Medicare Eligibility and Reported Support for Proposals to Expand Medicare.

This study estimates the association between Medicare eligibility and support for recent proposals to expand program participation and benefits.

State Public Insurance Coverage Policies and Postpartum Care Among Immigrants.

Importance: Professional medical organizations recommend that adults receive routine postpartum care. Yet, some states restrict public insurance coverage for undocumented immigrants and recently documented immigrants (those who received legal documentation status within the past 5 years). Objective: To examine the association between public insurance coverage and postpartum care among low-income immigrants and the difference in receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pooled, cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System for 19 states and New York City including low-income adults with a live birth between 2012 and 2019. Exposure: Giving birth in a state that offered public insurance coverage for postpartum care to recently documented or undocumented immigrants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported receipt of postpartum care by the category of coverage offered (full coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care regardless of immigration status; moderate coverage: states that offered publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully residing immigrants without a 5-year waiting period, but did not offer postpartum care to undocumented immigrants; no coverage: states that did not offer publicly funded postpartum care to lawfully present immigrants before 5 years of legal residence or to undocumented immigrants). Results: The study included 72 981 low-income adults (20 971 immigrants [29%] and 52 010 nonimmigrants [71%]). Of the 19 included states and New York City, 6 offered full coverage, 9 offered moderate coverage, and 4 offered no coverage; 1 state (Oregon) switched from offering moderate coverage to offering full coverage. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, receipt of postpartum care among immigrants was 7.0-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -10.6 to -3.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and 11.3-percentage-points lower (95% CI, -13.9 to -8.8 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. The differences in the receipt of postpartum care among immigrants relative to nonimmigrants were also associated with the coverage categories. Compared with the states that offered full coverage, there was a 3.3-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -5.3 to -1.4 percentage points) in the states that offered moderate coverage and a 7.7-percentage-point larger difference (95% CI, -10.3 to -5.0 percentage points) in the states that offered no coverage. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with states without insurance restrictions, immigrants living in states with public insurance restrictions were less likely to receive postpartum care. Restricting public insurance coverage may be an important policy-driven barrier to receipt of recommended pregnancy care and improved maternal health among immigrants.

Association Between California's State Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act and Utilization of Gender-Affirming Surgery.

Importance: Gender-affirming surgery is often beneficial for gender-diverse or -dysphoric patients. Access to gender-affirming surgery is often limited through restrictive legislation and insurance policies. Objective: To investigate the association between California's 2013 implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits insurers and health plans from limiting benefits based on a patient's sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression, and utilization of gender-affirming surgery among California residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population epidemiology study of transgender and gender-diverse patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery (facial, chest, and genital surgery) between 2005 and 2019. Utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California before and after implementation of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act in July 2013 was compared with utilization in Washington and Arizona, control states chosen because of geographic similarity and because they expanded Medicaid on the same date as California-January 1, 2014. The date of last follow-up was December 31, 2019. Exposures: California's Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act, implemented on July 9, 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of gender-affirming surgery, defined as undergoing at least 1 facial, chest, or genital procedure. Results: A total of 25 252 patients (California: n = 17 934 [71%]; control: n = 7328 [29%]) had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Median ages were 34.0 years in California (with or without gender-affirming surgery), 39 years (IQR, 28-49 years) among those undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states, and 36 years (IQR, 22-56 years) among those not undergoing gender-affirming surgery in control states. Patients underwent at least 1 gender-affirming surgery within the study period in 2918 (11.6%) admissions-2715 (15.1%) in California vs 203 (2.8%) in control states. There was a statistically significant increase in gender-affirming surgery in the third quarter of July 2013 in California vs control states, coinciding with the timing of the Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act (P < .001). Implementation of the policy was associated with an absolute 12.1% (95% CI, 10.3%-13.9%; P < .001) increase in the probability of undergoing gender-affirming surgery in California vs control states observed in the subset of insured patients (13.4% [95% CI, 11.5%-15.4%]; P < .001) but not self-pay patients (-22.6% [95% CI, -32.8% to -12.5%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation in California of its Insurance Gender Nondiscrimination Act was associated with a significant increase in utilization of gender-affirming surgery in California compared with the control states Washington and Arizona. These data might inform state legislative efforts to craft policies preventing discrimination in health coverage for state residents, including transgender and gender-diverse patients.

Analysis of Contraceptive Use Among Immigrant Women Following Expansion of Medicaid Coverage for Postpartum Care.

Importance: Access to postpartum care is restricted for low-income women who are recent or undocumented immigrants enrolled in Emergency Medicaid. Objective: To examine the association of a policy extending postpartum coverage to Emergency Medicaid recipients with attendance at postpartum visits and use of postpartum contraception. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study linked Medicaid claims and birth certificate data from 2010 to 2019 to examine changes in postpartum care coverage on postpartum care and contraception use. A difference-in-difference design was used to compare the rollout of postpartum coverage in Oregon with a comparison state, South Carolina, which did not cover postpartum care. The study used 2 distinct assumptions to conduct the analyses: first, preintervention differences in postpartum visit attendance and contraceptive use would have remained constant if the policy expanding coverage had not been passed (parallel trends assumption), and second, differences in preintervention trends would have continued without the policy change (differential trend assumption). Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to October 2021. Exposures: Medicaid coverage of postpartum care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Attendance at postpartum visits and postpartum contraceptive use, defined as receipt of any contraceptive method within 60 days of delivery. Results: The study population consisted of 27 667 live births among 23 971 women (mean [SD] age, 29.4 [6.0] years) enrolled in Emergency Medicaid. The majority of all births were to multiparous women (21 289 women [76.9%]; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.08) and were delivered vaginally (20 042 births [72.4%]; SMD = 0.03) and at term (25 502 births [92.2%]; SMD = 0.01). Following Oregon's expansion of postpartum coverage to women in Emergency Medicaid, there was a large and significant increase in postpartum care visits and contraceptive use. Assuming parallel trends, postpartum care attendance increased by 40.6 percentage points (95% CI, 34.1-47.1 percentage points; P < .001) following the policy change. Under the differential trends assumption, postpartum visits increased by 47.9 percentage points (95% CI, 41.3-54.6 percentage points; P < .001). Postpartum contraception use increased similarly. Under the parallel trends assumption, postpartum contraception within 60 days increased by 33.2 percentage points (95% CI, 31.1-35.4 percentage points; P < .001). Assuming differential trends, postpartum contraception increased by 28.2 percentage points (95% CI, 25.8-30.6 percentage points; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that expanding Emergency Medicaid benefits to include postpartum care is associated with significant improvements in receipt of postpartum care and contraceptive use.

