Alleviating Financial Hardships Associated with High-Deductible Health Plans for Adults with Chronic Conditions Through Health Savings Accounts.

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are becoming increasingly common, but their financial implications for enrollees with and without chronic conditions and the mitigating effects of health savings accounts (HSAs) are relatively unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare financial hardship between non-HDHPs and HDHPs with and without HSAs, stratified by enrollees' number of chronic conditions. DESIGN: We used data from 2015 to 2018 Medical Expenditure Panels Surveys (MEPS) to compare rates of financial hardship across individuals with HDHPs and non-HDHPs using linear and logistic regression models. PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 30,981 adults aged 18-64 enrolled in HDHPs and non-HDHPs. MAIN MEASURES: We examined several measures of financial hardship, including total yearly out-of-pocket medical spending as well as rates of delaying medical care or prescriptions in the past year due to cost, forgoing medical care or prescriptions in the past year due to cost, paying medical bills over time, or having problems paying medical bills. We compared rates using the non-HDHP as the control. KEY RESULTS: On most measures, HDHPs are associated with greater financial hardship compared to non-HDHPs, including average annual out-of-pocket spending of $637 for non-HDHPs, $939 for HDHPs with HSAs, and $825 for HDHPs without HSAs (p < 0.01). However, for HDHP enrollees with multiple chronic conditions, having an HSA was associated with less financial hardship (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that HSAs may be most beneficial for those with chronic conditions, in part due to the tax benefits they offer as well as the fact that those with chronic conditions are more likely to take advantage of their HSAs than their younger, healthier counterparts. However, as HDHPs are more likely to be correlated with worse financial outcomes regardless of health status, recent trends of increasing participation may be a reason for concern.

Effects of Medicare Part D coverage gap closure on utilization of branded and generic drugs.

The Affordable Care Act included a provision to gradually eliminate the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap between 2011 and 2020, which substantially lower medication costs in the gap. Using 2007-2016 Medicare claims data, we estimate how filling the gap affects individuals' out-of-pocket spending and medication use, separately for branded and generic drugs. One important difficulty in estimating the policy impact is that around the same time, many blockbuster drugs commonly used by the Medicare population experienced patent expiration and began to see generic entry. Because generic entries affected different therapeutic classes at different times, we run difference-in-differences models by therapeutic category at the beneficiary-month level to isolate the effect of the gap closure from that of generic entry. Overall, we find that filling the gap substantially reduced out-of-pocket spending and increased the use of branded drugs, which had larger discount rates during the analysis period. Beneficiaries reaching the gap, at older ages, or with comorbidities experienced larger reduction in out-of-pocket spending. We show that without accounting for generic entry, the effect of filling the coverage gap on medication use is underestimated for branded drugs and overestimated for generic drugs.

Differential Effects by Mental Health Status of Filling the Medicare Part D Coverage Gap.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study how changes in insurance benefit design affect medication use of older adults with mental disorders. DATA SOURCES: US Medicare claims data from 2007 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Exploiting the gradual elimination of the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap beginning in 2011, we examine the effects on medication use and out-of-pocket spending by drug type with a difference-in-differences approach. We identify subpopulations by mental disorder and compare the estimates across mental health groups and to the general Medicare population. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Closing the gap substantially reduced individuals' out-of-pocket spending, and the reduction was larger for those with more severe mental disorders. The policy led to a statistically significant increase in branded drugs used for the Medicare population (0.91; P<0.01; 12.12% increase), beneficiaries with severe mental disorders (2.71; P<0.01; 11.13% increase), and common mental disorders (2.63; P<0.01; 11.62% increase), whereas such effect for beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease and dementia (AD) is substantially smaller (0.44; P<0.01; 1.83% increase). In contrast, the policy decreased generic drugs used by about 3%-5% for all groups. Overall, beneficiaries without mental health illness have a statistically significant increase in total medication use (2.05%) following the coverage gap closure, while all 3 mental health groups have either no statistically significant changes or a small reduction in total mediation use (AD, -1.26%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' responses to price changes vary across mental disorders and by drug type. The impact on branded drug utilization among those with AD is particularly small. Our findings suggest that lowering medication costs has differential impacts across diseases and may not be sufficient to improve adherence for all conditions, in particular those with severe mental health disorders such as AD.

