Medicaid policy data for evaluating eligibility and programmatic changes.

OBJECTIVES: Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide health insurance coverage to more than 90 million Americans as of early 2023. There is substantial variation in eligibility criteria, application procedures, premiums, and other programmatic characteristics across states and over time. Analyzing changes in Medicaid policies is important for state and federal agencies and other stakeholders, but such analysis requires data on historical programmatic characteristics that are often not available in a form ready for quantitative analysis. Our objective is to fill this gap by synthesizing existing qualitative policy data to create a new data resource that facilitates Medicaid policy research. DATA DESCRIPTION: Our source data were the 50-state surveys of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility, enrollment, and cost-sharing policies, and budgets conducted near annually by KFF since 2000, which we coded through 2020. These reports are a rich source of point-in-time information but not operationalized for quantitative analysis. Through a review of the measures captured in the KFF surveys, we developed five Medicaid policy domains with 122 measures in total, each coded by state-quarter-1) eligibility (28 measures), 2) enrollment and renewal processes (39 measures), 3) premiums (16 measures), 4) cost-sharing (26 measures), and 5) managed care (13 measures).

Analysis of state portrayals of the risks of e-cigarette use and the cause of the EVALI outbreak.

INTRODUCTION: In August 2019, an outbreak of "e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury" (EVALI) prompted many states and health organizations to warn against the use of electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, due to the presumed link between e-cigarette use and the illness. However, it was later shown that vitamin E acetate, a component of some illicit vaporizable THC products, was the causative agent in this outbreak. METHODS: We conducted a series of cross-sectional surveys of the websites of all state departments of health to determine how they communicated the risk of e-cigarette use during and after the EVALI outbreak. We then paired this analysis with data from the 2016 through 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to measure changes in cigarette and e-cigarette use. RESULTS: Website data from 24 states was available for analysis at all three time points of interest, and BRFSS data was only available for 8 of these states. We found that by January 2020, a majority of the states surveyed did not list vaporizable THC use as a cause of EVALI; however, differences in state messaging did not appear to be associated with changes in e-cigarette and cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Given the number of states that did not appear to update their messaging regarding the cause of EVALI, we believe that states should re-evaluate this messaging to accurately communicate the risks of e-cigarette use.

Effect of flavored E-cigarette bans in the United States: What does the evidence show?

The United States federal government, along with many state and local governments, have passed restrictions on electronic cigarette ("e-cigarette") sales with the stated purpose of preventing youth use of these products. The justification for these restrictions includes the argument that youth e-cigarette use will re-normalize youth smoking, leading to increased rates of cigarette smoking by teenagers. However, in this paper, we propose an evidence-based version of this model based on several years' worth of longitudinal and econometric research, which suggests that youth e-cigarette use has instead worked to replace a culture of youth smoking. From this analysis, we propose a re-evaluation of current policies surrounding e-cigarette sales so that declines in e-cigarette use will not come at the cost of increasing cigarette use among youth and adults.

Effect of Massachusetts House Bill No. 4196 on electronic cigarette use: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are devices that deliver nicotine-containing aerosol and were used by 2.8% of American adults in 2017. Many people who smoke cigarettes have used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, and the general consensus among health providers is that while vaping is not harmless, it is less harmful than smoking. To try to reduce youth e-cigarette use, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts imposed a 75% excise tax on nicotine-containing vaping products and banned the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including combustible tobacco, effective June 1, 2020. This tax, like similar taxes in other states, aimed to reduce e-cigarette consumption. However, past research has found that e-cigarettes and cigarettes are economic substitutes, meaning that an increase in e-cigarettes prices may push more people who smoke e-cigarettes to smoke combustible cigarettes. METHODS: To determine the impacts of several events, such as the e-cigarette and vaping-associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak and implementation of the Massachusetts e-cigarette tax, on e-cigarette and cigarette purchasing, we conducted an interrupted time-series analysis of year-on-year consumer purchasing data to impute changes in e-cigarette and cigarette purchasing in the Greater Boston area and the entire USA after several intervention points. We then surveyed a subset of people who used e-cigarettes to evaluate the plausibility that some e-cigarette consumers would travel out-of-state to purchase e-cigarettes. RESULTS: The purchasing data indicated that there was no significant decrease in e-cigarette purchases in the Greater Boston convenience market after tax implementation. However, we found that e-cigarette purchases decreased significantly while cigarette purchases increased after several bans on e-cigarettes and numerous policy statements related to the EVALI outbreak. The survey results suggested that people who smoke e-cigarettes did not decrease their consumption after the implementation of the tax, but instead obtained e-cigarettes outside of Massachusetts. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the Massachusetts flavor ban and tax did not reduce e-cigarette consumption in the Greater Boston area, and that messaging questioning the safety of e-cigarettes led to an increase in combustible cigarette use. This suggests the need for health authorities to reconsider how they communicate the relative risks of smoking and vaping.