The Impact of the Affordable Care Act Young Adult Provision on Childbearing, Marriage, and Tax Filing Behavior: Evidence from Tax Data by Bradley Heim, Ithai Lurie, Kosali Ilayperuma Simon :: SSRN

February 13, 2017

We use panel U.S. tax data spanning 2008-2013 to study the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) young adult provision on two important demographic outcomes — childbearing and marriage. The impact on childbearing is theoretically ambiguous, as gaining insurance may increase access to contraceptive services, while also reducing the out-of-pocket costs of childbirth. The impact on marriage is also ambiguous, as marriage rates may decrease when young adults have less need for dependent health insurance through a spouse, but may increase when they are now allowed to stay on their parent’s plans even if they are married. Changes in childbearing and marriage can, in turn, lead to changes in the likelihood of filing a tax return. Since W-2 forms record access to employer-provided fringe benefits, we were able to examine the impact of the coverage expansion by focusing on young adults whose parents have access to benefits. We compare those who are slightly younger than the age threshold to those who are slightly older. Our results suggest that the ACA young adult provision led to a modest decrease in childbearing and marriage rates, though the propensity to file a tax return did not change significantly.

Source: The Impact of the Affordable Care Act Young Adult Provision on Childbearing, Marriage, and Tax Filing Behavior: Evidence from Tax Data by Bradley Heim, Ithai Lurie, Kosali Ilayperuma Simon :: SSRN


Growth in Federal Spending on Medicaid Continues – AAF

February 6, 2017

The newly released Medicaid Actuarial Report states that total Medicaid outlays in the 2015 fiscal year amounted to $553.8 billion, increasing 11.6 percent between 2014 and 2015—the fastest growth in more than a decade. This is largely due to the ACA’s Medicaid eligibility expansion as expenditures for this population have been higher than expected. Adults previously eligible for the program had annual per enrollee costs of $4,580, $4,695 and $4,986 in the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively, while expenditures for newly eligible adults were $5,511 (12 percent higher than other adults) in 2014 and $6,356 (28 percent higher) in 2015.

Source: Growth in Federal Spending on Medicaid Continues – AAF


Stopping Surprise Medical Bills: Federal Action Is Needed

February 1, 2017

Two recent nationwide studies, published in Health Affairs and The New England Journal of Medicine, both found that 20 percent of emergency department visits and resulting admissions at in-network facilities involved an out-of-network physician. The Health Affairs study conducted by researchers at the Federal Trade Commission, corroborated by other recent surveys, also highlights the problem of balance billing beyond only emergency physicians. Specifically, the Health Affairs authors found that 9 percent of elective inpatient care at an in-network facility with an in-network lead physician involved an out-of-network ancillary provider, and thus could have led to a surprise medical bill. Additionally, 51 percent of all ambulance rides in their data (primarily from large employer plans) were out of network.

Source: Stopping Surprise Medical Bills: Federal Action Is Needed


The Effect of State Medicaid Expansions on Prescription Drug Use: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act by Ausmita Ghosh, Kosali Ilayperuma Simon, Benjamin Sommers :: SSRN

February 1, 2017

This study provides a national analysis of how the 2014 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansions have affected aggregate prescription drug utilization. Given the prominent role of prescription medications in the management of chronic conditions, as well as the high prevalence of unmet health care needs in the population newly eligible for Medicaid, the use of prescription drugs represents an important measure of the ACA’s policy impact. Prescription drug utilization also provides insights into whether insurance expansions have increased access to physicians, since obtaining these medications requires interaction with a health care provider.

We use 2013-2015 data from a large, nationally representative, all-payer pharmacy transactions database to examine effects on overall prescription medication utilization as well as effects within specific drug classes.

Using a differences-in-differences (DD) regression framework, we find that within the first 15 months of expansion, Medicaid-paid prescription utilization increased by 19 percent in expansion states relative to states that did not expand; this works out to approximately seven additional prescriptions per year per newly enrolled beneficiary. The greatest increases in Medicaid prescriptions occurred among diabetes medications, which increased by 24 percent. Other classes of medication that experienced relatively large increases include contraceptives (22 percent) and cardiovascular drugs (21 percent), while several classes more consistent with acute conditions such as allergies and infections experienced significantly smaller increases. As a placebo test, we examine Medicare-paid prescriptions and find no evidence of a post-ACA effect. Both expansion and non-expansion states followed statistically similar trends in Medicaid prescription utilization in the pre-policy era, offering support for our DD approach.

We did not observe reductions in uninsured or privately insured prescriptions, suggesting that increased utilization under Medicaid did not substitute for other forms of payment. Within expansion states, increases in prescription drug utilization were larger in geographical areas with higher uninsured rates prior to the ACA. Finally, we find some suggestive evidence that increases in prescription drug utilization were greater in areas with larger Hispanic and black populations.

Source: The Effect of State Medicaid Expansions on Prescription Drug Use: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act by Ausmita Ghosh, Kosali Ilayperuma Simon, Benjamin Sommers :: SSRN


The ACA Increased, Rather Than Decreased, Administrative Costs Of Health Insurance

February 1, 2017

The ACA made administrative costs of private health insurance go up, not down. While insurance companies did actually reduce administrative costs in the individual market, the amount spent by the federal government to establish and operate the exchanges vastly exceeded that savings. So, the ACA ended up providing government-subsidized administrative services to health insurance companies – surely the opposite result than the ACA advocates (no friends of insurance companies) would have wanted. And the “subsidy” was inefficient: The government spent, on average, $1,539 per person enrolled in exchange coverage, and saved the insurance companies an average of $149 per enrollee by doing so. Overall, the government spent $10.32 for every dollar they saved the insurance companies. (If you average in off-exchange enrollment as well, the government expenditure comes to $628 per covered person.)

Source: The ACA Increased, Rather Than Decreased, Administrative Costs Of Health Insurance


Massachusetts Governor Hiking Taxes To Rescue Failed Health Reform

January 27, 2017

Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts has proposed a tax of $2,000 per worker on businesses which do not offer health coverage to employees who become dependent on Medicaid.

Source: Massachusetts Governor Hiking Taxes To Rescue Failed Health Reform


JAMA Forum: Hospitals Don’t Shift Costs From Medicare or Medicaid to Private Insurers – news@JAMA

January 5, 2017

Despite a substantial body of evidence to the contrary, many people believe hospitals shift costs in this way. For example, in 2014, Don George, MBA, the president and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont wrote, “When government reimbursements are insufficient to cover the cost of the services a facility provides to Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries, hospitals charge patients with private insurance enough to cover not only the cost of their services, but the shortfall created by government reimbursements as well.”In truth, it’s been nearly 2 decades since any rigorous study has found evidence of substantial cost shifting.

Recent work has found the opposite effect—when public programs pay hospitals less, so do private insurers. In a 2013 study published in Health Affairs, Chapin White, PhD, MPP, now a senior policy researcher at Rand Corporation, found that a 10% reduction in Medicare payments to hospitals was associated with a nearly 8% reduction in prices hospitals charge private insurers. Another study by him and Vivian Wu, PhD, now at the University of Southern California, published in Health Services Research in 2013, found that a reduction in hospital inpatient revenue from Medicare was associated with an even larger decline in total revenue, also suggesting hospitals cut prices charged to private payers.

Source: JAMA Forum: Hospitals Don’t Shift Costs From Medicare or Medicaid to Private Insurers – news@JAMA