Impact of the Affordable Care Act Insurance Marketplaces on Out-of-Pocket Spending Among Surgical Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Insurance Marketplaces ("Marketplaces") and financial protection for patients undergoing surgery. BACKGROUND: The ACA established Marketplaces through which individuals could purchase subsidized insurance coverage. However, the effect of these Marketplaces on surgical patients' healthcare spending remains largely unknown. METHODS: We analyzed a nationally representative sample of adults aged 19-64 who underwent surgery in 2010-2017, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Low-income patients eligible for cost-sharing and premium subsidies in the Marketplaces [income 139%-250% federal poverty level (FPL)] and middle-income patients eligible only for premium subsidies (251%-400% FPL) were compared to high-income controls ineligible for subsidies (>400% FPL) using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach. We evaluated 3 main outcomes: (1) out-of-pocket spending, (2) premium contributions, and (3) likelihood of experiencing catastrophic expenditures, defined as out-of-pocket plus premium spending exceeding 19.5% of family income. RESULTS: Our sample included 5450 patients undergoing surgery, representing approximately 69 million US adults. Among low-income patients, Marketplace implementation was associated with $601 lower [95% confidence interval (CI): -$1169 to -$33; P = 0.04) out-of-pocket spending; $968 lower (95% CI: -$1652 to -$285; P = 0.006) premium spending; and 34.6% lower probability (absolute change: -8.3 percentage points; 95% CI: -14.9 to -1.7; P = 0.01) of catastrophic expenditures. We found no evidence that health expenditures changed for middle-income surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ACA's insurance Marketplaces were associated with improved financial protection among low-income surgical patients eligible for both cost-sharing and premium subsidies, but not in middle-income patients eligible for only premium subsidies.

Refinement of the Affordable Care Act.

Regardless of what legislation the federal government adopts to address health insurance coverage for nonelderly Americans, private insurance will likely play a major role. This article begins by listing some of the major reasons critics dislike the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then discusses the validity of these concerns from an economics perspective. Criticisms of the ACA include the increased role of government in health care, the ACA's implicit income redistribution, and concern about high and rising insurance premiums. Suggestions for refining the ACA and its market-based insurance system are then offered, with the goals of lowering insurance premiums, improving coverage rates, and/or addressing the concerns of ACA critics. Americans favor the increase in insurance coverage that has occurred under the ACA. In order to sustain this level of coverage, steps to lower Marketplace premiums through a variety of strategies affecting potential enrollees, insurers, and healthcare providers are offered.

The ACA's Choice Problem.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is in many ways a success. Millions more Americans now have access to health care, and the ACA catalyzed advances in health care delivery reform. Simultaneously, it has reinforced and bolstered a problem at the heart of American health policy and regulation: a love affair with choice. The ACA's insurance reforms doubled down on the particularly American obsession with choice. This article describes three ways in which that doubling down is problematic for the future of US health policy. First, pragmatically, health policy theory predicts that choice among health plans will produce tangible benefits that it does not actually produce. Most people do not like choosing among health plan options, and many people-even if well educated and knowledgeable-do not make good choices. Second, creating the regulatory structures to support these choices built and reinforced a massive market bureaucracy. Finally, and most important, philosophically and sociologically the ACA reinforces the idea that the goal of health regulation should be to preserve choice, even when that choice is empty. This vicious cycle seems likely to persist based on the lead up to the 2020 presidential election.

Sources of Success in California's Individual Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act.

When passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became the greatest piece of health care reform in the United States since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. In the 9 years since its passage, the law has ushered in a drastic decrease in the number of uninsured Americans and has encouraged delivery system innovation. However, the ACA has not been uniformly embraced, and states differ in their implementation of the law and in their individual health insurance marketplace's successfulness. Furthermore, under the Trump administration the law's future and the stability of the individual market have been uncertain. Throughout, however, California has been a leader. Today, the state's marketplace, known as Covered California, offers comprehensive, standardized health plans to over 1.3 million consumers. California's success with the ACA is largely attributable to its historical receptiveness to health reform; its early adoption of the law; its decision to have Covered California operate as an active purchaser, help shape the plans sold through the marketplace, and design a consumer-friendly enrollment experience; its engagement with stakeholders and community partners to encourage enrollment; and Covered California's commitment to continually innovate, improve, and anticipate the needs of the individual market as the law moves forward.

Public validation and its impact on the initial Affordable Care Act enrollment.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) resulted in the creation of state-based marketplaces (SBMs) and federally facilitated marketplaces (FFMs), and provided financial assistance to a portion of those eligible to enroll. This study looks at how choosing to create a SBM rather than a FFM, and the financial assistance provided to some, influenced enrollments rates as signals of support for the ACA in the eyes of those eligible to enroll. The findings show that the enrollment behavior of those most strongly in support of the ACA legislation was influenced by those external signals of support for the ACA.