Association of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion with Trauma Outcomes and Access to Rehabilitation among Young Adults: Findings Overall, by Race and Ethnicity, and Community Income Level.

BACKGROUND: Low-income young adults disproportionately experience traumatic injury and poor trauma outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, in its first 4 years, on trauma care and outcomes in young adults, overall and by race, ethnicity, and ZIP code-level median income. STUDY DESIGN: Statewide hospital discharge data from 5 states that did and 5 states that did not implement Medicaid expansion were used to perform difference-in-difference (DD) analyses. Changes in insurance coverage and outcomes from before (2011-2013) to after (2014-2017) Medicaid expansion and open enrollment were examined in trauma patients aged 19 to 44 years. RESULTS: Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in the percentage of uninsured patients (DD -16.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.1 to -15.9 percentage points). This decrease was larger among Black patients but smaller among Hispanic patients than White patients. It was also larger among patients from lower-income ZIP codes (p < 0.05 for all). Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in discharge to inpatient rehabilitation (DD 0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9 percentage points). This increase was larger among patients from the lowest-compared with highest-income ZIP codes (p < 0.05). Medicaid expansion was not associated with changes in in-hospital mortality or readmission or return ED visit rates overall, but was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality among Black patients (DD -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.1 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: The Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion, in its first 4 years, increased insurance coverage and access to rehabilitation among young adult trauma patients. It also reduced the socioeconomic disparity in inpatient rehabilitation access and the disparity in in-hospital mortality between Black and White patients.

Association of Surprise-Billing Legislation with Prices Paid to In-Network and Out-of-Network Anesthesiologists in California, Florida, and New York: An Economic Analysis.

Importance: Several states have passed surprise-billing legislation to protect patients from unanticipated out-of-network medical bills, yet little is known about how state laws influence out-of-network prices and whether spillovers exist to in-network prices. Objective: To identify any changes in prices paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists before and after states passed surprise-billing legislation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic analysis used difference-in-differences methods to compare price changes before and after the passage of legislation in California, Florida, and New York, which passed comprehensive surprise-billing legislation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, to 45 states that did not. Commercial claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute were used to identify prices paid to anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers. The final analytic sample comprised 2 713 913 anesthesia claims across the 3 treated states and the 45 control states. Exposures: Temporal and state-level variation in exposure to surprise-billing legislation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit price (allowed amounts standardized per unit of service) paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists. Results: This retrospective economic analysis of 2 713 913 anesthesia claims found that after surprise-billing laws were passed in 3 states, the unit price paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities decreased significantly in 2 of them: California, -$12.71 (95% CI, -$25.70 to -$0.27; P = .05) and Florida, -$35.67 (95% CI, -$46.27 to -$25.07; P < .001). In New York, a decline in the overall out-of-network price was not statistically significant (-$7.91; 95% CI, -$17.48 to -$1.68; P = .10); however, by the fourth quarter of 2017, the decline was -$41.28 (95% CI, -$70.24 to -$12.33; P = .01). In-network prices decreased in California by -$10.68 (95% CI, -$12.70 to -$8.66; P < .001); in Florida, -$3.18 (95% CI, -$5.17 to -$1.19; P = .002); and in New York, -$8.05 (95% CI, -$11.46 to -$4.64; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective study found that prices paid to in-network and out-of-network anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers decreased after the introduction of surprise-billing legislation, providing early insights into how prices may change under the federal No Surprises Act and in states that have recently passed their own legislation.

Federal Out-of-Network Balance Billing Legislation: Context and Implications for Radiology Practices.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

Unmet financial burden of infertility care and the impact of state insurance mandates in the United States: analysis from a popular crowdfunding platform.

OBJECTIVE: To examine infertility-related fund-raising campaigns on a popular crowdfunding website and to compare campaign characteristics across states with and without legislative mandates for insurance coverage for infertility-related care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Online crowdfunding platform (GoFundMe) between 2010 and 2020. PATIENT(S): GoFundMe campaigns in the United States containing the keywords "fertility" and "infertility." INTERVENTION(S): State insurance mandates for infertility treatment coverage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcomes included fund-raising goals, funds raised, campaign location, and campaigns per capita. RESULT(S): Of the 3,332 infertility-related campaigns analyzed, a total goal of $52.6 million was requested, with $22.5 million (42.8%) successfully raised. The average goal was $18,639 (standard deviation [SD] $32,904), and the average amount raised was $6,759 (SD $14,270). States with insurance mandates for infertility coverage had fewer crowdfunding campaigns per capita (0.75 vs. 1.15 campaigns per 100,000 population than states without insurance mandates. CONCLUSION(S): We found a large number of campaigns requesting financial assistance for costs associated with infertility care, indicating a substantial unmet financial burden. States with insurance mandates had fewer campaigns per capita, suggesting that mandates are effective in mitigating this financial burden. These data can inform future health policy legislation on the state and federal levels to assist with the financial burden of infertility.