Health insurance reform and retirement: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has provided millions of Americans with medical insurance but may have led to an increase in retirement among older individuals who are utilizing the newly available coverage options as a substitute for employer‐provided insurance. Using data from the American Community Survey from 2009–2016, this hypothesis is tested by estimating the effect of the premium subsidies and Medicaid expansions of the ACA on retirement transitions for the non‐Medicare eligible cohort of older Americans aged 55–64. Research results indicate a 2% and 8% decrease in labor force participation resulting from the premium subsidies and Medicaid expansions, respectively. Slightly larger estimates are found among a subgroup of adult couples. The study also finds suggestive evidence of crowd‐out of employer‐sponsored insurance by subsidized marketplace plans but finds no such effects from the Medicaid expansions.     

The Affordable Care Act's insurance market regulations' effect on coverage

Much of the debate surrounding reform of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) revolves around its insurance market regulation. This paper studies the impact on health insurance coverage of those provisions. Using data from the American Community Survey, years 2008–2015, I focus on individuals, ages 26 to 64, who are ineligible for the subsidies or Medicaid expansions included in the ACA to isolate the effect of its market regulation. To account for time trends, I utilize a differences‐in‐differences approach with a control group of residents of Massachusetts who were already subject to a similarly regulated health insurance market. I find that the ACA's regulations caused an increase of 0.95 percentage points in health insurance coverage for my sample in 2014. This increase was concentrated among younger individuals, suggesting that the law's regulations ameliorated adverse selection in the individual health insurance market.     

Preexisting Condition Protections Under the Affordable Care Act: Changes in Insurance Coverage,Premium Contributions,and Out-of-Pocket Spending

ObjectivesIn January 2014, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) preexisting condition protections prohibited coverage denials, premium increases, and claim denials on the basis of preexisting conditions. This study aimed to examine changes in coverage and premiums and out-of-pocket spending after the implementation of the preexisting condition protections under the ACA.MethodsWe identified adults aged 18 to 64 years with (n = 59 041) and without preexisting conditions (n = 61 970) from the 2011-2013 and 2015-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We used a difference-in-differences and a difference-in-difference-in-differences approach to assess the associations of preexisting condition protections and changes in insurance coverage, premium contributions, and out-of-pocket spending after the ACA. Simple and multivariable logistic or multivariable 2-part models were fitted for the full sample and stratified by family income (low ≤138% federal poverty level [FPL]; middle 139%-400% FPL; and high > 400 FPL).ResultsThe ACA increased nongroup insurance coverage to a similar extent for individuals with or without preexisting conditions at all income levels. Decreases in premium contributions were observed to a similar extent among families with nongroup private coverage regardless of declinable preexisting condition status, whereas no significant changes were observed among families with group coverage. We found greater decreases in out-of-pocket spending for individuals with preexisting conditions than those without conditions among both individuals covered by nongroup and group insurance, and a greater difference was observed among those covered by nongroup insurance (difference-in-difference-in-differences ?$279; 95% confidence interval ?$528 to ?$29).ConclusionsThe ACA protections were associated with decreases in out-of-pocket spending among adults with preexisting conditions.     

ACA and Medicaid Expansion Increased Breast Pump Claims and Breastfeeding for Women with Public and Private Insurance

BackgroundThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) required new private insurance plans to provide breast pumps with no cost sharing beginning August 2012, and in January 2014 expanded this requirement to Marketplace plans and expanded Medicaid coverage. We first examined the associations between the ACA reforms in 2012 and 2014 with rates of breast pump claims between Medicaid enrollees and those with private insurance. We next examined the associations between the monthly rate of breast pump claims with breastfeeding initiation and duration by insurance type.MethodsUsing 2011–2015 public and private health insurance claims in All-Payer Claims Databases from Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire, we conducted a linear regression model to evaluate the associations between the 2012 and 2014 ACA health insurance reforms with rates of breast pump claims by health insurance status. We then linked the monthly rates of breast pump claims per 1,000 live births to the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System with self-reported breastfeeding initiation and duration. We estimated probit regression models to examine the associations between monthly rates of breast pump claims per state, insurance type, age group, and breastfeeding outcomes.ResultsFor the 2012 ACA reform, breast pump claims increased by 183.4 (143.7–223.1) per 1,000 live births for women with private insurance, but decreased for Medicaid enrollees (?99.3 [?139.0 to ?59.6]). For the 2014 ACA reforms, the opening of health insurance Marketplaces had no effect on breast pump claims for women with private insurance (8.3 [?43.6 to 60.2]), whereas Medicaid expansion increased claims by 119.4 (67.5–171.3) per 1,000 live births for Medicaid enrollees. Every additional 10 breast pump claims per 1,000 live births was associated with a 1.08 percentage point increase in breastfeeding initiation among women with private insurance (0.108 [0.018–0.198]), but not Medicaid enrollees (0.076 [?0.078 to 0.230]). In contrast, every additional 10 breast pump claims per 1,000 live births was associated with a 1.79 percentage point increase in breastfeeding for 4 or more weeks for women with private insurance (0.179 [0.063–0.294]) and a 2.05 percentage point increase among women with public insurance (0.205 [0.033–0.376]). Interaction analysis revealed no significant differences in associations by insurance type across breastfeeding outcomes.ConclusionsThe ACA breastfeeding coverage requirements fill a gap for women wanting to obtain a breast pump to support breastfeeding. The monthly rate of breast pump claims, as an indicator of access, translated into higher levels of breastfeeding for women with private and public insurance with the potential to reduce socioeconomic disparities.     

Preconception subsidized insurance: Prenatal care and birth outcomes by race/ethnicity

Low‐income pregnant women have been Medicaid eligible since the 1980s, but the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s expansion of Medicaid to women preconception has the potential to improve pregnancy and birth outcomes by removing delays in Medicaid enrollment. More substantially, the ACA expanded subsidized nongroup maternity coverage. Pre‐ACA, nongroup health insurance had generally excluded maternity coverage and was prohibitively expensive for low‐income individuals, but the ACA's creation of the Marketplace made maternity coverage mandatory and provides income‐based subsidies. I use a simulated eligibility approach to measure how these two aspects of the ACA impacted pregnancy and birth outcomes for first‐time mothers, paying special attention to racial‐ethnic differences. I find expanding Medicaid to women prior to pregnancy significantly improves the share of women with a prenatal care visit in the first trimester for non‐Hispanic Whites and Blacks. Expansions in non‐Medicaid subsidized insurance, such as Marketplace insurance, significantly reduce the share of births paid by Medicaid and increased breastfeeding across all racial and ethnic groups. Neither type of subsidized insurance had significant, robust impacts on birth outcomes.     

Issues in health reform: how changes in eligibility may move millions back and forth between medicaid and insurance exchanges

The Affordable Care Act will extend health insurance coverage by both expanding Medicaid eligibility and offering premium subsidies for the purchase of private health insurance through state health insurance exchanges. But by definition, eligibility for these programs is sensitive to income and can change over time with fluctuating income and changes in family composition. The law specifies no minimum enrollment period, and subsidy levels will also change as income rises and falls. Using national survey data, we estimate that within six months, more than 35 percent of all adults with family incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level will experience a shift in eligibility from Medicaid to an insurance exchange, or the reverse; within a year, 50 percent, or 28 million, will. To minimize the effect on continuity and quality of care, states and the federal government should adopt strategies to reduce the frequency of coverage transitions and to mitigate the disruptions caused by those transitions. Options include establishing a minimum guaranteed eligibility period and "dually certifying" some plans to serve both Medicaid and exchange enrollees.     

Public and private health insurance: stacking up the costs

Some proposals to expand health insurance coverage for people with low incomes are based on expansions of public programs, such as Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while others rely on the use of tax subsidies for individuals to purchase private insurance. Analyses of data from the 2005 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey indicate that total medical spending is much lower when coverage is provided by Medicaid or SCHIP than it is when coverage is provided by private insurance. Public insurance is particularly advantageous from the consumer's perspective because associated out-of-pocket spending is far lower.     

