Massachusetts health reform implementation: major progress and future challenges

Since its passage in April 2006, the Massachusetts health reform law (Chapter 58) has expanded affordable insurance coverage to 355,000 people. Major milestones have been achieved, including establishment of new coverage programs, merger of small-group and nongroup insurance markets, creation of an insurance "Connector," determination of affordability and penalty standards for an individual mandate, and launch of employer responsibility requirements. Key challenges remain, including full implementation of the individual mandate, cost control, and securing of long-term financing. Massachusetts health reform is offering valuable and important lessons for the nation.     

美国医疗保障制度改革的先行者——马萨诸塞州医改综述

马萨诸塞州2006年医改被视为2010年奥巴马美国医改的原型和模板,研究马州医改进展和效果,有助于推断美国医改可能取得的成绩及问题.2006年马州医改主要通过以下方式扩大医疗保险覆盖范围,提高医疗服务可及性.一是增加政府投入,扩大面向低收入人群的马州医疗援助计划覆盖范围,新建资助中低收入人群参保的公民健康保障计划,从而提高中低收入人群的参保能力;二是新建医疗保险交易局管理新建计划,干预私营医疗保险市场,新建致力于医疗保险标准化、面向高收入人群的公民健康选择计划;三是强制个人参保,要求雇主为雇员提供保险.综合现有文献,马州医改已取得许多成就,但也存在一定问题.一方面,无保障人群数量不断缩小,居民医疗服务可及性提高,可负担性也有所改进;另一方面,医疗支出快速上升影响了改革的可持续性,制度设计的一些缺陷影响了部分人群的医疗服务可及性,同时安全网计划资金的消减也可能影响医改效果.我国可借鉴马州经验建立商业健康保险管制机构,促进我国商业健康保险市场发展;同时需准备面对全民医保覆盖后的医疗费用快速增长问题,还需警惕全面覆盖后的“参保却不享有”问题.     

Health Care Reform in Massachusetts: Implementation of Coverage Expansions and a Health Insurance Mandate

Context: Much can be learned from Massachusetts's experience implementing health insurance coverage expansions and an individual health insurance mandate. While achieving political consensus on reform is difficult, implementation can be equally or even more challenging.
Methods: The data in this article are based on a case study of Massachusetts, including interviews with key stakeholders, state government, and Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority officials during the first three years of the program and a detailed analysis of primary and secondary documents.
Findings: Coverage expansion and an individual mandate led Massachusetts to define affordability standards, establish a minimum level of insurance coverage, adopt insurance market reforms, and institute incentives and penalties to encourage coverage. Implementation entailed trade-offs between the comprehensiveness of benefits and premium costs, the subsidy levels and affordability, and among the level of mandate penalties, public support, and coverage gains.
Conclusions: National lessons from the Massachusetts experience come not only from the specific decisions made but also from the process of decision making, the need to keep stakeholders engaged, the relationship of decisions to existing programs and regulations, and the interactions among program components.     

Pieces of the puzzle: steps toward affordable health care

This essay proposes a multiple-part solution to the health care affordability crisis. Solution elements include: changing the most commonly held health insurance product to a plan with high-deductible design, and reinstituting community-based health planning. It is proposed that the federal tax code be used to create incentives to change the most commonly held benefit. Further, it is suggested that "capital licenses" be provided to support health planning.     

Affordability of and Access to Information About Health Insurance Among Immigrant and Non-immigrant Residents After Massachusetts Health Reform

