Changes in Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Care and Health Among US Adults at Age 65 Years.

Importance: Medicare provides nearly universal health insurance to individuals at age 65 years. How eligibility for Medicare affects racial and ethnic disparities in access to care and health is poorly understood. Objective: To assess the association of Medicare with racial and ethnic disparities in access to care and health. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study uses regression discontinuity to compare racial and ethnic disparities before and after age 65 years, the age at which US adults are eligible for Medicare. There are a total of 2 434 320 respondents in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and 44 587 state-age-year observations in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research Data (eg, the mortality rate for individuals age 63 years in New York in 2017) from January 2008 to December 2018. The data were analyzed between February and May 2021. Exposures: Eligibility for Medicare at age 65 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of respondents with health insurance, as well as self-reported health and mortality. To examine access, whether respondents had a usual source of care, encountered cost-related barriers to care, or received influenza vaccines was assessed. Results: Of 2 434 320 participants, 192 346 were Black individuals, 104 294 were Hispanic individuals, and 892 177 were men. Immediately after age 65 years, insurance coverage increased more for Black respondents (from 86.3% to 95.8% or 9.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 7.6-11.4) and Hispanic respondents (from 77.4% to 91.3% or 13.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 12.0-15.8) than White respondents (from 92.0% to 98.5% or 6.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.1-7.0). This was associated with a 53% reduction compared with the size of the disparity between White and Black individuals before age 65 years (5.7% to 2.7% or 3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.9-5.1; P = .003) and a 51% reduction compared with the size of the disparity between White and Hispanic individuals before age 65 years (14.6% to 7.2% or 7.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3-9.5; P < .001). Medicare eligibility was associated with narrowed disparities between White and Hispanic individuals in access to care, lowering disparities in access to a usual source of care from 10.5% to 7.5% (P = .05), cost-related barriers to care from 11.4% to 6.9% (P < .001), and influenza vaccination rates from 8.1% to 3.3% (P = .01). For disparities between White and Black individuals, access to a usual source of care before and after age 65 years was not significantly different: 1.2% to 0.0% (P = .24), cost-related barriers to care from 5.8% to 4.3% (P = .22), and influenza vaccinations from 11.0% to 10.3% (P = .60). The share of people in poor self-reported health decreased by 3.8 percentage points for Hispanic respondents, 2.6 percentage points for Black respondents, and 0.2 percentage points for White respondents. Mortality-related disparities at age 65 years were unchanged. Medicare's association with reduced disparities largely persisted after the US Affordable Care Act took effect in 2014. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study that uses a regression discontinuity design, eligibility for Medicare at age 65 years was associated with marked reductions in racial and ethnic disparities in insurance coverage, access to care, and self-reported health.

Evaluation of Insurance Coverage and Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Among Low-Income Adults With Renal Cell Carcinoma After Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Importance: The association of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) with insurance status and cancer stage at diagnosis among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is unknown. Objective: To test the hypothesis that the ACA may be associated with increased access to care through expansion of insurance, which may vary based on income. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included patients diagnosed with RCC from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, in the National Cancer Database. Data were analyzed from July 1 to December 31, 2020. The periods from 2010 to 2013 and from 2014 to 2016 were defined as pre- and post-ACA implementation, respectively. Patients were categorized as living in a Medicaid expansion state or not. Exposures: Implementation of the ACA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The absolute percentage change (APC) of insurance coverage was calculated before and after ACA implementation in expansion and nonexpansion states. Secondary outcomes included change in stage at diagnosis, difference in the rate of insurance change, and change in localized disease between expansion and nonexpansion states. Adjusted difference-in-difference modeling was performed. Results: The cohort included 78 099 patients (64.7% male and 35.3% female; mean [SD] age, 54.66 [6.46] years), of whom 21.2% had low, 46.2% had middle, and 32.6% had high incomes. After ACA implementation, expansion states had a lower proportion of uninsured patients (adjusted difference-in-difference, -1.14% [95% CI, -1.98% to -1.41%]; P = .005). This occurred to the greatest degree among low-income patients through the acquisition of Medicaid (APC, 11.0% [95% CI, 8.6%-13.3%]; P < .001). Implementation of the ACA was also associated with an increase in detection of stage I and II disease (APC, 4.0% [95% CI, 1.6%-6.3%]; P = .001) among low-income patients in expansion states. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with RCC, ACA implementation was associated with an increase in insurance coverage status in both expansion and nonexpansion states for all income groups, but to a greater degree in expansion states. The proportion of patients with localized disease increased among low-income patients in both states. These data suggest that ACA implementation is associated with earlier RCC detection among lower-income patients.

