The Affordable Care Act and access to care across the cancer control continuum: A review at 10 years.

Lack of health insurance coverage is strongly associated with poor cancer outcomes in the United States. The uninsured are less likely to have access to timely and effective cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care than their counterparts with health insurance coverage. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, representing the largest change to health care delivery in the United States since the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. The primary goals of the ACA are to improve health insurance coverage, the quality of care, and patient outcomes, and to maintain or lower costs by catalyzing changes in the health care delivery system. In this review, we describe the main components of the ACA, including health insurance expansions, coverage reforms, and delivery system reforms, provisions within these components, and their relevance to cancer screening and early detection, care, and outcomes. We then highlight selected, well-designed studies examining the effects of the ACA provisions on coverage, access to cancer care, and disparities throughout the cancer control continuum. Finally, we identify research gaps to inform evaluation of current and emerging health policies related to cancer outcomes.

The risk of losing health insurance in the United States is large, and remained so after the Affordable Care Act.

Health insurance coverage in the United States is highly uncertain. In the post-Affordable Care Act (ACA), pre-COVID United States, we estimate that while 12.5% of individuals under 65 are uninsured at a point in time, twice as many-one in four-are uninsured at some point over a 2-y period. Moreover, the risk of losing insurance remained virtually unchanged with the introduction of the landmark ACA. Risk of insurance loss is particularly high for those with health insurance through Medicaid or private exchanges; they have a 20% chance of losing coverage at some point over a 2-y period, compared to 8.5% for those with employer-provided coverage. Those who lose insurance can experience prolonged periods without coverage; about half are still uninsured 6 mo later, and almost one-quarter are uninsured for the subsequent 2 y. These facts suggest that research and policy attention should focus not only on the "headline number" of the share of the population uninsured at a point in time, but also on the stability and certainty (or lack thereof) of being insured.

An assessment of progress in cancer control.

This article summarizes cancer mortality trends and disparities based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics. It is the first in a series of articles that will describe the American Cancer Society's vision for how cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment can be transformed to lower the cancer burden in the United States, and sets the stage for a national cancer control plan, or blueprint, for the American Cancer Society goals for reducing cancer mortality by the year 2035. Although steady progress in reducing cancer mortality has been made over the past few decades, it is clear that much more could, and should, be done to save lives through the comprehensive application of currently available evidence-based public health and clinical interventions to all segments of the population. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A Blueprint for U.S. Health Insurance Reform.

The current U.S. health insurance "system" was not deliberately planned and constructed but has emerged piecemeal over the past half-century through a series of incremental and haphazard reforms. That policy history also reveals a clear but unfulfilled societal commitment to providing access to essential health care regardless of resources. To fulfill this obligation, the solution proposed in this article has 2 key elements: 1) universal coverage that is automatic, free, and basic, and 2) the option to buy supplemental coverage in a well-designed market. Such a system could, if desired, be created without raising taxes and without disrupting or changing the delivery of medical care.

Lung cancer statistics, 2023.

Despite decades of declining mortality rates, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. This article examines lung cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, survival, and mortality using population-based data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Over the past 5 years, declines in lung cancer mortality became considerably greater than declines in incidence among men (5.0% vs. 2.6% annually) and women (4.3% vs. 1.1% annually), reflecting absolute gains in 2-year relative survival of 1.4% annually. Improved outcomes likely reflect advances in treatment, increased access to care through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and earlier stage diagnosis; for example, compared with a 4.6% annual decrease for distant-stage disease incidence during 2013-2019, the rate for localized-stage disease rose by 3.6% annually. Localized disease incidence increased more steeply in states with the highest lung cancer screening prevalence (by 3%-5% annually) than in those with the lowest (by 1%-2% annually). Despite progress, disparities remain. For example, Native Americans have the highest incidence and the slowest decline (less than 1% annually among men and stagnant rates among women) of any group. In addition, mortality rates in Mississippi and Kentucky are two to three times higher than in most western states, largely because of elevated historic smoking prevalence that remains. Racial and geographic inequalities highlight longstanding opportunities for more concerted tobacco-control efforts targeted at high-risk populations, including improved access to smoking-cessation treatments and lung cancer screening, as well as state-of-the-art treatment.