Combined impact of Medicare's hospital pay for performance programs on quality and safety outcomes is mixed.

BACKGROUND: Three major hospital pay for performance (P4P) programs were introduced by the Affordable Care Act and intended to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. The financial risk to hospitals associated with Medicare's P4P programs is substantial. Evidence on the positive impact of these programs, however, has been mixed, and no study has assessed their combined impact. In this study, we examined the combined impact of Medicare's P4P programs on clinical areas and populations targeted by the programs, as well as those outside their focus. METHODS: We used 2007-2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases for 14 states to identify hospital-level inpatient quality indicators (IQIs) and patient safety indicators (PSIs), by quarter and payer (Medicare vs. non-Medicare). IQIs and PSIs are standardized, evidence-based measures that can be used to track hospital quality of care and patient safety over time using hospital administrative data. The study period of 2007-2016 was selected to capture multiple years before and after introduction of program metrics. Interrupted time series was used to analyze the impact of the P4P programs on study outcomes targeted and not targeted by the programs. In sensitivity analyses, we examined the impact of these programs on care for non-Medicare patients. RESULTS: Medicare P4P programs were not associated with consistent improvements in targeted or non-targeted quality and safety measures. Moreover, mortality rates across targeted and untargeted conditions were generally getting worse after the introduction of Medicare's P4P programs. Trends in PSIs were extremely mixed, with five outcomes trending in an expected (improving) direction, five trending in an unexpected (deteriorating) direction, and three with insignificant changes over time. Sensitivity analyses did not substantially alter these results. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous studies for individual programs, we detect minimal, if any, effect of Medicare's hospital P4P programs on quality and safety. Given the growing evidence of limited impact, the administrative cost of monitoring and enforcing penalties, and potential increase in mortality, CMS should consider redesigning their P4P programs before continuing to expand them.

How Have 30-Day Readmission Penalties Affected Racial Disparities in Readmissions?: an Analysis from 2007 to 2014 in Five US States.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day readmission penalties implemented with the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) place a larger burden on safety-net hospitals which treat a disproportionate share of racial minorities, leading to concerns that already large racial disparities in readmissions could widen. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there were changes in Black-White disparities in 30-day readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia following the passage and implementation of HRRP, and to compare disparities across safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional analysis, stratified by safety-net status. SUBJECTS: 1,745,686 Medicare patients over 65 discharged alive from hospitals in 5 US states: NY, FL, NE, WA, and AR. MAIN MEASURES: Odds ratios comparing 30-day readmission rates following an index admission for AMI, CHF, or pneumonia for Black and White patients between 2007 and 2014. KEY RESULTS: Prior to the passage of HRRP in 2010, Black and White readmission rates and disparities in readmissions were decreasing. These reductions were largest at safety-net hospitals. In 2007, Blacks had 13% higher odds of readmission if treated in safety-net hospitals, compared with 5% higher odds in 2010 (P < 0.05). These trends continued following the passage of HRRP. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to HRRP, there were large reductions in Black-White disparities in readmissions at safety-net hospitals. Although HRRP tends to assess higher penalties for safety-net hospitals, improvements in readmissions have not reversed following the implementation of HRRP. In contrast, disparities continue to persist at non-safety-net hospitals which face much lower penalties.

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.

Anticipatory Behavior in Response to Medicare Part D's Coverage Gap.