Immigrants’ perceptions of affordability of insurance and knowledge of insurance after health reform are unknown. We conducted face-to-face surveys with a convenience sample of 1124 patients in three Massachusetts safety net Emergency Departments after the Massachusetts health reform (August 2013–January 2014), comparing immigrants and non-immigrants. Immigrants, as compared to non-immigrants, reported more concern about paying premiums (30 vs. 11 %, p = 0.0003) and about affording the current ED visit (38 vs. 22 %, p < 0.0001). Immigrants were also less likely to report having unpaid medical bills (24 vs. 32 %, p = 0.0079), however this difference was not present among those with any hospitalization in the past year. Insured immigrants were less likely to know copayment amounts (57 vs. 71 %, p = 0.0018). Immigrants were more likely to report that signing up for insurance would be easier with fewer plans (53 vs. 34 %, p = 0.0443) and to lack information about insurance in their primary language (31 vs. 1 %, p < 0.0001) when applying for insurance. Immigrants who sought insurance information via websites or helplines were more likely to find that information useful than non-immigrants (100 vs. 92 %, p = 0.0339). Immigrants seeking care in safety net emergency departments had mixed experiences with affordability of and knowledge about insurance after Massachusetts health reform, raising concern about potential disparities under the Affordable Care Act that is based on the MA reform.     

Massachusetts health reform: a public perspective from debate through implementation

This study examines public opinion about the new health reform law in Massachusetts at four stages, from the beginning of the debate in September 2003 through June 2008, two years into implementation. We find that the favorable political environment in Massachusetts likely encouraged leaders to act and also contributed to the shape of the legislation as a "shared responsibility" compromise plan. Despite perceptions by some that the law is not helping the uninsured, support for it remains high-even for the individual mandate, the law's most controversial feature. There is little interest in repealing this legislation.     

Identifying Health Maintenance Organization membership through self-report of health plan name: ascertainment and reliability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and reliability of (1) identifying Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) membership by ascertaining self-reported health plan name in a telephone survey and (2) using external information to determine whether the plan was an HMO. METHODS: Respondents to the 1999-2001 Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the 1999 Massachusetts Colorectal Cancer (CRC) survey were asked to name their health plan. The authors used information from external sources to classify the plan as an HMO or a non-HMO. Test-retest reliability of reported plan name was examined overall, by demographic characteristics, and by health plan name. Reliability of HMO classification was tested with the kappa statistic. RESULTS: More than 88 percent of respondents with commercial health insurance provided their health plan name; 84 percent reported a plan that could be assigned as either an HMO or a non-HMO. The percentage whose HMO status could be assigned differed by demographic characteristics. Among those assigned, the distribution of specific HMOs among survey respondents was similar to the distribution reported by the Massachusetts Division of Insurance. In a subsample, 78 percent reported the same health plan during a follow-up interview. Agreement was higher for men, and differed according to the plan reported at the first time point. Kappa for HMO classification from health plan name was 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Self-report of health plan name is a feasible and reliable method to ascertain health insurance information in a telephone interview.     

Massachusetts health care reform: a look at the issues

Massachusetts recently enacted a major health reform that could move the state to close to universal health insurance coverage. We describe some of the politics behind the legislation and the law's key details. We discuss four major issues that the plan would face: (1) a definition of affordability-how much should be borne by individuals and how much by government; (2) issues the state will face in implementing the Insurance Connector; (3) whether employers will respond by dropping coverage; and (4) whether the financing would be adequate, both immediately and over time. Massachusetts will face challenges, but it offers a model that could be followed elsewhere.     

Massachusetts reform plus President Bush's tax credits: a national model?

The Massachusetts health reform offers an important opportunity for a new federal-state strategy to cover the uninsured. President George Bush's proposed health insurance tax credits could be added to the Massachusetts health reform. The combined plan would include Medicaid expansions; offer workers affordable coverage through competitive insurance markets; and provide federal, state, employer, and individual financing. Many other states might be interested in similar federal-state partnerships for the forty-five million uninsured Americans. Ending the national impasse on coverage needs this kind of bold initiative.     