Changes in health insurance coverage and health care access as teens with disabilities transition to adulthood

BackgroundPre-ACA, less than 6% of children with disabilities were uninsured, compared with more than 42% of young adults with disabilities ages 19–25. Individuals with disabilities face greater barriers to health care access upon transition into adulthood.ObjectivesWe examined whether the ACA dependent coverage provision and Medicaid expansion improved the transition from pediatric to adult healthcare systems by reducing the gap in insurance coverage and access to care between teens and young adults with disabilities.MethodsUsing cross-sectional data from the 2006–2009 and 2011–2015 National Health Interview Survey (n = 10,136), we estimate the change in insurance coverage and access to care from pre-to post-ACA time periods for teens (ages 13–18) and young adults (ages 19–25) with disabilities in a difference-in-differences model. We completed the same analyses for these groups in Medicaid expansion and non-expansion states.ResultsBoth teens and young adults with disabilities made significant gains in insurance coverage (4.55 and 8.96% point gains respectively, p < .001) and access to care (4.01 and 3.14% points decline in delayed care due to cost, p < .05) under the dependent coverage provision and Medicaid expansion.ConclusionsMedicaid expansion had a greater impact on both insurance coverage and on access to care than did the dependent coverage provision. The benefits of these changes flowed primarily to young adults with disabilities, reducing the gaps in insurance coverage between teens and young adults, and expanding access to care for both groups, providing a more seamless transition from pediatric to adult health care systems, post-ACA.     

The spillover effects of health insurance benefit mandates on public insurance coverage: Evidence from veterans

This study examines how regulations in private health insurance markets affect coverage of public insurance. We focus on mental health parity laws, which mandate private health insurance to provide equal coverage for mental and physical health services. The implementation of mental health parity laws may improve a quality dimension of private health insurance but at increased costs. We graphically develop a conceptual framework and then empirically examine whether the regulations shift individuals from private to public insurance. We exploit state-by-year variation in policy implementation in 1999–2008 and focus on a sample of veterans, who have better access to public insurance than non-veterans. Using data from the Current Population Survey, we find that the parity laws reduce employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) coverage by 2.1% points. The drop in ESI is largely offset by enrollment gains in public insurance, namely through the Veterans Affairs (VA) benefit and Medicaid/Medicare programs.     

Insurance coverage and access to care for workers with disabilities, 2001–2017

BackgroundWorkers with disabilities have different options than their peers for obtaining health insurance, and face unique barriers in accessing care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) led to sweeping changes in the availability and affordability of health insurance in the United States beginning in 2010, and may have had important effects for workers with disabilities.Objective/HypothesisDocument how the ACA changed insurance coverage and access to care for workers with disabilities, and compare those changes to changes among other groups.MethodsWe document health insurance coverage and access to care among workers with disabilities using the 2001–2017 National Health Interview Survey.ResultsThe share of insured workers with disabilities increased from 79.9% in 2009 to 87.8% in 2017. This gain resulted from an 11 percentage point (pp) increase in the share with Medicaid coverage in 2014–2017 compared with 2001–2009 and a 5 pp increase in privately purchased coverage over those periods. These were accompanied by an 11 pp decline in the share with employer-sponsored coverage. Despite coverage gains, cost-related barriers to accessing medical care did not change much after the ACA, for any group. Workers with disabilities experienced an increase in structural access barriers, from 18.4% before the ACA to 24.8% after.ConclusionsThe gain in insurance coverage for workers with disabilities is an important benefit of the ACA, but more investigation and monitoring should be considered to understand whether such coverage will translate into improvements in access to needed health care.     

Do individuals respond to cost-sharing subsidies in their selections of marketplace health insurance plans?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides assistance to low-income consumers through both premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions (CSRs). Low-income consumers’ lack of health insurance literacy or information regarding CSRs may lead them to not take-up CSR benefits for which they are eligible. We use administrative data from 2014 to 2016 on roughly 22 million health insurance plan choices of low-income individuals enrolled in ACA Marketplace coverage to assess whether they behave in a manner consistent with being aware of the availability of CSRs. We take advantage of discontinuous changes in the schedule of CSR benefits to show that consumers are highly sensitive to the value of CSRs when selecting insurance plans and that a very low percentage select dominated plans. These findings suggest that CSR subsidies are salient to consumers and that the program is well designed to account for any lack of health insurance literacy among the low-income population it serves.     

