Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons.

Importance: Decades-old data indicate that people imprisoned in the US have poor access to health care despite their constitutional right to care. Most prisons impose co-payments for at least some medical visits. No recent national studies have assessed access to care or whether co-pays are associated with worse access. Objective: To determine the proportion of people who are incarcerated with health problems or pregnancy who used health services, changes in the prevalence of those conditions since 2004, and the association between their state's standard prison co-payment and care receipt in 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis was conducted in October 2023 and used data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates, a nationally representative sample of adults in state or federal prisons, with some comparisons to the 2004 version of that survey. Exposures: The state's standard, per-visit co-payment amount in 2016 compared with weekly earnings at the prison's minimum wage. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported prevalence of 13 chronic physical conditions, 6 mental health conditions, and current severe psychological distress assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; proportion of respondents with such problems who did not receive any clinician visit or treatment; and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) comparing the likelihood of no clinician visit according to co-payment level. Results: Of 1 421 700 (unweighted: n = 24 848; mean [SD] age, 35.3 [0.3] years; 93.2% male individuals) prison residents in 2016, 61.7% (up from 55.9% in 2004) reported 1 or more chronic physical conditions; among them, 13.8% had received no medical visit since incarceration. A total of 40.1% of respondents reported ever having a mental health condition (up from 24.5% in 2004), of whom 33.0% had received no mental health treatment. A total of 13.3% of respondents met criteria for severe psychological distress, of whom 41.7% had not received mental health treatment in prison. Of state prison residents, 90.4% were in facilities requiring co-payments, including 63.3% in facilities with co-payments exceeding 1 week's prison wage. Co-payments, particularly when high, were associated with not receiving a needed health care visit (co-pay ≤1 week's wage: aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10-1.86; co-pay >1 week's wage: aOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.61-2.93). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that many people who are incarcerated with health problems received no care, particularly in facilities charging co-payments for medical visits.

Demand and Supply Drivers of Medicare and Non-Medicare Health Spending: An Analysis of U.S. States, 1991-2019.

For the last four decades, policymakers have attempted to control the United States's high health care costs by reducing patients' demand for care (e.g., by imposing managed-care restrictions or high costs on patients at the time of use). Yet studies based mostly on data from the public Medicare program, which covers mostly elderly Americans, suggest that supply (e.g., number of physicians or hospital beds) rather than demand drives aggregate service use and, hence, costs. Using variation between U.S. states in per enrollee Medicare spending versus per capita spending of all other (non-Medicare) individuals, we find that greater supply boosts costs for the entire population. Furthermore, we find that factors that suppress demand in the non-Medicare population do reduce non-Medicare health care spending, but simultaneously increase Medicare spending. This suggests that for a given supply of medical resources, suppressing demand for one group of patients may produce a compensatory increase in provision of care to those whose demand has not been suppressed. Health planning to assure adequate medical resources where they are needed while preventing excess supply where it is duplicative and wasteful is likely a more effective cost control strategy than the imposition of managed-care restrictions or imposing higher costs onto patients seeking care.

Hospital Assets Before and After Private Equity Acquisition.

This study assesses changes in hospitals' capital assets after private equity acquisition.

Less Care at Higher Cost-The Medicare Advantage Paradox.

This Viewpoint makes the case for eliminating Medicare Advantage and doubling down on Traditional Medicare.

Health Care Access and COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although federal legislation made COVID-19 vaccines free, inequities in access to medical care may affect vaccine uptake. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether health care access was associated with uptake and timeliness of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: 2021 National Health Interview Survey (Q2-Q4). SUBJECTS: In all, 21,532 adults aged≥18 were included in the study. MEASURES: Exposures included 4 metrics of health care access: health insurance, having an established place for medical care, having a physician visit within the past year, and medical care affordability. Outcomes included receipt of 1 or more COVID-19 vaccines and receipt of a first vaccine within 6 months of vaccine availability. We examined the association between each health care access metric and outcome using logistic regression, unadjusted and adjusted for demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic covariates. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, each metric of health care access was associated with the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and (among those vaccinated) early vaccination. In adjusted analyses, having health coverage (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.60; 95% CI: 1.39, 1.84), a usual place of care (AOR 1.58; 95% CI: 1.42, 1.75), and a doctor visit within the past year (AOR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.31, 1.62) remained associated with higher rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Only having a usual place of care was associated with early vaccine uptake in adjusted analyses. LIMITATIONS: Receipt of COVID-19 vaccination was self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Several metrics of health care access are associated with the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. Policies that achieve universal coverage, and facilitate long-term relationships with trusted providers, may be an important component of pandemic responses.

Hospital Capital Assets, Community Health, and the Utilization and Cost of Inpatient Care: A Population-Based Study of US Counties.