Under the standard Medicare Part D benefit structure, copayments for medications change discontinuously at certain levels of accumulative drug spending. Beneficiaries pay 25% of the cost of medications in the initial phase, 100% in the coverage gap, and 5% in the catastrophic phase. We examine whether individuals anticipate these copayment changes and adjust their consumption in advance. We use variation in birth-months of beneficiaries who enroll in Part D plans when they first turn 65. Birth-months generate exogenous variation in the end-of-year price because those who enroll earlier in the year are more likely to reach the coverage gap than those who enroll later. We study the impact of variation in end-of-year price on the first three months of medication use immediately following enrollment. We use difference-in-differences to adjust for seasonal trends in use, by comparing our main study group with those who receive low-income subsidies, and therefore do not face a coverage gap. We find strong evidence of anticipatory behavior, with an implied elasticity with respect to future prices ranging from -0.2 to -0.5. In addition, we find that beneficiaries modify their consumption by changing the quantity of prescriptions filled, instead of switching between brand-name and generic drugs. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Tobacco Surcharges on 2015 Health Insurance Plans Sold in Federally Facilitated Marketplaces: Variations by Age and Geography and Implications for Health Equity.

In 2014, few health insurance plans sold in the Affordable Care Act's Federally Facilitated Marketplaces had age-dependent tobacco surcharges, possibly because of a system glitch. The 2015 tobacco surcharges show wide variation, with more plans implementing tobacco surcharges that increase with age. This underscores concerns that older tobacco users will find postsubsidy health insurance premiums difficult to afford. Future monitoring of enrollment will determine whether tobacco surcharges cause adverse selection by dissuading tobacco users, particularly older users, from buying health insurance.

The U.S. health insurance marketplace: are premiums truly affordable?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that individuals have health insurance or pay a penalty. Individuals are exempt from paying this penalty if the after-subsidy cost of the least-expensive plan available to them is greater than 8% of their income. For this study, premium data for all health plans offered on the state and federal health insurance marketplaces were collected; the after-subsidy cost of premiums for the least-expensive bronze plan for every county in the United States was calculated; and variations in premium affordability by age, income, and geographic area were assessed. Results indicated that-although marketplace subsidies ensure affordable health insurance for most persons in the United States-many individuals with incomes just above the subsidy threshold will lack affordable coverage and will be exempt from the mandate. Furthermore, young individuals with low incomes often pay as much as or more than older individuals for bronze plans. If substantial numbers of younger, healthier adults choose to remain uninsured because of cost, health insurance premiums across all ages may increase over time.

The Impact of Prescription Drug Coverage on Disparities in Adherence and Medication Use: A Systematic Review.

Prescription drug cost-sharing is a barrier to medication adherence, particularly for low-income and minority populations. In this systematic review, we examined the impact of prescription drug cost-sharing and policies to reduce cost-sharing on racial/ethnic and income disparities in medication utilization. We screened 2,145 titles and abstracts and identified 19 peer-reviewed papers that examined the interaction between cost-sharing and racial/ethnic and income disparities in medication adherence or utilization. We found weak but inconsistent evidence that lower cost-sharing is associated with reduced disparities in adherence and utilization, but studies consistently found that significant disparities remained even after adjusting for differences in cost-sharing across individuals. Study designs varied in their ability to measure the causal effect of policy or cost-sharing changes on disparities, and a wide range of policies were examined across studies. Further research is needed to identify the types of policies that are best suited to reduce disparities in medication adherence.

The impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic disparities in presentation with perforated appendicitis in children: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Children from racial and ethnic minority groups have higher prevalence of perforated appendicitis, and the COVID-19 pandemic worsened racial and ethnic health-related disparities. We hypothesized that the incidence of perforated appendicitis worsened for children from racial and ethnic minorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of the Pediatric Health Information System for children ages 2-18y undergoing appendectomy pre-pandemic (3/19/2019-3/18/2020) and intra-pandemic (3/19/2020-3/30/2021). The primary outcome was presentation with perforated appendicitis. Multivariable logistic regression with mixed effects estimated the likelihood of presentation with perforated appendicitis. Covariates included race, ethnicity, pandemic status, Child Opportunity Index, gender, insurance, age, and hospital region. Results: Overall, 33,727 children underwent appendectomy: 16,048 (47.6 %) were Non-Hispanic White, 12,709 (37.7 %) were Hispanic, 2261 (6.7 %) were Non-Hispanic Black, 960 (2.8 %) were Asian, and 1749 (5.2 %) Other. Overall perforated appendicitis rates were unchanged during the pandemic (37.4 % intra-pandemic, 36.4 % pre-pandemic, p = 0.06). Hispanic children were more likely to present with perforated appendicitis intra-pandemic versus pre-pandemic (OR 1.18, 95%CI: 1.07, 1.13). Hispanic children had higher odds of perforated appendicitis versus Non-Hispanic White children pre-pandemic (OR 1.10, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.20) which increased intra-pandemic (OR 1.19, 95%CI: 1.09, 1.30). Publicly-insured children had increased odds of perforated appendicitis intra-pandemic versus pre-pandemic (OR 1.14, 95%CI: 1.03, 1.25), and had increased odds of perforated appendicitis versus privately-insured children (intra-pandemic OR 1.26, 95%CI: 1.16, 1.36; pre-pandemic OR 1.12, 95%CI: 1.04, 1.22). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Hispanic and publicly-insured children were more likely to present with perforated appendicitis, suggesting that the pandemic exacerbated existing disparities in healthcare for children with appendicitis. Key message: We found that Hispanic children and children with public insurance were more likely to present with perforated appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health efforts aimed at ameliorating racial and ethnic disparities created during the COVID-19 pandemic should consider increasing healthcare access for Hispanic children to address bias, racism, and systemic barriers that may prevent families from seeking care.

Race Differences in Patient-Reported Symptoms during Chemotherapy among Women with Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Symptom burden differences may contribute to racial disparities in breast cancer survival. We compared symptom changes from before to during chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. METHODS: This observational study followed a cohort of Black and White women diagnosed with Stage I-III, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from a large cancer center in 2007 to 2015, and reported symptoms before and during chemotherapy. We identified patients who experienced a one-standard deviation (SD) increase in symptom burden after starting chemotherapy using four validated composite scores (General Physical Symptoms, Treatment Side Effects, Acute Distress, and Despair). Kitagawa-Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition was used to quantify race differences in symptom changes explained by baseline characteristics (sociodemographic, baseline scores, cancer stage) and first-line chemotherapy regimens. RESULTS: Among 1,273 patients, Black women (n = 405, 31.8%) were more likely to report one-SD increase in General Physical Symptoms (55.6% vs. 48.2%, P = 0.015), Treatment Side Effects (74.0% vs. 63.4%, P < 0.001), and Acute Distress (27.4% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.010) than White women. Baseline characteristics and first-line chemotherapy regimens explained a large and significant proportion of the difference in Acute Distress changes (93.7%, P = 0.001), but not General Physical Symptoms (25.7%, P = 0.25) or Treatment Side Effects (16.4%, P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Black women with early-stage breast cancer were more likely to experience significant increases in physical and psychological symptom burden during chemotherapy. Most of the difference in physical symptom changes remained unexplained by baseline characteristics, which suggests inadequate symptom management among Black women. IMPACT: Future studies should identify strategies to improve symptom management among Black women and reduce differences in symptom burden. See related commentary by Rosenzweig and Mazanec, p. 157.

Provision of Food Allergy Care in the United Kingdom and United States: Current Issues and Future Directions.

Food allergy (FA) is a growing issue worldwide. The United Kingdom and United States are high-income, industrialized countries with reported increases in FA prevalence over the past few decades. This review compares delivery of FA care in the United Kingdom and United States and each country's response to the heightened demand and disparities for FA services. In the United Kingdom, allergy specialists are scarce and general practitioners (GPs) provide most allergy care. Whereas the United States has more allergists per capita than the United Kingdom, there is still a shortage of allergy services owing to the greater reliance on specialist care for FA in America and wide geographic variation in access to allergist services. Currently, generalists in these countries lack the specialty training and equipment to diagnose and manage FA optimally. Moving forward, the United Kingdom aims to enhance training for GPs so they may provide better quality frontline allergy care. In addition, the United Kingdom is implementing a new tier of semi-specialized GPs and increasing cross-center collaboration through clinical networks. The United Kingdom and United States aim to increase the number of FA specialists, which is critical at a time of rapidly expanding management options for allergic and immunologic diseases requiring clinical expertise and shared decision-making to select appropriate therapies. While these countries aim to grow their supply of quality FA services actively, further efforts to build clinical networks and perhaps recruit international medical graduates and expand telehealth services are necessary to reduce disparities in access to care. For the United Kingdom in particular, increasing quality services will require additional support from the leadership of the centralized National Health Service, which remains challenging.