Rates of Insurance for Injured Patients Before and After Health Care Reform in Massachusetts: A Possible Case of Double Jeopardy

Objectives. We determined how preinjury insurance status and injury-related outcomes among able-bodied, community-dwelling adults treated at a Level I Trauma Center in central Massachusetts changed after health care reform.Methods. We compared insurance status at time of injury among non-Medicare-eligible adult Massachusetts residents before (2004–2005) and after (2009–2010) health care reform, adjusted for demographic and injury covariates, and modeled associations between insurance status and trauma outcomes.Results. Among 2148 patients before health care reform and 2477 patients after health care reform, insurance rates increased from 77% to 84% (P < .001). Younger patients, men, minorities, and penetrating trauma victims were less likely to be insured irrespective of time period. Uninsured patients were more likely to be discharged home without services (adjusted odds ratio = 3.46; 95% confidence interval = 2.65, 4.52) compared with insured patients.Conclusions. Preinjury insurance rates increased for trauma patients after health care reform but remained lower than in the general population. Certain Americans may be in “double jeopardy” of both higher injury incidence and worse outcomes because socioeconomic factors placing them at risk for injury also present barriers to compliance with an individual insurance mandate.The burden of uncompensated care on the health care system and risk of personal financial ruin of uninsured individuals who experience a health shock (unexpected serious illness or accident)1 are among the leading arguments in favor of an individual mandate in the 2010 federal health care reform legislation. Modeled after the Massachusetts health care reform implemented in 2006,2,3 comprehensive federal health care reform is presumed to result in the greatest gains of health insurance among able-bodied adults aged 18 to 64 years mandated to enroll in subsidized or unsubsidized insurance plans. Although opponents of an individual mandate may argue that otherwise healthy adults with minimal health care needs should not be required to purchase health insurance,4 no individual, irrespective of age or baseline health status, is immune to risk of injury. Trauma represents a significant health shock experienced by able-bodied, community-dwelling adults aged 18 to 64 years and is a leading cause of death and disability in this demographic group.5,6Another federal mandate enacted by the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide emergency care to individuals experiencing a health shock, regardless of whether they are insured.7 Not surprisingly, emergency department (ED) resource use in response to health shocks has been shown to be independent of insurance status.8 In Massachusetts, implementation of health care reform did not affect trends in ED use.9 Patient care in the face of a health shock, however, rarely stops in the ED.When injured patients without insurance arrive at a trauma center, they are not only stabilized, as mandated by EMTALA, but also provided comprehensive trauma care as required of verified trauma centers in our proven national and state-level trauma systems.10,11 Even after stabilization, injured patients often cannot be released because they are critically ill or require treatments (e.g., intravenous antibiotics, chest tube monitoring) that for practical reasons or out-of-pocket costs cannot be rendered outside of the hospital. These uninsured patients are often provided ongoing free care at the presenting hospital or transferred once stabilized to safety-net hospitals that typically do not refuse patients on the basis of insurance.12 Depending on governance structure (publicly managed, publicly funded, or private nonprofit), 5% to 16% of patients at safety-net hospitals are provided free care.13 Data from the 2004 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey suggested that only 35% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 26%, 45%) of charges to uninsured patients for non–life-threatening emergency services were recouped by hospitals.14 In the case of injuries too severe to be treated and released, the burden of the cost of care is therefore assumed one way or another by the health care system, raising costs for everyone. Furthermore, uninsured patients often incur greater costs of care compared with their insured counterparts, as they must remain hospitalized until they can be safely discharged home because no similar laws mandate uncompensated home health services, skilled nursing, or rehabilitation often required by medically stable injured patients.15–17Proponents of an individual mandate might presume that improved rates of insurance in the general population would result in fewer uninsured injured patients treated at trauma centers, but the effect of an individual mandate on insurance coverage among injured patients is unknown. Therefore, the effects of health care reform on the burden of uncompensated trauma care in Massachusetts may have important national implications on the potential effect of national health care reform on our nation’s trauma system. We undertook this study to determine how an individual mandate affected insurance status among injured Massachusetts residents. We hypothesized that we would have treated fewer uninsured patients after implementation of Massachusetts health care reform. Presumably, the individual mandate would have resulted in rates of insurance among our patients as observed statewide.     