Computational health economics for identification of unprofitable health care enrollees.

Health insurers may attempt to design their health plans to attract profitable enrollees while deterring unprofitable ones. Such insurers would not be delivering socially efficient levels of care by providing health plans that maximize societal benefit, but rather intentionally distorting plan benefits to avoid high-cost enrollees, potentially to the detriment of health and efficiency. In this work, we focus on a specific component of health plan design at risk for health insurer distortion in the Health Insurance Marketplaces: the prescription drug formulary. We introduce an ensembled machine learning function to determine whether drug utilization variables are predictive of a new measure of enrollee unprofitability we derive, and thus vulnerable to distortions by insurers. Our implementation also contains a unique application-specific variable selection tool. This study demonstrates that super learning is effective in extracting the relevant signal for this prediction problem, and that a small number of drug variables can be used to identify unprofitable enrollees. The results are both encouraging and concerning. While risk adjustment appears to have been reasonably successful at weakening the relationship between therapeutic-class-specific drug utilization and unprofitability, some classes remain predictive of insurer losses. The vulnerable enrollees whose prescription drug regimens include drugs in these classes may need special protection from regulators in health insurance market design.

Coverage of Medications That Treat Opioid Use Disorder and Opioids for Pain Management in Marketplace Plans, 2017.

BACKGROUND: Efficacious medications to treat opioid use disorders (OUDs) have been slow to diffuse into practice, and insurance coverage limits may be one important barrier. OBJECTIVES: To compare coverage for medications used to treat OUDs and opioids commonly prescribed for pain management in plans offered on the 2017 Health Insurance Marketplace exchanges. RESEARCH DESIGN: We identified a sample of 100 plans offered in urban and in rural counties on the 2017 Marketplaces, weighting by population. We accessed publicly available plan coverage information on healthcare.gov for states with a federally facilitated exchange, the state exchange website for state-based exchanges, and insurer websites. RESULTS: About 14% of plans do not cover any formulations of buprenorphine/naloxone. Plans were more likely to require prior authorization for any of the covered office-based buprenorphine or naltrexone formulations preferred for maintenance OUD treatment (ie, buprenorphine/naloxone, buprenorphine implants, injectable long-acting naltrexone) than of short-acting opioid pain medications (63.6% vs. 19.4%; P<0.0001). Only 10.6% of plans cover implantable buprenorphine, 26.1% cover injectable naltrexone, and 73.4% cover at least 1 abuse-deterrent opioid pain medication. CONCLUSIONS: Many Marketplace plans either do not cover or require prior authorization for coverage of OUD medications, and these restrictions are often more common for OUD medications than for short-acting opioid pain medications. Regulators tasked with enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which requires that standards for formulary design for mental health and substance use disorder drugs be comparable to those for other medications, should focus attention on formulary coverage of OUD medications.

Three years in - changing plan features in the U.S. health insurance marketplace.

BACKGROUND: A central objective of recent U.S. healthcare policy reform, most notably the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Health Insurance Marketplace, has been to increase access to stable, affordable health insurance. However, changing market dynamics (rising premiums, changes in issuer participation and plan availability) raise significant concerns about the marketplaces' ability to provide a stable source of healthcare for Americans that rely on them. By looking at the effect of instability on changes in the consumer choice set, we can analyze potential incentives to switch plans among price-sensitive enrollees, which can then be used to inform policy going forward. METHODS: Data on health plan features for non-tobacco users in 2512 counties in 34 states participating in federally-facilitated exchanges from 2014 to 2016 was obtained from the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. We examined how changes in individual plan features, including premiums, deductibles, issuers, and plan types, impact consumers who had purchased the lowest-cost silver or bronze plan in their county the previous year. We calculated the cost of staying in the same plan versus switching to another plan the following year, and analyzed how costs vary across geographic regions. RESULTS: In most counties in 2015 and 2016 (53.7 and 68.2%, respectively), the lowest-cost silver plan from the previous year was still available, but was no longer the cheapest plan. In these counties, consumers who switched to the new lowest-cost plan would pay less in monthly premiums on average, by $51.48 and $55.01, respectively, compared to staying in the same plan. Despite potential premium savings from switching, however, the majority would still pay higher average premiums compared to the previous year, and most would face higher deductibles and an increased probability of having to change provider networks. CONCLUSION: While the ACA has shown promise in expanding healthcare access, continued changes in the availability and affordability of health plans are likely to result in churning and switching among enrollees, which may have negative ramifications for their health going forward. Future healthcare policy reform should aim to stabilize marketplace dynamics in order to encourage greater care continuity and limit churning.