Association of Medicaid Expansion with Reduction in Racial Disparities in the Timely Delivery of Upfront Surgical Care for Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between Medicaid expansion and time to surgery among patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC). BACKGROUND: Delays in surgery are associated with adverse outcomes. It is known that underrepresented minorities are more likely to experience treatment delays. Understanding the impact of Medicaid expansion on reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health care delivery is critical. METHODS: This was a population-based study including women ages 40 to 64 with stage I-II BC who underwent upfront surgery identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2017) residing in states that expanded Medicaid on January 1, 2014. Difference-in-difference analysis compared rates of delayed surgery (>90 d from pathological diagnosis) according to time period (preexpansion [2010-2013] and postexpansion [2014-2017]) and race/ethnicity (White vs. racial and ethnic minority), stratified by insurance type (private vs. Medicaid/uninsured). Secondary analyses included logistic and Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression. All analyses were conducted among a cohort of patients in the nonexpansion states as a falsification analysis. Finally, a triple-differences approach compared preexpansion with the postexpansion trend between expansion and nonexpansion states. RESULTS: Among Medicaid expansion states, 104,569 patients were included (50,048 preexpansion and 54,521 postexpansion). In the Medicaid/uninsured subgroup, Medicaid expansion was associated with a -1.8% point (95% CI: -3.5% to -0.1, P =0.04) reduction of racial disparity in delayed surgery. Cox regression models demonstrated similar findings (adjusted difference-in-difference hazard ratio 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.21]). The falsification analysis showed a significant racial disparity reduction among expansion states but not among nonexpansion states, resulting in a triple-difference estimate of -2.5% points (95% CI: -4.9% to -0.1%, P =0.04) in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: As continued efforts are being made to increase access to health care, our study demonstrates a positive association between Medicaid expansion and a reduction in the delivery of upfront surgical care, reducing racial disparities among patients with early-stage BC.

Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion associated with increased liver transplant waitlist access without worsening mortality.

It is unclear what impact Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion has had on the liver transplantation (LT) waitlist. We aimed to assess associations between ACA Medicaid expansion and LT waitlist outcomes. The United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (UNOS STAR) database was queried for patients listed for LT between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018. Our primary outcome was waitlist mortality and our secondary outcomes included Medicaid use on the LT waitlist and transplant rate. States were divided into groups based on their expansion status and the study period was divided into 2 time intervals-pre-expansion and post-expansion. Difference-in-difference (DiD) models were created to assess the impacts of expansion on each of the outcomes and for racial/ethnic and sex groups. In total, 56,414 patients from expansion states and 32,447 patients from nonexpansion states were included. Three-year waitlist mortality decreased at a similar rate in both cohorts [DiD estimate: 0.1, (95% CI, -1.1, -1.4), p = 0.838], but Medicaid use increased [DiD estimate: +7.7, (95% CI, 6.7, 8.7), p < 0.001] to a greater degree in expansion states after expansion than nonexpansion states. Between the 2 time intervals, Medicaid use on the LT waitlist increased from 19.4% to 26.1% in expansion states but decreased from 13.4% to 12.1% in nonexpansion states. In patients on Medicaid, there was a slight increase in the 3-year transplant rate associated with Medicaid expansion [DiD estimate +5.0, (95% CI, 1.8, 8.3), p = 0.002], which may in part be explained by differences in patient characteristics. Medicaid expansion was associated with increased Medicaid use on the LT waitlist without worsening overall waitlist mortality or transplant rate, suggesting that lenient and widespread public health insurance may increase access to the LT waitlist without adversely affecting outcomes.

Medicaid Expansion Increases Access for Rural and Impoverished Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in Southern States.