Associations between ACA-related policies and a clinical recommendation with HPV vaccine initiation.

PURPOSE: We examined associations between the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions, 2011 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendation, and 2014 ACA-related health insurance reforms with HPV vaccine initiation rates by sex and health insurance type. METHODS: Using 2009-2015 public and private health insurance claims for 551,764 males and females aged 9-26 years (referred to as youth) from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, we conducted linear regression models to examine the associations between three policy changes and HPV vaccine initiation rates by sex and health insurance type. RESULTS: In 2009, HPV vaccine initiation rates for males and females were 0.003 and 0.604 per 100 enrollees, respectively. Among males, the 2010 ACA provisions and ACIP recommendation were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine uptake among those with private plans (0.207 [0.137, 0.278] and 0.419 [0.353, 0.486], respectively) and Medicaid (0.157 [0.083, 0.230] and 0.322 [0.257, 0.386], respectively). Among females, the 2010 ACA provisions were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine uptake among Medicaid enrollees only (0.123 [0.033, 0.214]). The ACA-related health insurance reforms were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine uptake for male and female Medicaid enrollees (0.257 [0.137, 0.377] and 0.214 [0.102, 0.327], respectively), but no differences among privately insured youth. By 2015, there were no differences in HPV vaccine initiation rates between males (0.278) and females (0.305). CONCLUSIONS: Both ACA provisions and the ACIP recommendation were associated with significant increases in HPV vaccine initiation rates among privately and publicly insured males in three New England states, closing the gender gap. In contrast, females and youth with private insurance did not exhibit the same changes in HPV vaccine uptake over the study period.

Social Solidarity in Health Care, American-Style.

The ACA shifted U.S. health policy from centering on principles of actuarial fairness toward social solidarity. Yet four legal fixtures of the health care system have prevented the achievement of social solidarity: federalism, fiscal pluralism, privatization, and individualism. Future reforms must confront these fixtures to realize social solidarity in health care, American-style.

Why Did the ACA Co-Op Program Fail? Lessons for the Health Reform Debate.

The ACA created a new type of nonprofit health insurance entity, the "Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan" ("co-op"). Most of the newly created co-ops soon lost money, and only 4 of the original 23 remain. We interviewed key stakeholders and conducted in-depth case studies of 3 of these co-ops. We discovered that politicians and regulators made it unlikely the program could succeed, that most of the co-ops did not have the management capacity to overcome these political obstacles, and that even those with good managers lacked the needed fiscal resilience. We also considered lessons suggested for those proposing a newly created "public option." The main one is that a successful public option requires a supportive political environment, strong management, and significant fiscal capacity, none of which comes easily. A better route may be a quasi-public option in which the government subcontracts the operation of its newly created plan to a private firm. Although it is uncertain whether federal regulators have the capacity to hold such private for-profit firms accountable, pragmatism suggests that a combination of public-sector regulation and private-sector implementation may be the most direct path toward a US version of affordable universal coverage.

Association of State Medicaid Expansion With Hospital Community Benefit Spending.

