lower rates of health plan selection in affordable care act marketplaces: a cross sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) pursued equity in healthcare access and treatment, but ACA implementation varied, especially limiting African Americans' gains. Marketplaces for subsidized purchase of coverage were sometimes implemented with limited outreach and enrollment assistance efforts. Reflecting state's ACA receptivity or reluctance, state's implementation may rest on sociopolitical stances and racial sentiments. Some states were unwilling to provide publicly supported healthcare to nonelderly, non-disabled adults- "the undeserving poor" -who evoke anti-black stereotypes. The present study assessed whether some states shunned Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces and implemented them less vigorously than other states, leading to fewer eligible persons selecting insurance plans. It assessed if states' actions were motivated by racial resentment, because states connote marketplaces to be government assistance for unworthy African Americans. METHODS: Using marketplace and plan selection data from 2015, we rated states' marketplace structures along a four-level continuum indicating greater acceptance of marketplaces, ranging from states assuming sole responsibility to minimal responsibility. Using national data from a four-question modern racism scale, state-wide racial resentment estimates were estimated at the state level. Analysis assessed associations between state levels of racial resentment with states' marketplace structure. Further analysis assessed relationships between both state levels of racial resentment and states' marketplace structure with states' consumer plan selection rates-representing the proportion of persons eligible to enroll in insurance plans who selected a plan. RESULTS: Racial resentment was greater in states with less responsibility for the administration of the marketplaces than actively participating states. States higher in racial resentment also showed lower rates of plan selection, pointing to less commitment to implementing marketplace provisions and fulfilling the ACA's coverage-improvement mission. Differences persisted after controlling for differences in conservatism, uninsurance, poor health, and rejection of Medicaid expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Resentment of African Americans' purported irresponsibility and entitlement to government assistance may interfere with states structuring and operating marketplaces to maximize health insurance opportunities for everyone available under the ACA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Merging Rural And Urban ACA Rating Areas Improved Choice, Premiums In Rural Texas.

Rural consumers often face a limited choice of carriers and plans and high premiums. To mitigate this issue, Texas recently adjusted its Affordable Care Act Marketplace rating areas to integrate rural areas into nearby urban markets for rating purposes. We found that rural consumers subsequently saw increases in carrier and plan choices, as well as decreases in overall plan premiums.

Dynamic Price Competition for Low-Cost Silver Plans on Healthcare.gov 2014-2021.

More than 16 million people receive health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual health insurance marketplaces. Many enrollees receive premium subsidies that are tied to the premium of the second least expensive silver plan available. This study investigates the consistency of the least expensive silver plan offered on Healthcare.gov from 2014 to 2021 and finds that on average, from one year to the next, the same insurer offered the least expensive silver plan in 63.1% of counties representing 54.7% of the population. However, even when the same insurer offers the least expensive plan, almost half the time, they introduce a new, less expensive plan in the next policy year. Consequently, ACA enrollees who previously purchased the least expensive silver plan may face incremental premium costs unless they spend time and effort to carefully reevaluate their choices each year. We estimate the potential premium cost of inattention and show how it varies over time and across states.

The Affordability Of Individual-Market Health Insurance In California Under The American Rescue Plan Act, 2021.

In 2021 the American Rescue Plan Act increased premium subsidies for people purchasing insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces and provided zero-premium Marketplace plans that covered 94 percent of medical care costs (silver 94 plans) to recipients of unemployment compensation. Using data on adult enrollees in on- and off-Marketplace individual plans in California in 2021, we found that 41 percent reported incomes at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level and that 39 percent reported living in households receiving unemployment compensation. Overall, 72 percent of enrollees reported having no difficulty paying premiums, and 76 percent reported that out-of-pocket expenses did not affect their seeking of medical care. The majority of enrollees eligible for plans with cost-sharing subsidies were enrolled in Marketplace silver plans (56-58 percent). Many of these enrollees, however, may have missed opportunities for premium or cost-sharing subsidies: 6-8 percent enrolled in off-Marketplace plans and were more likely to have difficulty paying premiums than those in Marketplace silver plans, and more than one-quarter enrolled in Marketplace bronze plans and were more likely to delay care because of cost than those in Marketplace silver plans. In the coming era of expanded Marketplace subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, helping consumers identify high-value and subsidy-eligible plans could mitigate remaining affordability problems.

Comparing The Effects Of Nudges And Automatic Plan Switching On Choice Errors Among Low-Income Marketplace Enrollees.