BACKGROUND: The provision of high-quality hospital care requires adequate space, buildings, and equipment, although redundant infrastructure could also drive service overprovision. OBJECTIVE: To explore the distribution of physical hospital resources-that is, capital assets-in the United States; its correlation with indicators of community health and nonhealth factors; and the association between hospital capital density and regional hospital utilization and costs. RESEARCH DESIGN: We created a dataset of n=1733 US counties by analyzing the 2019 Medicare Cost Reports; 2019 State Inpatient Database Community Inpatient Statistics; 2020-2021 Area Health Resource File; 2016-2020 American Community Survey; 2022 PLACES; and 2019 CDC WONDER. We first calculated aggregate hospital capital assets and investment at the county level. Next, we examined the correlation between community's medical need (eg, chronic disease prevalence), ability to pay (eg, insurance), and supply factors with 4 metrics of capital availability. Finally, we examined the association between capital assets and hospital utilization/costs, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Counties with older and sicker populations generally had less aggregate hospital capital per capita, per hospital day, and per hospital discharge, while counties with higher income or insurance coverage had more hospital capital. In linear regressions controlling for medical need and ability to pay, capital assets were associated with greater hospital utilization and costs, for example, an additional $1000 in capital assets per capita was associated with 73 additional discharges per 100,000 population (95% CI: 45-102) and $19 in spending per bed day (95% CI: 12-26). CONCLUSIONS: The level of investment in hospitals is linked to community wealth but not population health needs, and may drive use and costs.

Population-level trends in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease emergency department visits and hospitalizations before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified reductions in exacerbations of chronic lung disease in many locales after onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the population-level impacts of COVID-19 on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations-with a focus on disadvantaged communities-in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed 2016 to 2020 county-level data on asthma and COPD acute care use, with myocardial infarction hospitalizations as a comparator condition. We linked this with county-level lower respiratory disease mortality data. We calculated rates of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths and evaluated changes using linear regressions adjusted for year and county-fixed effects. For a supplementary analysis, we calculated ED visit rates nationwide for asthma, COPD, or any diagnosis using the 2016 to 2020 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. RESULTS: Our county-level data included 685 counties in 13 states. Rates of each outcome fell in 2020. In adjusted analyses, we found large reductions in asthma and COPD ED visit rates (eg, a 21.5 per 10,000-person reduction in COPD ED visits; 95% confidence interval, -23.8 to -19.1), with smaller reductions in hospitalizations and chronic lower respiratory mortality. Disadvantaged communities had mostly higher baseline rates of respiratory morbidity and larger absolute reductions in some outcomes. Among 90,808 ED visits in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, asthma ED visits/y fell 33% during the pandemic and COPD visits by 51%; overall ED visits fell by only 7%. CONCLUSION: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with reductions in acute care utilization for asthma and COPD. Understanding the mechanism of this reduction might inform future efforts to prevent exacerbations.

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights.

Importance: Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. Objective: To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. Results: The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

The Association of Childbirth with Medical Debt in the USA, 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: Medical debt affects one in five adults in the USA and may disproportionately burden postpartum women due to pregnancy-related medical costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between childbirth and medical debt, and the correlates of medical debt among postpartum women, in the USA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed female "sample adults" 18-49 years old in the 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative household survey. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary exposure was whether the subject gave birth in the past year. We had two family-level debt outcomes: problems paying medical bills and inability to pay medical bills. We examined the association between live birth and medical debt outcomes, unadjusted and adjusted for potential confounders in multivariable logistic regressions. Among postpartum women, we also examined the association between medical debt with maternal asthma, hypertension, and gestational diabetes and several sociodemographic factors. KEY RESULTS: Our sample included n = 12,163 women, n = 645 with a live birth in the past year. Postpartum women were younger, more likely to have Medicaid, and lived in larger families than those not postpartum. 19.8% of postpartum women faced difficulty with medical bills versus 15.1% who were not; in multivariable regression, postpartum women had 48% higher adjusted odds of medical debt problems (95% CI 1.13, 1.92). Results were similar when examining inability to pay medical bills, and similar differences were seen for privately insured women. Among postpartum women, those with lower incomes and with asthma or gestational diabetes, but not hypertension, had significantly higher adjusted odds of medical debt problems. CONCLUSIONS: Postpartum women experience higher levels of medical debt than other women; poorer women and those with common chronic diseases may have an even higher burden. Policies to expand and improve health coverage for this population are needed to improve maternal health and the welfare of young families.

Century-Long Trends in the Financing and Ownership of American Health Care.