Importance: Medicaid expansion was widely expected to alleviate the financial stresses faced by hospitals by providing additional revenue in the form of Medicaid reimbursements from patients previously receiving uncompensated care. Among nonprofit hospitals, which receive tax-exempt status in part because of their provision of uncompensated care, Medicaid expansion could have released hospital funds toward other community benefit activities. Objective: To examine changes in nonprofit hospital spending on community benefit activities after Medicaid expansion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used difference-in-differences analysis of 1666 US nonprofit hospitals that filed Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H detailing their community benefit expenditures between 2011 and 2017. The analysis was conducted from February to September 2019. Exposures: State Medicaid expansion between 2011 and 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of hospital operating expenditures attributable to charity care and subsidized care, bad debt (ie, unreimbursed spending for care of patients who did not apply for charity care), unreimbursed Medicaid spending, noncare direct community spending, and total community benefit spending. Results: Of 1478 hospitals in the sample in 2011, nearly half (653 [44.2%]) were small hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, and nearly 70% of hospitals (1023 [69.2%]) were in urban areas. Among the 1666 nonprofit hospitals, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in spending on charity care and subsidized care (-0.68 [95% CI, -0.99 to -0.37] percentage points from a baseline mean [SD] of 3.6% [4.0%] of total hospital expenditures; P < .001) and in bad debt (-0.17 [95% CI, -0.32 to -0.01] percentage points). There was an increase in unreimbursed spending attributable to caring for Medicaid patients (0.85 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.10] percentage points; P = .04), which canceled out uncompensated care savings from the expansion. Noncare direct community expenditures decreased overall (-0.24 [95% CI, -0.48 to 0.00] percentage points; P = .049). Direct community expenditures remained more stable in small hospitals (-0.07 [95% CI, -0.20 to 0.05] percentage points; P =.26) compared with large hospitals (-0.37 [95% CI, -0.86 to 0.12] percentage points; P = .14) and in nonurban hospitals (0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.14] percentage points; P = .70) compared with urban hospitals (-0.36 [95% CI, -0.73 to 0.01] percentage points; P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in nonprofit hospitals' burden of providing uncompensated care, but this financial relief was not redirected toward spending on other community benefits.

The Changing Health Insurance Coverage Landscape in the United States.

Changes in the health insurance coverage landscape in the United States during the past decade have important implications for receipt and affordability of cancer care. In this paper, we summarize evidence for the association between health insurance coverage and cancer prevention and treatment. We then discuss ongoing changes in health care coverage, including implementation of provisions of the Affordable Care Act, increasing prevalence of high-deductible health insurance plans, and factors that affect health care delivery, with a focus on vertical integration of hospitals and providers. We summarize the evidence for the effects of the changes in health coverage on care and discuss areas for future research with the goal of informing efforts to improve cancer care delivery and outcomes in the United States.

Misallocation of Demand and the Persistent Non-emergent Use of the Emergency Department Post-Healthcare Reform.

The US healthcare systems is struggling to keep pace with increasing demand, as the burden faced by providers and healthcare organizations expands. While care delivery models continue to evolve in the post-reform era, many barriers stemming from capacity constraints, regulation, shortages of manpower and, misallocation of resources persist. In this paper, we provide an analysis of unmet demand in the US system healthcare system. We contribute a deep dive of the literature to elucidate the reasons for which imbalanced and unmet demand, including the heavy use of the emergency department for non-emergent conditions, continues to burden healthcare organizations. We use these findings to motivate recommendations about how to address critical shortcomings in order to better address the needs of patients with both emergent and non-emergent conditions.

Looking back on the ACA, looking forward to bipartisan solutions: a Q&A with Rep Frank Pallone Jr.

To mark the 25th anniversary of the journal, each issue in 2020 will include an interview with a healthcare thought leader. For the March issue, which marks the 10th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act being signed into law, we turned to Representative Frank Pallone Jr, D-New Jersey, who played a key role in the law's writing and passage.