State-Based Marketplaces Outperform Federally-Facilitated Marketplaces.

In response to regulatory changes at the federal level, states that run their own marketplaces have taken steps to stabilize their individual markets. In this comparison of state-based and federally-facilitated marketplaces from 2016-2018, we find that SBMs had slower premium increases (43% vs. 75%), and fewer carrier exits, than FFMs. The total population participating in FFMs declined by 10%, while the enrolled population in SBMs remained largely stable, increasing by 2%. We find that the performance of the ACA marketplaces varies by state and appears to cluster around marketplace types.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019. Final rule.

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation programs; cost-sharing parameters; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State Exchanges on the Federal platform. It finalizes changes that provide additional flexibility to States to apply the definition of essential health benefits (EHB) to their markets, enhance the role of States regarding the certification of qualified health plans (QHPs); and provide States with additional flexibility in the operation and establishment of Exchanges, including the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges. It includes changes to standards related to Exchanges; the required functions of the SHOPs; actuarial value for stand-alone dental plans; the rate review program; the medical loss ratio program; eligibility and enrollment; exemptions; and other related topics.

Assessing the Promise and Risks of Income-Based Third-Party Payment Programs.

Issue: Consumers' concerns about affordability limit participation in ACA marketplaces. Funded by local hospital systems and run by independent nonprofits, third-party payment (TPP) programs improve affordability for low-income consumers by paying premium costs not covered by tax credits. Goal: To assess the potential of TPP to make marketplace coverage more affordable, without harming insurance risk pools. Methods: Interviews in May and June 2016 with program administrators, hospital systems, carriers, and consumer groups in five localities and the Washington State marketplace. Key Findings: The most effective local program reached 1,148 people, or 25 percent of all eligible marketplace enrollees. Other local programs served between 202 and 934 consumers; the Washington State program reached 1,133. Findings suggest that without TPP, numerous beneficiaries would have remained uninsured. Hospitals funding these programs reported net financial benefits, with declines in uncompensated care exceeding program costs. Carriers reported no adverse selection in these carefully designed programs. Conclusions: Widespread adoption of TPP could help additional low-income consumers obtain marketplace coverage. Hospitals' financial gains from TPP programs make replication more feasible. However, broader policies, such as increased premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, are likely needed for major nationwide improvements to affordability.

Competition and Premium Costs in Single-Insurer Marketplaces: A Study of Five Rural States.

Issue: In 2017, five states--Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming--had only one issuer participating in their health care marketplaces, limiting consumer choice and competition among insurers. Goal: Examine the history of participation in the individual market from 2010 (before the Affordable Care Act was enacted) to 2017, and analyze premium changes among marketplace plans. Methods: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's HIX Compare, which provides national data on the marketplaces from 2014 to 2017. Findings and Conclusions: In 2010, the individual insurance market was already concentrated in the five study states, with Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) plans covering the majority of enrollees. By 2015, with the marketplaces in full swing, more issuers were competing in the five states. But by 2016, co-ops were facing bankruptcy and left the marketplaces in these states; and in 2017, citing large financial losses, national issuers UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, and Humana also exited, leaving only a single BCBS plan in each state. Three of the five states experienced substantially higher annual premium increases than the national average. Policy options with bipartisan support, such as resuming cost-sharing reduction payments and reestablishing reinsurance and risk corridors, could help attract new or returning issuers to marketplaces in these states.

Small Changes or Big Ones? The Case of Limits on Prescription Drug Copayments in California.

Despite standardization, advocates for various industries and certain patient needs continue to propose changes in coverage rules. Much of the advocacy is occurring at the state level with a focus on pharmaceutical coverage, such as equalizing cost sharing between oral and infused oncology drugs or setting limits on cost sharing for prescriptions.

Tobacco use and health insurance literacy among vulnerable populations: implications for health reform.