Policy Points Over the past century, the tax-financed share of health care spending has risen from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020; a large part of this tax financing is now the subsidization of private health insurance. For-profit ownership of health care facilities has also increased in recent decades and now predominates for many health subsectors. A rising share of physicians are now employees. US health care is, increasingly, publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend that has been accompanied by rising medical costs and, in recent years, stagnating or even worsening population health. A reconsideration of US health care financing and ownership appears warranted. CONTEXT: Who pays for health care-and who owns it-determine what care is delivered, who receives it, and who profits from it. We examined trends in health care ownership and financing over a century. METHODS: We used multiple historical and current data sources (including data from the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, government publications and surveys, and analyses of Medicare Provider of Services files) to classify health care provider ownership as: public, private (for-profit), and private (not-for-profit). We used US Census data to classify physicians' employers as public, not-for-profit, or for-profit entities or "self-employed." We combined estimates from the official National Health Expenditures Accounts with other data sources to determine the public vs. private share of health care spending since 1923; we calculated a "comprehensive" public share metric that accounted for public subsidization of private health expenditures, mostly via the tax exemption for employer-sponsored insurance plans or government purchase of such plans for public employees. FINDINGS: For-profit ownership of most health care subsectors has risen in recent decades and now predominates in several (including nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical facilities, dialysis facilities, hospices, and home health agencies). However, most community hospitals remain not-for-profit. Additionally, over the past century, a growing share of physicians identify as employees. Meanwhile, the comprehensive taxpayer-financed share of health care spending has increased dramatically from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020, with taxpayer-financed subsidies to private expenditures accounting for much of the recent growth. CONCLUSIONS: American health care is increasingly publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend accompanied by rising costs and, recently, worsening population health. A reassessment of the US mode of health care financing and ownership appears warranted.

COVID-19 Risk by Workers' Occupation and Industry in the United States, 2020‒2021.

Objectives. To assess the risk of COVID-19 by occupation and industry in the United States. Methods. Using the 2020-2021 National Health Interview Survey, we estimated the risk of having had a diagnosis of COVID-19 by workers' industry and occupation, with and without adjustment for confounders. We also examined COVID-19 period prevalence by the number of workers in a household. Results. Relative to workers in other industries and occupations, those in the industry "health care and social assistance" (adjusted prevalence ratio = 1.23; 95% confidence interval = 1.11, 1.37), or in the occupations "health practitioners and technical," "health care support," or "protective services" had elevated risks of COVID-19. However, compared with nonworkers, workers in 12 of 21 industries and 11 of 23 occupations (e.g., manufacturing, food preparation, and sales) were at elevated risk. COVID-19 prevalence rose with each additional worker in a household. Conclusions. Workers in several industries and occupations with public-facing roles and adults in households with multiple workers had elevated risk of COVID-19. Public Health Implications. Stronger workplace protections, paid sick leave, and better health care access might mitigate working families' risks from this and future pandemics. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(6):647-656. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307249).

Community Health, Health Care Access, And COVID-19 Booster Uptake In Massachusetts.

Booster vaccination offers vital protection against COVID-19, particularly for communities in which many people have chronic conditions. Although vaccination has been widely and freely available, people who have experienced barriers to care might be deterred from being vaccinated. We examined the relationship between COVID-19 booster uptake and small area-level demographics, chronic disease prevalence, and measures of health care access in 462 Massachusetts communities during the period September 2021-April 2022. Unadjusted analyses found that booster uptake was higher in older and wealthier areas, lower in areas with more Hispanic and Black residents, and lower in areas with a high prevalence of chronic conditions. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, uptake was lower in communities with more uninsured residents and those in which fewer residents received routine medical check-ups. Adjusted analyses found that areas with more vaccine providers and primary care physicians had higher booster uptake, but this association was not significant in unadjusted analyses. Results suggest a need for innovative outreach efforts, as well as structural changes such as expansion of health care coverage and universal access to care to mitigate the inequitable burden of COVID-19.

Chronic Illness in Children and Foregone Care Among Household Adults in the United States: A National Study.

BACKGROUND: Childhood chronic illness imposes financial burdens that may affect the entire family. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess whether adults living with children with 2 childhood chronic illnesses-asthma and diabetes-are more likely to forego their own medical care, and experience financial strain, relative to those living with children without these illnesses. RESEARCH DESIGN: 2009-2018 National Health Interview Survey. SUBJECTS: Adult-child dyads, consisting of one randomly sampled child and adult in each family. MEASURES: The main exposure was a diagnosis of asthma or diabetes in the child. The outcomes were delayed/foregone medical care for the adult as well as family financial strain; the authors evaluated their association with the child's illness using multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: The authors identified 93,264 adult-child dyads; 8499 included a child with asthma, and 179 a child with diabetes. Families with children with either illness had more medical bill problems, food insecurity, and medical expenses. Adults living with children with each illness reported more health care access problems. For instance, relative to other adults, those living with a child with asthma were more likely to forego/delay care (14.7% vs. 10.2%, adjusted odds ratio: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.16-1.39) and were more likely to forego medications, specialist, mental health, and dental care. Adults living with a child with diabetes were also more likely to forego/delay care (adjusted odds ratio: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.18-2.64). CONCLUSIONS: Adults living with children with chronic illnesses may sacrifice their own care because of cost concerns. Reducing out-of-pocket health care costs, improving health coverage, and expanding social supports for families with children with chronic conditions might mitigate such impacts.