During the 2022 open enrollment period in California's Affordable Care Act Marketplace, we tested two interventions designed to reduce choice errors among low-income households enrolled in bronze plans that were eligible for zero-premium cost-sharing reduction (CSR) silver plans with more generous benefits. A randomized controlled trial nudge intervention used letter and email reminders to encourage consumers to switch plans, and a quasi-experimental crosswalk intervention automatically enrolled eligible households from bronze plans into zero-premium CSR silver plans with the same insurers and provider networks. The nudge intervention led to a statistically significant 2.3-percentage-point (26 percent) increase in CSR silver plan take-up relative to the control group, but nearly 90 percent of households remained in nonsilver plans. The automatic crosswalk intervention resulted in an 83.0-percentage-point (822 percent) increase in CSR silver plan take-up compared with the control group, with more than 90 percent of households enrolled in CSR silver plans. Our findings can inform health policy debates on the relative effectiveness of different approaches to reducing choice errors among low-income households in the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces.

Social determinants of health and high-cost utilization among commercially insured population.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of adding neighborhood social determinants of health (SDOH) data to demographic and clinical characteristics for predicting high-cost utilizers and to examine variations across age groups. STUDY DESIGN: Using US Census data and 2017-2018 commercial claims from a large national insurer, we estimated association between neighborhood-level SDOH and the probability of being a high-cost utilizer. METHODS: Observational study using administrative claims from a national insurer and US Census data. Data included a 50% random sample of commercially insured individuals who were younger than 89 years and had 1 year of continuous eligibility in 2017 and at least 30 days in 2018. Probit models assessed impact of SDOH and neighborhood conditions on predicting cost status. RESULTS: SDOH did not improve predictive power of evaluated models. However, disadvantaged neighborhood residence was still associated with being a high-cost utilizer. Adults 65 years and older in disadvantaged neighborhoods had increased likelihood of high-cost utilization. Children and younger adults in disadvantaged neighborhoods had lower risk of becoming high-cost utilizers. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and industry stakeholders should be aware of the mechanisms behind the relationship between neighborhood social conditions and health outcomes and how the relationship differs across age groups.

Availability of off-marketplace plans with lower premiums for higher-income families.

OBJECTIVES: Families with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level were ineligible for marketplace premium tax credits before 2021 and may again be after 2025. Current laws temporarily removed this income cap, but because credits cap out-of-pocket premiums for a reference plan as a share of income, some higher-income families still receive zero tax credits. We quantified (1) premium differences between on- and off-marketplace plans and (2) the association between these premium differences and state decisions to finance cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) for lower-income families. STUDY DESIGN: We created a comprehensive database of on- and off-marketplace plans in each county (including both federal and state-based marketplaces). METHODS: By county and metal level, we compared on- and off-marketplace (1) plan premiums in 2020 and (2) growth rates in the numbers of plans. We contrasted outcomes for states by how insurers were instructed to finance CSRs. RESULTS: In 2020, 89% of the US population lived in counties where some plans were offered exclusively off-marketplace. In these counties, for a 45-year-old choosing among silver plans in 2020 and who did not qualify for premium subsidies, premiums for the lowest-cost off-marketplace plans averaged 11.3% less than premiums for the lowest-cost on-marketplace plans. In contrast, for bronze and gold plans, the lowest-cost off-marketplace plans were, on average, more expensive. Silver plan premiums were 6.1% higher off-marketplace than on-marketplace in states that loaded CSRs on all silver plans, and 13.5% lower in states that loaded CSRs only on on-marketplace silver plans. CONCLUSIONS: Higher-income individuals and families may consider purchasing Affordable Care Act-compliant silver plans off-marketplace and thereby reduce their premiums. State and federal policy makers should consider the impact of their decisions on the choice between on- and off-marketplace plans.

Effects of state reinsurance programs on health insurance exchange premiums and insurer participation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate the effect of the state-based reinsurance programs through the section 1332 State Innovation Waivers on health insurance marketplace premiums and insurer participation. DATA SOURCE: 2015 to 2022 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Insurance Exchange Compare Datasets. STUDY DESIGN: An event study difference-in-differences (DD) model separately for each year of implementation and a synthetic control method (SCM) are used to estimate year-by-year effects following program implementation. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Reinsurance programs were associated with a decline in premiums in the first year of implementation by 10%-13%, 5%-19%, and 11%-17% for bronze, silver, and gold plans (p < 0.05). There is a trend of sustained declines especially for states that implemented their programs in 2019 and 2020. The SCM analyses suggest some effect heterogeneity across states but also premium declines across most states. There is no evidence that reinsurance programs affected insurer participation. CONCLUSION: State-based reinsurance programs have the potential to improve the affordability of health insurance coverage. However, reinsurance programs do not appear to have had an effect on insurer participation, highlighting the need for policy makers to consider complementary strategies to encourage insurer participation.