INTRODUCTION: Medicaid expansion (ME) impacted patients when assessed at a national level. However, of the 32 states in which Medicaid expansion occurred, only 3 were Southern states. Whether results apply to Southern states that share similar geopolitical perspectives remains elusive. We aimed to assess the impact of ME on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment in eight Southern states in the USA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified uninsured or Medicaid patients (age 40-64 years) diagnosed with PDAC between 2011 and 2018 in Southern states from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries-Cancer in North America (NAACCR-CiNA) research dataset. Medicaid-expanded states (MES; Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas) were compared with non-MES (NMES; Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma) using multivariate logistic regression. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 3036 patients, MES significantly increased odds of Medicaid insurance by 36%, and increased proportions of insured Black patients by 3.7%, rural patients by 3.8%, and impoverished patients by 18.4%. After adjusting for age, race, rural-urban status, poverty status, and summary stage, the odds of receiving radiation therapy decreased by 26% for each year of expansion in expanded states (P = 0.01). Last, ME did not result in a significant difference between MES and NMES in diagnosing early stage disease (P = 0.98) nor in receipt of chemotherapy or surgery (P = 0.23 and P = 0.63, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ME in Southern states increased insurance access to traditionally underserved groups. Interestingly, ME decreased the odds of receiving radiation therapy yearly and had no significant impact on receipt of chemotherapy or surgery.

Association between Medicaid Expansion and Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis and Outcomes: Does Where You Live Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND: Early detection and standardized treatment are crucial for enhancing outcomes for patients with cutaneous melanoma, the commonly diagnosed skin cancer. However, access to quality health care services remains a critical barrier for many patients, particularly the uninsured. Whereas Medicaid expansion (ME) has had a positive impact on some cancers, its specific influence on cutaneous melanoma remains understudied. METHODS: The National Cancer Database identified 87,512 patients 40-64 years of age with a diagnosis of non-metastatic cutaneous melanoma between 2004 and 2017. In this study, patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment variables were analyzed, and ME status was determined based on state policies. Standard univariate statistics were used to compare patients with a diagnosis of non-metastatic cutaneous melanoma between ME and non-ME states. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) between ME and non-ME states. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to examine associations with OS. RESULTS: Overall, 28.6 % (n = 25,031) of the overall cohort was in ME states. The patients in ME states were more likely to be insured, live in neighborhoods with higher median income quartiles, receive treatment at academic/research cancer centers, have lower stages of disease, and receive surgery than the patients in non-ME states. Kaplan-Meier analysis found enhanced 5-year OS for the patients in ME states across all stages. Cox regression showed improved survival in ME states for stage II (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84) and stage III (HR, 0.75) melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the positive association between ME and improved diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes for patients with non-metastatic cutaneous melanoma. These findings advocate for continued efforts to enhance health care accessibility for vulnerable populations.

Did Medicaid Reimbursements Shape the Effects of Medicaid Expansion on Access to Health Care Among the Low-Income Population?

BACKGROUND: Whether variation in Medicaid reimbursement fees influenced the impacts of the Medicaid expansions is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: We examine whether changes in health care access associated with Medicaid expansion are different in states with comparatively high Medicaid reimbursement rates compared against expanding in states with lower Medicaid reimbursement rates. DESIGN: Using a difference-in-difference-in-difference (DDD or triple-difference) regression approach, we compare relative differences in Medicaid expansion effects between lower and higher reimbursement states. PARTICIPANTS: 512,744 low-income adults aged 20-64 in the 2011-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. MAIN MEASURES: Health insurance coverage status, unmet medical needs due to cost, regular source for health care, and a regular/scheduled checkup within the past year. KEY RESULTS: Medicaid expansion has significant and positive impacts on health coverage and access in both high- and low-fee states. In states with fee levels above the median Medicare-to-Medicaid ratios, expanding Medicaid eligibility reduced uninsurance rate by 15.2 percentage point (ppt, p < 0.01), shrank the cost-associated unmet medical need by 10.3 ppt (p < 0.01), improved access to usual source of care by 1.9 ppt (p < 0.1), and increased regular checkup by 14.4 ppt (p < 0.01), while such effects in low-fee states were 11.7 ppt (p < 0.01), 8.3 ppt (p < 0.01), 3.1 ppt (p < 0.1), and 12.3 ppt (p < 0.01), respectively. Our results suggest that Medicaid expansion effect on unmet medical need due to cost in higher-reimbursing states was 2.98 ppt (p < 0.05) larger than in lower-reimbursing states. Evidence suggests modest increases in health care access were more strongly associated with expansions in higher-fee states. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid's fee structure should be considered as a factor influencing large-scale coverage expansions.