The Health Resources and Services Administration's Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program in rural areas of the United States: Geographic distribution, provider characteristics, and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV (PLWH) residing in rural areas experience substantial barriers to HIV care, which may contribute to poor HIV health outcomes, including retention in HIV care and viral suppression. The Health Resources and Services Administration's Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (HRSA RWHAP) is an important source of HIV medical care and support services in rural areas. The purpose of this analysis was to (1) assess the reach of the RWHAP in rural areas of the United States, (2) compare the characteristics and funded services of RWHAP provider organizations in rural and non-rural areas, and (3) compare the characteristics and clinical outcomes of RWHAP clients accessing medical care and support services in rural and non-rural areas. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data for this analysis were abstracted from the 2017 RWHAP Services Report (RSR), the primary source of annual, client-level RWHAP data. Organizations funded to deliver RWHAP any service ("RWHAP providers") were categorized as rural or non-rural according to the HRSA FORHP's definition of modified Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes. RWHAP clients were categorized based on their patterns of RWHAP service use as "visited only rural providers," "visited only non-rural providers," or "visited rural and non-rural providers." In 2017, among the 2,113 providers funded by the RWHAP, 6.2% (n = 132) were located in HRSA-designated rural areas. Rural providers were funded to deliver a greater number of service categories per site than non-rural providers (44.7% funded for ≥5 services vs. 34.1% funded for ≥5 services, respectively). Providers in rural areas served fewer clients than providers in non-rural areas; 47.3% of RWHAP providers in rural areas served 1-99 clients, while 29.6% of non-rural providers served 1-99 clients. Retention in care and viral suppression outcomes did not differ on the basis of whether a client accessed services from rural or non-rural providers. CONCLUSIONS: RWHAP providers are a crucial component of HIV care delivery in the rural United States despite evidence of significant barriers to engagement in care for rural PLWH, RWHAP clients who visited rural providers were just as likely to be retained in care and reach viral suppression as their counterparts who visited non-rural providers. The RWHAP, especially in partnership with Rural Health Clinics and federally funded Health Centers, has the infrastructure and expertise necessary to address the HIV epidemic in rural America.

The Secretary Shall . . . : Implementing the Affordable Care Act's Private Insurance Expansions.

The federal bureaucracy played a critical role in implementing most aspects of the Affordable Care Act's private insurance coverage expansion. Through brief case studies, the authors review three dimensions of this role: the development of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, rulemaking in the formulation of the essential health benefits package, and the implementation of the federal website. They relate these to themes in the public administration literature. Politics-both through state decisions and through continuing congressional action (and inaction)-pervaded the implementation process. The challenges of staffing and situating the new bureaucracy effectively changed vertical boundaries within the Department of Health and Human Services, with long-lasting consequences. Finally, the complex design of the policy itself made passage of the legislation easier but implementation much more difficult. Ultimately, however, implementation was remarkably successful, achieving improvements in coverage consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's projections.

The Affordable Care Act in the States: Fragmented Politics, Unstable Policy.

Many argue that the frustrated implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) stems from the unprecedented level of political polarization that has surrounded the legislation. This article draws attention to the law's "institutional DNA" as a source of political struggle in the 50 states. As designed, in the context of US federalism, the law fractured authority in ways that has opened up the possibility of contestation and confusion. The successful implementation of the ACA varies not only across state lines but also across the various components of the law. In particular, opponents of the ACA have experienced their greatest successes when they could take advantage of weak preexisting policy legacies, high levels of institutional fragmentation, and negative public sentiments. As argued in this article, the fragmented patterns of health care politics in the 50 states identified in previous research have largely persisted during the Trump administration. Moreover, while Republicans were unsuccessful at repealing the legislation, the administration has taken advantage of its structural deficiencies to further weaken the legislation's capacity to expand access to affordable, quality health insurance.

The ACA's Choice Problem.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is in many ways a success. Millions more Americans now have access to health care, and the ACA catalyzed advances in health care delivery reform. Simultaneously, it has reinforced and bolstered a problem at the heart of American health policy and regulation: a love affair with choice. The ACA's insurance reforms doubled down on the particularly American obsession with choice. This article describes three ways in which that doubling down is problematic for the future of US health policy. First, pragmatically, health policy theory predicts that choice among health plans will produce tangible benefits that it does not actually produce. Most people do not like choosing among health plan options, and many people-even if well educated and knowledgeable-do not make good choices. Second, creating the regulatory structures to support these choices built and reinforced a massive market bureaucracy. Finally, and most important, philosophically and sociologically the ACA reinforces the idea that the goal of health regulation should be to preserve choice, even when that choice is empty. This vicious cycle seems likely to persist based on the lead up to the 2020 presidential election.