Disability, race/ethnicity, and medication adherence among Medicare myocardial infarction survivors.

BACKGROUND: Long-term medication therapy for patients with post-myocardial infarction (MI) can prolong life. However, recent data on long-term adherence are limited, particularly among some subpopulations. We compared medication adherence among Medicare MI survivors by disability status, race/ethnicity, and income. METHODS: We examined 100% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged post-MI in 2008. The outcomes were adherence to ß-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, for 1-year and 6-month postdischarge. Adherence was defined as having prescriptions in possession for ≥75% of days. RESULTS: Among aged beneficiaries who survived 1-year adherence to ß-blockers were 68%, 66%, 61%, 58%, and 57% for whites, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and blacks, respectively; among persons with disability, 1-year adherence was worse for each group: 59%, 54%, 52%, 47%, and 43%, respectively. The racial/ethnic difference persisted after adjustment for age, gender, income, drug coverage, location, and health status. Patterns of adherence to statins and angiotensin-converting enzymes/angiotensin II receptor blockers were similar. Among beneficiaries with close-to-full drug coverage, minorities were still less likely to adhere relative to whites: odds ratio 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.75) for blacks and odds ratio 0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.90) for Native Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Although ß-blockers at discharge has improved since the National Committee for Quality Assurance implemented quality measures, long-term adherence remains problematic, especially among persons with disability and minority beneficiaries. Quality measures for long-term adherence should be created to improve outcomes in patients with post-MI. Even among those with close-to-full drug coverage, racial differences remain, suggesting that policies simply relying on cost reduction cannot eliminate racial differences.

Racial Differences in Patient-Reported Symptoms and Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Among Women With Early-Stage, Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

Importance: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces breast cancer recurrence, but symptom burden is a key barrier to adherence. Black women have lower AET adherence and worse health outcomes than White women. Objective: To investigate the association between symptom burden and AET adherence differences by race. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study using electronic health records with patient-reported data from a large cancer center in the US. Patients included Black and White women initiating AET therapy for early-stage breast cancer from August 2007 to December 2015 who were followed for 1 year from AET initiation. Sixty symptoms classified into 7 physical and 2 psychological symptom clusters were evaluated. For each cluster, the number of symptoms with moderate severity at baseline, and symptoms with 3-point or greater increases during AET were counted. Adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered by AET during the first-year follow-up. Multivariable regressions for patients' adherence adjusting for race, symptom measures, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical characteristics were conducted. Kitagawa-Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition was used to quantify racial differences in adherence explained by symptoms and patient characteristics. Analyses were conducted from July 2021 to January 2022. Exposures: Physical and psychological symptoms at baseline and changes during AET. Results: Among 559 patients (168 [30.1%] Black and 391 [69.9%] White; mean [SD] age 65.5 [12.1] years), Black women received diagnoses younger (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 58.7 [13.7] vs 68.5 [10.0] years old) than White women, with more advanced stages (30 Black participants [17.9%] vs 31 White participants [7.9%] had stage III disease at diagnosis), and lived in areas with fewer adults attaining high school education (mean [SD], 78.8% [7.8%] vs 84.0% [9.3%]). AET adherence in the first year was 78.8% for Black and 82.3% for White women. Black women reported higher severity in most symptom clusters than White women. Neuropsychological, vasomotor, musculoskeletal, cardiorespiratory, distress, and despair symptoms at baseline and increases during the follow-up were associated with 1.2 to 2.6 percentage points decreases in adherence, which corresponds to 4 to 9 missed days receiving AET in the first year. After adjusting for psychological symptoms, being Black was associated with 6.5 percentage points higher adherence than being White. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, severe symptoms were associated with lower AET adherence. Black women had lower adherence rates that were explained by their higher symptom burden and baseline characteristics. These findings suggest that better symptom management with a focus on psychological symptoms could improve AET adherence and reduce racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Los Angeles County adults after vaccine authorization.