Effect of Eased Restrictions for Aca-Exempt Short-Term Health Plans on Marketplace Premiums and Uninsured Rate: A Difference in Differences Analysis.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established broad standards for private health insurance in the United States including requiring minimum essential benefits and prohibiting medical underwriting, but the law also permitted some exceptions. This paper examines one type of exempt plan option, Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance (STLDI) that is not required to fully meet ACA benefit and underwriting standards. Federal rules governing STLDI plans have changed over time, with more permissive rules in the Trump administration allowing individuals to remain covered for longer durations of time relative to the original Obama regulations. Within applicable federal guidelines, states have also varied STLDI rules. Using publicly available data measuring state-level variations in STLDI regulations, ACA benchmark premiums, uninsured rates, and population characteristics for 2014 to 2021, we estimate difference-in-differences models to examine if more permissible STLDI policies are associated with higher premiums in the fully regulated non-group market and, also, lower uninsured rates. We find that longer duration, more permissible STLDI is associated with higher benchmark premiums in ACA exchanges and no difference in state-level uninsured rates. Trump administration regulations permitting longer duration STLDI plans to make available more affordable ACA-exempt health insurance were associated with higher premium costs in the ACA-regulated non-group market but we did not observe measurable impact on state uninsured rates. While longer-duration STLDI plans may result in lower costs for some, they have negative consequences for others requiring comprehensive coverage with no discernible benefit in overall coverage rates. Understanding these tradeoffs can help guide future policies regarding exceptions to ACA plan requirements.

Association Between a Capitated, Low-cost, County-Based Public Health Insurance Option and Affordable Care Act Premium Growth in California.

Importance: Empirical evidence is needed on how a capitated, risk-based county plan performs as a viable public option in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace in California. Objective: To estimate whether LA Care-a capitated, county-based public option and California's largest public insurer-was associated with health insurance premium growth in the Los Angeles (LA) regions of Covered California (CC), the ACA exchange in California. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used ACA silver plan premium data within the 19 CC regions. Difference-in-differences and event study models used data on plan-level premiums from Health Insurance Exchange Compare for years 2014 to 2022 to estimate the association between LA Care and ACA premium growth in LA. Exposures: The intervention was LA Care becoming the lowest-cost health plan on the ACA exchange in 2018. The treatment group included the East and West LA regions, and the control group included the remaining 17 CC regions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome variable was annual premium growth of plans on CC from 2014 to 2022. Results: Using 504 plan-level observations for 2014 to 2022, ACA premium growth in LA declined by 4.8% after LA Care became the lowest-cost health plan on the exchange in 2018 (coefficient estimate, -0.048; SE, 0.022; 95% CI, -0.093 to -0.002). Savings due to lower premium growth from 2019 to 2022 were calculated to be $345 million, with approximately 70% of the savings ($242 million) going to the federal government. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, LA Care was associated with lower premium growth of other health insurance plans in the LA regions of CC, with the majority of savings going to the federal government. California could have captured these savings if it had applied for and received a State Innovation Waiver under section 1332 of the ACA. LA Care may be a viable public option with the potential to be expanded across California through the state's 16 other county-based health plans.

Personalized Letters And Emails Increased Marketplace Enrollment Among Households Eligible For Zero-Premium Plans.

More than one million low-income uninsured people are eligible for zero-premium cost-sharing reduction (CSR) silver plans through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces. However, many are not aware of these options, and Marketplaces are uncertain about what types of informational messages will increase take-up. In 2021 and 2022, before and after the introduction of zero-premium plans in Covered California, California's individual ACA Marketplace, we conducted two randomized controlled trials among low-income households that submitted an application and were found eligible for $1 per month or zero-premium coverage but were not yet enrolled. We tested the effect of personalized letters and emails that informed households that they were eligible for a $1 per month or zero-premium CSR silver plan. Across both settings, low-cost personalized outreach increased rates of ACA enrollment, CSR silver plan take-up, and $1 per month or zero-premium CSR silver plan take-up. But even with free or nearly free coverage options, absolute rates of enrollment remained low, suggesting that more resource-intensive efforts are needed to help prospective enrollees overcome nonprice barriers.

Financial transaction costs reduce benefit take-up evidence from zero-premium health insurance plans in Colorado.