Impact of medicaid expansion on cervical cancer screening: A state-specific difference in difference analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In 2014 the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid coverage in states that opted to participate. Limited data are available describing the effect of Medicaid expansion on cancer screening. The objective of our study was to evaluate trends in cervical cancer screening associated with Medicaid expansion. METHODS: Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we identified female respondents ages 30-64 years with a household income below $35,000. The outcome measure was guideline-adherent cervical cancer screening. The years 2010 and 2012 constituted the pre-expansion period while 2016 and 2018 were used to capture the post-expansion period. A difference-in-difference (DID) analysis was performed to assess changes in cervical cancer screening in Medicaid expansion states compared to non-expansion states, for the overall sample and for each expansion state individually. RESULTS: The overall DID analysis showed a greater increase in cervical cancer screening by 1.1 percentage points (95% CI: 0.1 to 2.0%, P = 0.03) in expansion states compared to non-expansion states. The analysis comparing individual expansion states to non-expansion states showed that 6 expansion states had a significantly higher increase in screening relative to non-expansion states: Oregon (8.5%, P < 0.001), Kentucky (4.5%, P = 0.001), Washington (4.2%, P = 0.002), Colorado (4.3%, P = 0.008), Nevada (4.7%, P = 0.048), and Ohio (2.8%, P = 0.03). Of these states, 5 ranked among the states with the lowest baseline screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion states experienced a greater increase in cervical cancer screening relative to non-expansion states. Expansion states with lower baseline screening rates experienced greater increases in screening after expanding Medicaid.

Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes in Patients With Breast Cancer on Medicaid, Pre- and Post-Expansion.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion on breast cancer treatment and survival among Medicaid-insured women in Ohio, accounting for the timing of enrollment in Medicaid relative to their cancer diagnosis and post-expansion heterogeneous Medicaid eligibility criteria, thus addressing important limitations in previous studies. METHODS: Using 2011-2017 Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System data linked with Medicaid claims data, we identified women aged 18 to 64 years diagnosed with local-stage or regional-stage breast cancer (n=876 and n=1,957 pre-expansion and post-expansion, respectively). We accounted for women's timing of enrollment in Medicaid relative to their cancer diagnosis, and flagged women post-expansion as Affordable Care Act (ACA) versus non-ACA, based on their income eligibility threshold. Study outcomes included standard treatment based on cancer stage and receipt of lumpectomy, mastectomy, chemotherapy, radiation, hormonal treatment, and/or treatment for HER2-positive tumors; time to treatment initiation (TTI); and overall survival. We conducted multivariable robust Poisson and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to evaluate the independent associations between Medicaid expansion and our outcomes of interest, adjusting for patient-level and area-level characteristics. RESULTS: Receipt of standard treatment increased from 52.6% pre-expansion to 61.0% post-expansion (63.0% and 59.9% post-expansion in the ACA and non-ACA groups, respectively). Adjusting for potential confounders, including timing of enrollment in Medicaid, being diagnosed in the post-expansion period was associated with a higher probability of receiving standard treatment (adjusted risk ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.22]) and shorter TTI (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]), but not with survival benefits (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [0.80-1.26]). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion in Ohio was associated with improvements in receipt of standard treatment of breast cancer and shorter TTI but not with improved survival outcomes. Future studies should elucidate the mechanisms at play.

The Rich Get Richer: The Matthew Effect in Open Payments.