Hospital Expenditures Under Global Budgeting and Single-Payer Financing: An Economic Analysis, 2021-2030.

U.S. hospitals provide large amounts of low-value care and devote inordinate resources to administration, while some hospitals leverage market power to realize large profits. Meanwhile, many rural and safety net hospitals are financially distressed. The coexistence of waste and want suggests that U.S. hospital financing is neither efficient nor equitable. We model the economic consequences of adopting the mode of hospital payment used in Canada and the U.S. Veterans Health Administration and proposed in the leading congressional single-payer Medicare-for-All bill: global budgeting. Our models assume increased utilization due to expanded and upgraded coverage; gradual reductions in administrative costs from simplified payment; and the elimination of hospital profits, with hospital capital expenditures funded by explicit grants rather than from profits or borrowing. We estimate that non-federal hospital operating budgets will total $17.2 trillion between 2021 and 2030 under current law versus $14.7 trillion under single-payer with global budgeting. This difference reflects $520 billion in foregone profits and $1,984 billion in reduced expenditures on hospital administration; expenditures on clinical operating budgets, however, would be higher than under current law, funded out of profits.

Trends and Disparities in the Distribution of Outpatient Physicians' Annual Face Time with Patients, 1979-2018.

BACKGROUND: Physician time is a valuable yet finite resource. Whether such time is apportioned equitably among population subgroups, and how the provision of that time has changed in recent decades, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends and racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of annual face time with physicians in the USA. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional. SETTING: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1979-1981, 1985, 1989-2016, 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Office-based physicians. MEASURES: Exposures included race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic); age (<18, 18-64, and 65+); and survey year. Our main outcome was patients' annual visit face time with a physician; secondary outcomes include annual visit rates and mean visit duration. RESULTS: Our sample included n=1,108,835 patient visits. From 1979 to 2018, annual outpatient physician face time per capita rose from 40.0 to 60.4 min, an increase driven by a rise in mean visit length and not in the number of visits. However, since 2005, mean annual face time with a primary care physician has fallen, a decline offset by rising time with specialists. Face time provided per physician changed little given growth in the physician workforce. A racial/ethnic gap in physician visit time present at the beginning of the study period widened over time. In 2014-2018, White individuals received 70.0 min of physician face time per year, vs. 52.4 among Black and 53.0 among Hispanic individuals. This disparity was driven by differences in visit rates, not mean visit length, and in the provision of specialist but not primary care. LIMITATION: Self-reported visit length. CONCLUSION: Americans' annual face time with office-based physicians rose for three decades after 1979, yet is still allocated inequitably, particularly by specialists; meanwhile, time spent by Americans with primary care physicians is falling. These trends and disparities may adversely affect patient outcomes. Policy change is needed to assure better allocation of this resource.

Uptake and Equity in Influenza Vaccination Among Veterans with VA Coverage, Veterans Without VA Coverage, and Non-Veterans in the USA, 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a primary method of reducing the burden of influenza, yet uptake is neither optimal nor equitable. Single-tier, primary care-oriented health systems may have an advantage in the efficiency and equity of vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of Veterans' Health Administration (VA) coverage with influenza vaccine uptake and disparities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Adult respondents to the 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey. MAIN MEASURES: We examined influenza vaccination rates, and racial/ethnic and income-based vaccination disparities, among veterans with VA coverage, veterans without VA coverage, and adult non-veterans. We performed multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for demographics and self-reported health, with interaction terms to examine differential effects by race/ethnicity and income. KEY RESULTS: Our sample included n=2,277 veterans with VA coverage, n=2,821 veterans without VA coverage, and n=46,456 non-veterans. Veterans were more often White and male; among veterans, those with VA coverage had worse health and lower incomes. Veterans with VA coverage had a higher unadjusted vaccination rate (63.0%) than veterans without VA coverage (59.1%) and non-veterans (46.5%) (p<0.05 for each comparison). In our adjusted model, non-veterans were 11.4 percentage points (95% CI -14.3, -8.5) less likely than veterans with VA coverage to be vaccinated, and veterans without VA coverage were 6.7 percentage points (95% CI -10.3, -3.0) less likely to be vaccinated than those with VA coverage. VA coverage, compared with non-veteran status, was also associated with reduced racial/ethnic and income disparities in vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: VA coverage is associated with higher and more equitable influenza vaccination rates. A single-tier health system that emphasizes primary care may improve the uptake and equity of vaccination for influenza, and possibly other pathogens, like SARS-CoV2.