With the passage of the American Recovery Plan Act of 2021, roughly 12 million Americans are eligible to purchase zero-premium Health Insurance Marketplace plans. Millions more are eligible for generously subsidized health plans with small, positive premiums. What difference does a premium of zero make, relative to a slightly positive premium? Using a regression discontinuity design and administrative data from Colorado, we find that zero-premium plans increase coverage, primarily by helping low-income households begin coverage sooner. The main mechanism is eliminating the transaction costs of having to make on-time payments to begin coverage. Transaction costs may be a meaningful barrier to subsidized insurance coverage take-up, particularly for low-income families.

Assessment of Churn in Coverage Among California's Health Insurance Marketplace Enrollees.

Importance: Individual health insurance marketplaces established through the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) fill a critical gap for those who lack other coverage options. The high degree of coverage turnover, or churn, has raised concerns about affordability and strategic behavior on the part of individuals to sign up only when they need care. Objective: To assess the role of California's ACA marketplaces in the broader health care landscape by understanding enrollment tenure and churn. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed survey data from a representative, probability-based sample of enrollees in California's ACA marketplace, Covered California, collected immediately after the open enrollment periods in 2018, 2019, and 2021. Administrative data from Covered California from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021, were used to analyze marketplace tenure. Survey data included 9571 heads of households aged 18 to 64 years who were newly enrolled or had recently terminated their plan, directly drawn from Covered California's administrative records. Administrative data included individuals up to age 65 years who enrolled in the marketplace during 2014 to 2021. Exposures: New enrollment in or termination from health care coverage through California's ACA marketplace. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollment tenure in California's ACA marketplace, sources of coverage prior to enrolling and after terminating coverage, and demographic or plan characteristics associated with the decision to go uninsured. Results: Median (IQR) length of coverage among 5.4 million enrollees (mean [SD] age, 38 [16] years; 17% Asian American/Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 2.5% Black or African American, 23% Latino [response options were Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino origin], 29% White, 7.5% categorized as other [including American Indian/Alaskan Native, multiple races, and other], and 21% of unknown race or ethnicity) was 14 (6-35) months, and 41% to 46% of enrollees disenrolled within 1 year, with substantial variation by subgroups. Despite this churn, only 14% (95% CI, 12%-15%) of 6474 terminating members surveyed across 3 years (2018, 2019, and 2021) reported being uninsured after leaving the marketplace, with the rest moving to job-based coverage or Medicaid. Most of those surveyed (mean [SE] percentage, 56% [0.016] individuals) reported having had employer-sponsored insurance or Medicaid prior to enrolling in the marketplace. Among subsidized renewal candidates, Latino candidates were 1.5 percentage points (95% CI, 0.8-2.3 percentage points) more likely to go uninsured compared with White candidates, and those with no expected physician visits in the coming year were 4.8 percentage points (95% CI, 2.4-7.2 percentage points) more likely to go uninsured vs those who expected physician visits. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study of coverage churn found that ACA marketplaces served 2 distinct types of individuals, long-term enrollees but, more often, individuals with short-term-coverage needs due to a change in eligibility for other insurance. These results suggest that marketplaces are smoothing coverage disruptions and that policies to reduce gaps in coverage should be designed with this in mind.

Social risks and social needs in a health insurance exchange sample: a longitudinal evaluation of utilization.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are increasingly attempting to intervene on social adversity as a strategy to improve health care outcomes. To inform health system efforts to screen for social adversity, we sought to explore the stability of social risk and interest in assistance over time and to evaluate whether the social risk was associated with subsequent healthcare utilization. METHODS: We surveyed Kaiser Permanente members receiving subsidies from the healthcare exchange in Southern California to assess their social risk and desire for assistance using the Accountable Health Communities instrument. A subset of initial respondents was randomized to be re-surveyed at either three or six months later. RESULTS: A total of 228 participants completed the survey at both time points. Social risks were moderate to strongly stable across three and six months (Kappa range = .59-.89); however, social adversity profiles that included participants' desire for assistance were more labile (3-month Kappa = .52; 95% CI = .41-.64 & 6-month Kappa = .48; 95% CI = .36-.6). Only housing-related social risks were associated with an increase in acute care (emergency, urgent care) six months after initial screening; no other associations between social risk and utilization were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that screening for social risk may be appropriate at intervals of six months, or perhaps longer, but that assessing desire for assistance may need to occur more frequently. Housing risks were associated with increases in acute care. Health systems may need to engage in screening and referral to resources to improve overall care and ultimately patient total health.