An equitable COVID-19 vaccine rollout is a necessary piece of the public health strategy to end the current pandemic; however, vaccine hesitancy may present a major hurdle. This study examines racial/ethnic and income-based disparities in vaccine hesitancy in Los Angeles County, a recent epicenter of the pandemic in the US, immediately after the Food and Drug Administration issued its emergency use authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted online, stratified cross-sectional surveys of 1,984 adults living in Los Angeles County between December 2020 and January 2021 to assess hesitancy towards getting a COVID-19 vaccine. We used multivariable logistic regression to predict vaccine hesitancy after adjusting for covariates and calculated weighted population level estimates of hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy. Blacks and Hispanics were significantly more likely to be hesitant than Whites (AOR = 3.3, P < 0.001; AOR = 2.1, P = 0.008) as were those in the lowest income group (annual income <$20,000 compared to >$100,000) (AOR = 1.8, P = 0.009). Additionally, those having no confidence in doing things online (AOR = 3.3, P < 0.001) were less likely to accept the vaccine than those who were confident. Compared to hesitant White respondents, Black respondents had higher mistrust of the government (36.1% vs 22.1%, P = 0.03) and Black and Hispanic respondents were more likely to want to wait to see how the vaccine works (41.2% and 42.0% vs 27.3%, P = 0.02 and P = 0.006). Our study suggests that culturally appropriate messaging that addresses concerns for lower income and racial/ethnic minority communities, as well as alternatives to online vaccine appointments, are necessary for improving vaccine rollout.

State policies limiting premium surcharges for tobacco and their impact on health insurance enrollment.

OBJECTIVE: The Affordable Care Act allows insurers to charge up to 50% higher premiums to tobacco users, making tobacco use the only behavioral factor that can be used to rate premiums in the nongroup insurance market. Some states have set more restrictive limits on rating for tobacco use, and several states have outlawed tobacco premium surcharges altogether. We examined the impact of state level tobacco surcharge policy on health insurance enrollment decisions among smokers. STUDY DESIGN: We compared insurance enrollment in states that did and did not allow tobacco surcharges, using a difference-in-difference approach to compare the policy effects among smokers and nonsmokers. We also used geographic variation in tobacco surcharges to examine how the size of the surcharge affects insurance coverage, again comparing smokers to nonsmokers. DATA COLLECTION: We linked data from two components of the Current Population Survey-the 2015 and 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Tobacco Use Supplement, which we combined with data on marketplace plan premiums. We also collected qualitative data from a survey of smokers who did not have insurance through an employer or public program. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Allowing a tobacco surcharge reduced insurance enrollment among smokers by 4.0 percentage points (P = .01). Further, smokers without insurance through an employer or public program were 9.0 percentage points less likely (P < .01) to enroll in a nongroup plan if they were subject to a tobacco surcharge. In states with surcharges, enrollment among smokers was 3.4 percentage points lower (P < .01) for every 10 percentage point increase in the tobacco surcharge. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco use is the largest cause of preventable illness in the United States. State tobacco surcharge policy may have a substantial impact on whether tobacco users choose to remain insured and consequently their ability to receive care critical for preventing and treating tobacco-related disease.

Marketplace Premiums Rise Faster For Tobacco Users Because Of Subsidy Design.

Tobacco users can be charged health insurance Marketplace premiums up to 1.5 times higher than premiums for nonusers of tobacco. Despite being charged higher premiums, low- and middle-income tobacco users receive premium subsidies identical to those received by nonusers and cannot apply the subsidy to pay for any portion of their tobacco surcharge. Premium increases over time have exacerbated the discrepancy in premium prices based on tobacco use.