BACKGROUND: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), millions of Americans have been enrolling in the health insurance marketplaces. Nearly 20% of them are tobacco users. As part of the ACA, tobacco users may face up to 50% higher premiums that are not eligible for tax credits. Tobacco users, along with the uninsured and racial/ethnic minorities targeted by ACA coverage expansions, are among those most likely to suffer from low health literacy - a key ingredient in the ability to understand, compare, choose, and use coverage, referred to as health insurance literacy. Whether tobacco users choose enough coverage in the marketplaces given their expected health care needs and are able to access health care services effectively is fundamentally related to understanding health insurance. However, no studies to date have examined this important relationship. METHODS: Data were collected from 631 lower-income, minority, rural residents of Virginia. Health insurance literacy was assessed by asking four factual questions about the coverage options presented to them. Adjusted associations between tobacco use and health insurance literacy were tested using multivariate linear regression, controlling for numeracy, risk-taking, discount rates, health status, experiences with the health care system, and demographics. RESULTS: Nearly one third (31%) of participants were current tobacco users, 80% were African American and 27% were uninsured. Average health insurance literacy across all participants was 2.0 (SD 1.1) out of a total possible score of 4. Current tobacco users had significantly lower HIL compared to non-users (-0.22, p < 0.05) after adjustment. Participants who were less educated, African American, and less numerate reported more difficulty understanding health insurance (p < 0.05 each.) CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco users face higher premiums for health coverage than non-users in the individual insurance marketplace. Our results suggest they may be less equipped to shop for plans that provide them with adequate out-of-pocket risk protection, thus placing greater financial burdens on them and potentially limiting access to tobacco cessation and treatment programs and other needed health services.

Stabilizing individual health insurance markets with subsidized reinsurance.

Subsidized reinsurance represents a potentially important tool to help stabilize individual health insurance markets. This brief describes alternative forms of subsidized reinsurance and the mechanisms by which they spread risk and reduce premiums. It summarizes specific state initiatives and Congressional proposals that include subsidized reinsurance. It compares approaches to each other and to more direct subsidies of individual market enrollment. For a given amount of funding, a particular program's efficacy will depend on how it affects insurers' risk and the risk margins built into premiums, incentives for selecting or avoiding risks, incentives for coordinating and managing care, and the costs and complexity of administration. These effects warrant careful consideration by policymakers as they consider measures to achieve stability in the individual market in the long term.

Effects of the ACA on Health Care Cost Containment.

This brief reviews the evidence on how key ACA provisions have affected the growth of health care costs. Coverage expansions produced a predictable jump in health care spending, amidst a slowdown that began a decade ago. Although we have not returned to the double-digit increases of the past, the authors find little evidence that ACA cost containment provisions produced changes necessary to "bend the cost curve." Cost control will likely play a prominent role in the next round of health reform and will be critical to sustaining coverage gains in the long term.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Market Stabilization. Final rule.

This rule finalizes changes that will help stabilize the individual and small group markets and affirm the traditional role of State regulators. This final rule amends standards relating to special enrollment periods, guaranteed availability, and the timing of the annual open enrollment period in the individual market for the 2018 plan year; standards related to network adequacy and essential community providers for qualified health plans; and the rules around actuarial value requirements.

Efforts to Support Consumer Enrollment Decisions Using Total Cost Estimators: Lessons from the Affordable Care Act's Marketplaces.

Issue: Policymakers have sought to improve the shopping experience on the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces by offering decision support tools that help consumers better understand and compare their health plan options. Cost estimators are one such tool. They are designed to provide consumers a personalized estimate of the total cost--premium, minus subsidy, plus cost-sharing--of their coverage options. Cost estimators were available in most states by the start of the fourth open enrollment period. Goal: To understand the experiences of marketplaces that offer a total cost estimator and the interests and concerns of policymakers from states that are not using them. Methods: Structured interviews with marketplace officials, consumer enrollment assisters, technology vendors, and subject matter experts; analysis of the total cost estimators available on the marketplaces as of October 2016. Key findings and conclusions: Informants strongly supported marketplace adoption of a total cost estimator. Marketplaces that offer an estimator faced a range of design choices and varied significantly in their approaches to resolving them. Interviews suggested a clear need for additional consumer testing and data analysis of tool usage and for sustained outreach to enrollment assisters to encourage greater use of the estimators.

Extending Marketplace Tax Credits Would Make Coverage More Affordable for Middle-Income Adults.

ISSUE: Affordability of health coverage is a growing challenge for Americans facing rising premiums, deductibles, and copayments. The Affordable Care Act's tax credits make marketplace insurance more affordable for eligible lower-income individuals. However, individuals lose tax credits when their income exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty level, creating a steep cliff. GOALS: To analyze the effects of extending eligibility for tax credits to individuals with incomes above 400 percent of the federal poverty level. METHODS: We used RAND's COMPARE microsimulation model to examine changes in insurance coverage and health care spending. KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Extending tax-credit eligibility increases insurance enrollment by 1.2 million, at a total federal cost of $6.0 billion. Those who would benefit from the tax-credit extension are mostly middle-income adults ages 50 to 64. These new enrollees would be healthier than current enrollees their age, which would improve the risk pool and lower premiums. Eliminating the cliff at 400 percent of the federal poverty level is one policy option that may be considered to increase affordability of insurance.