INTRODUCTION: The Matthew Effect refers to a pattern of accumulated advantage, specifically how social status can lead to increased wealth and recognition. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of the Affordable Care Act requires industry payments and the affiliated hospital to be publicly available through the Open Payments Database (OPD). The US News and World Report (USNWR) publishes a ranking of best medical school (research) programs yearly. The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) ranks medical schools annually by the amount of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Whether medical school-affiliated hospitals with higher social ranking and more NIH funding receive more industrial support is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between open payment of medical school-affiliated hospitals and USNWR and BRIMR ranking. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the OPD for the fiscal year of 2021. Hospital industry payment information was collected for affiliated hospitals in general and research categories. NIH funding data and program rankings were collected from BRIMR and USNWR, respectively. All data were collected for the fiscal year of 2021. The open payments of schools ranked in the top 50 for USNWR (n = 50) and BRIMR (n = 49) were compared to the schools not ranked in the top 50 using SPSS with chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests. A multivariate linear regression was performed to evaluate the association between open payments, USNWR ranking, and BRIMR ranking. RESULTS: A total of 91 medical schools were included in this study. The top 50 ranked medical schools by BRIMR were found to have a higher median of total open payment ($5,652,628 versus $2,558,372, P < 0.001), open payment in research ($4,707,297 versus $1,992,597, P = 0.003), and general open payment ($1,083,018 versus $392,045, P < 0.001). When ranked by USNWR, the top 50 ranked medical schools were found similarly to have a higher median of total open payment (P < 0.001), open payment in research (P < 0.001), and general open payment (P < 0.001). USNWR ranking was an independent predictor of more total open payment (Coefficient 0.016, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.029, P = 0.026) and research open payment (coefficient 0.018, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.034, P = 0.028). USNWR ranking was not found to predict general open payments. BRIMR ranking was not associated with open payment in total, research, or general. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital open payments were associated with the social reputation of their medical schools. NIH funding was not associated with open payments. A Matthew effect exists in current industry payments to medical school-affiliated hospitals.

A Qualitative Study of Emergency Medicaid Programs From the Perspective of Hospital Stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION: Uninsured patients often have poor clinical outcomes associated with lower access to care. Hospital Presumptive Eligibility (HPE) provides up to 60-d emergency Medicaid coverage for uninsured, low-income patients. After obtaining 60-d HPE, patients must file for ongoing Medicaid to sustain coverage; however, navigating HPE approval is complex. We conducted a qualitative study to understand (1) stakeholder perspectives on the application process and workflow and (2) facilitators and barriers to HPE approval to understand process improvement opportunities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews between September-December 2021 with key stakeholders (social workers, financial counselors, case managers, and private third-party vendor representatives) involved in HPE coverage determination, screening, approval, and Medicaid sustainment at our institution. We performed a team-based thematic analysis to elicit factors influencing HPE screening and approval, and recommendations for process improvement. RESULTS: Study participants described the HPE application and Medicaid approval processes. Patient-level barriers included information disclosure and immigration status, inability to contact patients or next-of-kin, and knowledge gaps about insurance acquisition and sustainment. System-level barriers included technical challenges with the state HPE application portal, inadequate staffing for patient screening, and short emergency department stays that limited opportunities to initiate HPE. Stakeholders proposed improvements in education, patient outreach, and logistics. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study reveals the process of HPE approval and outlines barriers within HPE and Medicaid processing from the perspective of direct hospital stakeholders. We identified opportunities at the patient, hospital, and policy levels that could improve successful HPE application and approval rates.

Job lock among survivors of childhood cancer and their spouses post Affordable Care Act implementation: A Childhood Cancer Survivor Study brief report.

It is unknown how common job lock (i.e., staying at job to maintain health insurance) remains among childhood cancer survivors after Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation in 2010. We examined prevalence of and factors associated with job lock using a cross-sectional survey from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (3503 survivors; 942 siblings). Survivor, spousal, and any survivor/spouse job lock were more frequently reported by survivors than siblings. Survivor job lock/any job lock was associated with older age, low income, severe chronic conditions, and debt/inability to pay debt. Job lock remains more common among survivors than siblings after ACA implementation.

The impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion in Medicare beneficiaries with peripheral artery disease.

