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.

Medicaid, the Supreme Court, and Safe Care for Nursing Home Residents.

This Viewpoint details the risk to Medicaid beneficiaries if the Supreme Court supports a decision that will allow states to deny benefits to eligible recipients and deny beneficiaries' ability to hold states accountable in federal court.

Federal Incentives to Reform Long-Term Care Under the Affordable Care Act: State Adoption of the Balancing Incentive Program, 2011-2014.

OBJECTIVES: The Balancing Incentive Program (BIP) was an optional program for states within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to promote Medicaid-funded home and community-based services (HCBS) for older adults and persons with disabilities. Twenty-one states opted to participate in BIP, including several states steadfastly opposed to the health insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act. This study focused on identifying what factors were associated with states' participation in this program. METHODS: Event history analysis was used to model state adoption of BIP from 2011 to 2014. A range of potential factors was considered representing states' economic, political, and programmatic conditions. RESULTS: The results indicate that states with a higher percentage of Democrats in the state legislature, fewer state employees per capita, and more nursing facility beds were more likely to adopt BIP. In addition, states with fewer home health agencies per capita, that devoted smaller proportions of Medicaid long-term care spending to HCBS, and that had more Money Follows the Person transitions were also more likely to pursue BIP. DISCUSSION: The findings highlight the role of partisanship, administrative capacity, and program history in state BIP adoption decisions. The inclusion of BIP in the Affordable Care Act may have deterred some states from participating in the program due to partisan opposition to the legislation. To encourage the adoption of optional HCBS programs, federal policymakers should consider the role of financial incentives, especially for states with limited bureaucratic capacity and that have made less progress rebalancing Medicaid long-term services and supports.

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.

Changing Pediatric Hospice and Palliative Care Through Medicaid Partnerships.

Since its inception in 2010, the Concurrent Care for Children Provision of the Affordable Care Act has enabled seriously ill pediatric patients and their families to access comprehensive, supportive hospice services while simultaneously receiving ongoing treatment-directed therapies. Although this groundbreaking federal legislation has resulted in improvements in care for vulnerable pediatric patients, the implementation of the law has varied from state to state through Medicaid programming. The pediatric professional community is called to consider how Medicaid services can more effectively be delivered by leveraging legislative mandates and collaborative relationships between clinicians, Medicaid administrators, and policy makers. In this article, we examine ways concurrent care has been executed in 3 different states and how key stakeholders in care for children with serious illness advocated to ensure effective implementation of the legislation. The lessons learned in working with state Medicaid programs are applicable to any advocacy issue impacting children and families .

Association Between Medicaid Expansion and Suicide Mortality Among Nonelderly US Adults.

In 2014, the Affordable Care Act gave states the option to expand Medicaid coverage to nonelderly adults (persons aged 18-64 years) with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level. To our knowledge, the association of Medicaid expansion with suicide, a leading cause of death in the United States, has not been examined. We used 2005-2017 data from the National Violent Death Reporting System to analyze suicide mortality in 8 Medicaid expansion states and 7 nonexpansion states. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we examined the association between Medicaid expansion and the rate of suicide death (number of deaths per 100,000 population) among nonelderly adults. After adjustment for state-level confounders, Medicaid expansion states had 1.2 fewer suicide deaths (ß = -1.2, 95% confidence interval: -2.5, 0.1) per 100,000 population per year during the postexpansion period than would have been expected if they had followed the same trend in suicide rates as nonexpansion states. Medicaid expansion was associated with reductions in suicide rates among women, men, persons aged 30-44 years, non-Hispanic White individuals, and persons without a college degree. Medicaid expansion was not associated with a change in suicide rates among persons aged 18-29 or 45-64 years or among non-White or Hispanic individuals. Overall, Medicaid expansion was associated with reductions in rates of suicide death among nonelderly adults. Further research on inequities in Medicaid expansion benefits is needed.

ACA Medicaid expansion reduced disparities in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. METHODS: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion.

Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Practices in Postpartum Sterilization Without a Valid Medicaid Consent Form.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the practices of obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) in the United States surrounding postpartum sterilization when the Medicaid consent form was not valid. METHODS: Using the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' online directory, we conducted a qualitative study where we recruited ob-gyns practicing in 10 geographically diverse U.S. states for a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews conducted by telephone. We analyzed interview transcripts using the constant comparative method and principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Thirty ob-gyns (63% women, 77% nonsubspecialized, and 53% academic setting) were interviewed. Although most physicians stated that they did not perform sterilizations without a valid Medicaid sterilization form, others noted that they sometimes did due to a sense of ethical obligation toward their patient's health, being in a role with more authority or seniority, interpreting the emergency justification section of the form more broadly, or backdating the form. The physicians who said that they never went ahead without a signed form tended to work at large institutions and were concerned with losing funding and engaging in potentially illegal or fraudulent behavior. CONCLUSION: Physicians' varied behaviors related to providing postpartum sterilization without a valid Medicaid consent form demonstrate that the policy is in need of revision. Unclear terminology and ramifications of the Medicaid sterilization policy need to be addressed to ensure equitable care.

Access to Urologic Care at Urgent Care Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Medicaid insurance access disparities for urologic care at urgent care centers (UCCs) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a "secret shopper" methodology. We sampled 240 UCCs across 8 states. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as a patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of obstructing nephrolithiasis. The primary study endpoint was whether a patient's insurance (Medicaid vs commercial) was accepted. We assessed factors associated with Medicaid acceptance using logistic regression models adjusted for state-level and facility-level characteristics. Additionally, we calculated triage rates, emergency department referral rates, and the ability of a UCC to refer the patient to a specialist. RESULTS: Of 240 UCCs contacted, 239 (99.6%) accepted commercial insurance and 159 (66.2%) accepted Medicaid. UCCs in Medicaid expansion states more frequently accepted patients with Medicaid insurance (74.2% vs 58.3%, respectively, P < .01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.04-3.26, P = .04) and affiliation with an institution (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.59-5.57, P < .01) were independently associated with greater odds of accepting Medicaid. Medicaid-insured patients were significantly less likely to be triaged or referred to the emergency department compared to commercial patients. CONCLUSION: We identified significant disparities in access to UCCs for Medicaid patients presenting with a urologic condition. Given the expanding national role of UCCs, these findings highlight potential sources of insurance disparity in the context of a urologic emergency.