Access to care and health insurance coverage for workers with disabilities: Outcomes by state-level responses to the ACA

BackgroundStates had flexibility in their implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansions, which may have led to variation in coverage and changes in access to care for workers with disabilities.Objective/hypothesisTo examine differential trends in health insurance coverage and access to care among workers with disabilities by states’ decisions about expanding Medicaid under the ACA.MethodsWe aggregated data from the National Health Interview Survey into groups by time period relative to ACA implementation: pre-ACA (2006–2009), early ACA (2010–2013), and later ACA (2014–2017). We produced health insurance and access statistics for each time period, by state-level Medicaid expansion status.ResultsUninsurance rates decreased after 2014 in all states, regardless of the state’s decision whether to expand Medicaid. There was a substantial increase after 2014 in the share of workers with disabilities covered by Medicaid in states that expanded in that year; in other states, workers with disabilities experienced larger increases in privately purchased coverage. At the same time, the share of workers with disabilities reporting cost-related barriers to care declined markedly in 2014 Medicaid expansion states, but it increased slightly in the non-expansion states. Structural barriers to accessing care increased in all states, with the smallest increase in 2014 expansion states.ConclusionsMedicaid coverage and cost-related access to care improved significantly among workers with disabilities in 2014 Medicaid expansion states, both overall and relative to workers with disabilities in non-expansion states.     

Who Gained Insurance Coverage in 2014, the First Year of Full ACA Implementation?

The most significant pieces of the Affordable Care Act (exchanges, subsidies, Medicaid expansion, and individual mandate), implemented in 2014, were associated with sizable gains in coverage nationally that were divided equally between gains in Medicaid and private coverage. These national trends mask heterogeneity in gains by state Medicaid expansion status, age, income level, and source of coverage. © 2016 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Did the Affordable Care Act's dependent coverage mandate increase premiums?

We investigate the impact of the Affordable Care Act's dependent coverage mandate on insurance premiums. The expansion of dependent coverage under the ACA allows young adults to remain on their parent's private health insurance plans until the age of 26. We find that the mandate has led to a 2.5–2.8 percent increase in premiums for health insurance plans that cover children, relative to single-coverage plans. We are able to conclude that employers did not pass on the entire premium increase to employees through higher required plan contributions.     

Impacts of the ACA Medicaid expansion on health behaviors: Evidence from household panel data

A motivation for increasing health insurance coverage is to improve health outcomes for impacted populations. However, health insurance coverage may alternatively increase risky health behaviors due to ex ante moral hazard, and past research on this issue has led to mixed conclusions. This paper uses a panel of household purchases to estimate the effects of the recent state‐level Medicaid expansions resulting from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on consumption goods that present adverse health risks. We utilize within‐household variation to identify whether increases in Medicaid availability impacted household purchase patterns of alcohol, nicotine‐related, snack food, and carbonated beverage products. Overall, we find little evidence that the ACA Medicaid expansion led to ex ante moral hazard across any of these products, but we find compelling evidence that the Medicaid expansions reduced cigarette consumption and increased smoking cessation product use among the Medicaid‐eligible population.     

Health Care Reform and Young Adults' Access to Sexual Health Care: An Exploration of Potential Confidentiality Implications of the Affordable Care Act

One provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act is extension of dependent coverage for young adults aged up to 26 years on their parent’s private insurance plan. This change, meant to increase insurance coverage for young adults, might yield unintended consequences.Confidentiality concerns may be triggered by coverage through parental insurance, particularly regarding sexual health. The existing literature and our original research suggest that actual or perceived limits to confidentiality could influence the decisions of young adults about whether, and where, to seek care for sexual health issues.Further research is needed on the scope and outcomes of these concerns. Possible remedial actions include enhanced policies to protect confidentiality in billing and mechanisms to communicate confidentiality protections to young adults.ON MARCH 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law, effecting the most significant change to the US health care system since the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965.1 All components of the health sector are affected: the legislation includes expansions of public coverage, new subsidies for private coverage, health insurance exchanges, insurance coverage requirements and mandates, and strategies to increase the efficiency of health care delivery and rein in health care costs. Such sweeping reforms bring a host of intended changes and potential unforeseen ramifications. One provision of the ACA expands access to dependent coverage for young adults on their parent’s health insurance up to age 26 years, regardless of marital, employment, or educational status, effective September 2010. Previously, the maximum age varied by state, with eligibility for dependent coverage often linked to factors such as educational enrollment status. The government Web site describes the intended benefits of this provision: “By allowing children to stay on their parent''s plan, the Affordable Care Act makes it easier and more affordable for young adults to get health insurance coverage.”2Young adults aged 19 to 26 years have the highest uninsured rate of any age group in the country; 30% were without coverage in 2009.3 The high rate reflects many contributing factors. Young adults are more likely than other working-aged adults to be unemployed; if working, they are more likely to be newly employed, employed in entry-level jobs, and working in part-time positions without access to employer coverage. Furthermore, most young adults do not meet the traditional categorical eligibility requirements for the Medicaid program—the parent of a child younger than 19 years or an aged or disabled individual—and so young adults, even those with very low incomes, seldom qualify for public coverage. The subsequent low levels of insurance result in limited access to care and high levels of unmet need for care.4By expanding access to health insurance coverage, the ACA addresses two Healthy People 2020 goals5: attaining a higher proportion of individuals with insurance and reducing the proportion of individuals who are unable to obtain or who delay obtaining necessary medical care. This provision of the ACA has already shown significant success in expanding health insurance coverage for young adults. The percentage of young people with health insurance increased by 3.8 points from the first quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2011, far outstripping gains in other age groups.6 However, the reliance on expanding dependent coverage to address the high levels of uninsured young adults contains the potential for unintended consequences, because concerns about confidentiality could disrupt access to care.     

Use of Health Insurance Among Clients Seeking Contraceptive Services at Title X–Funded Facilities in 2016

CONTEXT

As federal initiatives aim to fundamentally alter or dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA), evidence regarding the use of insurance among clients obtaining contraceptive care at Title X–funded facilities under ACA guidelines is essential to understanding what is at stake.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 2,911 clients seeking contraceptive care at 43 Title X–funded sites in 2016 completed a survey assessing their characteristics and insurance coverage and use. Chi‐square tests for independence with adjustments for the sampling design were conducted to determine differences in insurance coverage and use across demographic characteristics and facility types.

RESULTS

Most clients (71%) had some form of public or private health insurance, and most of these (83%) planned to use it to pay for their services. Foreign‐born clients were less likely than U.S.‐born clients to have coverage (46% vs. 75%) and to use it (78% vs. 85%). Clients with private insurance were less likely than those with public insurance to plan to use their insurance (75% vs. 91%). More than one‐quarter of clients not planning to use existing insurance for services indicated that the reason was that someone might find out.

CONCLUSION

Coverage gaps persist among individuals seeking contraceptive care within the Title X network, despite evidence indicating increases in health insurance coverage among this population since implementation of the ACA. Future research should explore the impact of altering or eliminating the ACA both on the Title X provider network and on the individuals who rely on it.     

Spillover benefit of improved access to healthcare on reducing worry about housing and meal affordability

Background

The Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion improved access to health insurance among low-income populations. We sought to examine the spillover benefits of the ACA Medicaid expansion on ability to afford rent/mortgage and purchase of nutritious meals.

Methods

Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) we analyzed individuals aged 18–64 years residing in 12 U.S. states (including five ACA Medicaid expansion states) in 2015. Our treatment of interest was access to health insurance, instrumented by the ACA Medicaid expansion. Our outcome variables were: worry or stress about having sufficient money to pay the rent or mortgage and to purchase nutritious meals. We conducted a two-stage least squares instrumental variables regression.

Results

A 10%-point increase in the proportion of those who obtained health insurance following the ACA Medicaid expansion reduced the probability of being worried and stressed related to purchasing nutritious meals by 7.2% points (95% CI: 1.3–13.2) as well as paying the rent or mortgage by 8.6% points (95% CI: 2.5–14.7) among people living below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL). The ACA Medicaid expansion was not associated with access to health insurance among those living over 138% of FPL, and obtaining health insurance did not influence stress or worry in relation to affording rent/mortgage or meals in this income group.

Conclusions

Improved access to health insurance contributed to reducing worry and stress associated with paying rent/mortgage or purchasing meals among low-income people. Expanding health insurance access may have contributed to increasing the disposable income of low income groups.