Background: In 2014, the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion (ME) increased Medicaid eligibility for adults with an income level up to 138% of the federal poverty level. In this study, we examined the impact of ME on mortality and amputation in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods: The 100% MedPAR and Part-B Carrier files from 2011 to 2018 were queried to identify all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with PAD using International Classification of Diseases codes. Our primary exposure was whether a state had adopted the ME on January 1, 2014. Our primary outcomes were the change in all-cause 1-year mortality and leg amputation. We used a state-level difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to compare the rates of the primary outcomes among patients who were in states (including the District of Columbia) who adopted ME (n = 25) versus those who were in states that did not (n = 26). We performed a subanalysis stratifying by sex, race, region, and dual-eligibility status. Results: Over the 8-year period, we studied 37,743,929 patients. The average unadjusted 1-year mortality decreased from 2011 to 2018 in both non-ME (9.5% to 8.7%, p < 0.001) and ME (9.1% to 8.3%, p < 0.001) states. The average unadjusted 1-year amputation rate did not improve in either the non-ME (0.86% to 0.87%, p = 0.17) or ME (0.69% to 0.69%, p = 0.65) states. Across the entire cohort, the DID model revealed that ME did not lead to a significant change in mortality (p = 0.15) or amputation (p = 0.34). Conclusion: Medicaid Expansion was not associated with reduced mortality or leg amputation in Medicare beneficiaries with PAD.

The effect of Medicaid expansion on the take-up of disability benefits by race and ethnicity.

Public disability programs provide financial support to 12 million working-age individuals per year, though not all eligible individuals take up these programs. Mixed evidence exists regarding the impact of Medicaid eligibility expansion on program take-up, and even less is known about the relationship between Medicaid expansion and racial and ethnic disparities in take-up. Using 2009-2020 Current Population Survey data, we compare changes in Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) take-up among respondents with disabilities living in Medicaid expansion states to respondents with disabilities living in non-expansion states, before and after Medicaid expansion. We further explore heterogeneity by race/ethnicity. We find that Medicaid expansion reduced SSI take-up by 10% overall, particularly among White and Hispanic respondents (10% and 21%, respectively). Medicaid expansion increased SSDI take-up by 8% overall, particularly among White and Black respondents (9% and 11%, respectively). Moreover, we find that Medicaid expansion reduced the probability that respondents with disabilities had employer-sponsored health insurance by approximately 8%, suggesting that expansion may have reduced job-lock among the SSDI-eligible, contributing to the observed increase in SSDI take-up.

The impact of the 2014 Medicaid expansion on the health, health care access, and financial well-being of low-income young adults.

Prior to the 2014 Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion, 37% of young adults ages 19-25 in the United States were low-income and a third lacked health insurance coverage-both the highest rates for any age group in the population. The ACA's Medicaid eligibility expansion, therefore, would have been significantly beneficial to low-income young adults. This study evaluates the effect of the ACA Medicaid expansion on the health, health care access and utilization, and financial well-being of low-income young adults ages 19-25. Using 2010-2017 National Health Interview Survey data, I estimate policy effects by applying a difference-in-differences design leveraging the variation in state implementation of the expansion policy. I show that Medicaid expansion improved health insurance coverage, health care access, and financial well-being for low-income young adults in expansion states, but had no effect on their health status and health care utilization. I also find that the policy was associated with larger gains in health coverage for racial minorities relative to their Non-Hispanic White counterparts. With the continued health policy reform debates at the state and federal levels, the empirical evidence from this study can help inform policy decisions that aim to improve health care access and utilization among disadvantaged groups.

Medicaid expansion and opioid prescriptions: Evidence from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Evidence is mixed on whether increased access to insurance, specifically through the ACA's Medicaid expansion, exacerbated the opioid public health crisis through increased opioid prescribing. Using survey data on retail prescription drug fills from 2008 to 2019, we did not find a significant relationship between Medicaid expansion and opioid prescribing in the newly eligible Medicaid population. It may be that the dangers of opioids were known well enough by the time of the Medicaid expansion that lack of access to care was no longer a binding constraint on opioid prescription receipt.