The Administrative Presidency, Waivers, and the Affordable Care Act.

Within the American system of shared power among institutions, the executive branch has played an increasingly prominent policy role relative to Congress. The vast administrative discretion wielded by the executive branch has elevated the power of the president. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have employed an arsenal of administrative tools to pursue their policy goals: high-level appointments, administrative rule making, executive orders, proclamations, memoranda, guidance documents, directives, dear colleague letters, signing statements, reorganizations, funding decisions, and more. Presidents Obama and Trump employed most of these tools in an effort to shape the implementation and outcomes of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) during its first decade. This article focuses on the Obama and Trump administrations' use of comprehensive waivers to shape ACA implementation. The Obama administration had mixed success using waivers to convince Republican states to expand Medicaid. Compared to Obama, the Trump administration has found it harder to accomplish its policy goals through waivers, but if the courts support the Trump administration's work requirement and 1332 waiver initiatives, it would enable the president to use waivers to achieve an ever broader set of goals, including program retrenchment.

Shifting threats and rhetoric: how Republican governors framed Medicaid expansion.

The 2012 Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius gave states the option to adopt the Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act. Many states, especially those under Republican control, have since grappled with their decision to implement the expansion. We conduct a comparative analysis of how Republican governors framed their stance on the Medicaid expansion. We analyze public statements on the Medicaid expansion published in two major in-state newspapers from all Republican governors from June 2012 through June 2018. In total we collected, coded and analyzed 3277 statements from 66 newspapers. Several key themes emerge from our analysis. While every Republican governor used oppositional framing as part of their rhetorical response to the Medicaid expansion, the policy had a destabilizing effect on the previously unified opposition to health reform. We find that Republican framing split after the results of the 2012 election and that overall Republican governors shifted towards more supportive framing prior to the 2016 presidential election. Republican governors transformed how they framed their stance towards Medicaid expansion after Donald Trump was elected in 2016, with both supportive and oppositional moral-based framing of expansion increasing. These findings inform how policymakers use rhetoric to support their stance on controversial policies in a hyper-partisan and polarized political environment.

Nobody Knew How Complicated: Constraining The President's Power To (Re)Shape Health Reform.

Beginning on inauguration day, President Trump has attempted an executive repeal of the Affordable Care Act. In doing so, he has tested the limits of presidential power. He has challenged the force of institutional and non-institutional constraints. And, ironically, he has helped boost public support for the ACA's central features. The first two sections of this article respectively consider the use of the President's tools to advance and to subvert health reform. The final two sections consider the forces constraining the administration's attempted executive repeal. I argue that the most important institutional constraint, thus far, is found in multifaceted actions by states - and not only blue states. I also highlight the force of public voices. Personal stories, public opinion, and 2018 election results - bolstered by presidential messaging - reflect growing support for government-grounded options and statutory coverage protections. Indeed, in a polarized time, "refine and revise" seems poised to supplant "repeal and replace" as the conservative focus countering liberal pressure for a common option grounded in Medicare.

Options for Dialing Down From Single Payer.

There are formidable institutional obstacles to passing a single-payer health program in the United States. Advocates should consider incremental improvements that may better match legislative realities. There are three potential directions for incremental coverage policy.One possibility is to build on the successes of the Affordable Care Act; this might include rolling back regulatory changes, further incentivizing Medicaid expansion, enhancing coverage in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and imposing regulations on private employer-based insurance to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable coverage that provides adequate financial security. A second direction is to offer more publicly sponsored insurance options, which might involve offering a public option to those eligible for marketplace coverage, creating a Medicare or Medicaid buy-in program, lowering the eligibility age for Medicare, or developing a public plan that serves as a default for those who do not choose to buy alternative private coverage. A third direction is to build on federalism, offering states incentives to expand coverage.Federal and state legislators could also consider incremental cost-containment steps, such as rate setting.