Massachusetts: more mirage than miracle

Enactment of the Massachusetts health reform plan stemmed primarily from several factors unique to the state. They were augmented by a questionable rationale that this latest version of health reform would forestall even greater threats ahead to the interests of the state's business community, private insurance policyholders, and taxpayers. The plan's foremost achievement involves development of a "Connector" mechanism to facilitate pooling and purchasing beyond the workplace. However, its successful implementation will be challenged by the complexities of enforcing an individual mandate and changing the long-standing course of an overregulated and high-cost health market.     

Comment--defining health insurance affordability: unobserved heterogeneity matters

Affordability is a vague concept. Bundorf and Pauly [Bundorf, M.K., Pauly, M.V., 2006. Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured? Journal of Health Economics 25 (4), 650-673] address this problem by establishing clear working definitions of affordability, and they use these definitions to estimate the percent of the uninsured who can afford insurance. When they establish their definitions of affordability, they use a microeconomic model that omits essential characteristics of the health insurance market. This comment suggests alternative definitions that better incorporate the structure of the health insurance market, discusses both endogeneity and specification problems that might occur when implementing their econometric model to estimate the fraction of "uninsured afforders," and then recommends ways to reduce omitted variable bias and endogeneity bias.     

How have employers responded to health reform in Massachusetts? Employees' views at the end of one year

In April 2006, Massachusetts enacted legislation that seeks to move the state to near-universal health insurance coverage, with key components of the reform effort targeting the role of employers. Based on surveys of working-age adults ages 18-64 in Massachusetts in 2006 and 2007, this paper examines employers' responses to health reform as reported by their employees. Results suggest that at roughly the end of the first year under health reform, employers in Massachusetts had made few changes in the insurance coverage they offered to their workers.     

Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured?

In this paper, we investigate the meaning of "affordability" in the context of health insurance. Assessing the relationship between the affordability of coverage and the large number of uninsured in the U.S. is important for understanding the barriers to purchasing coverage and evaluating the role of policy in reducing the number of uninsured. We propose several definitions of affordability and examine the implications of alternative definitions for estimates of the proportion of uninsured who are unable to afford coverage. We find that, depending on the definition, health insurance was affordable to between one-quarter and three-quarters of the uninsured in the United States in 2000.     

Women and Health Reform: How National Health Care Can Enhance Coverage,Affordability, and Access for Women (Examples From Massachusetts)

BackgroundMassachusetts women have the highest rates of health insurance coverage in the nation and women's access to care has improved across all demographic groups. However, important challenges persist. As national health reform implementation moves forward under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), states will likely encounter many of the same women's health challenges experienced in Massachusetts over the past 7 years.MethodsA review of the literature and data analyses comparing health care services access, utilization, and cost, and health outcomes from Massachusetts pre- and post-2006 health care reform identified two key challenges in women's continuity of coverage and affordability.ConclusionThese areas are crucial for state and national policymakers to consider in improving women's health as they work to implement health care reform at the state and federal levels.     

Proximal and Distal Determinants of Access to Health Care among Hispanics in El Paso County, Texas

In the United States, having health insurance is an important determinant of health care access and individual health outcomes. Nationwide, a significant proportion of the population does not have health insurance. Hispanics, in particular, are less likely than non-Hispanics to have insurance. A framework was established to examine the relationships between the determinants of insurance coverage and health care affordability in El Paso County, Texas. Data from the 2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were used to examine the relationships described by this framework. The sample included 653 adults, of those 477 self-identified as Hispanic or Latino. In El Paso County, almost half of adult Hispanics lack any type of health insurance coverage, three times the rate of non-Hispanics. Among Hispanics, the lack of health insurance was strongly associated with reduced affordability of health care. Employment status, income, and age were found to have significant associations with insurance coverage and health care affordability. Sex and education level were relevant, yet distal determinants of these outcomes. Ongoing conversations about health care reform should take into account the patterns of coverage within the Hispanic population. Knowing how economic and social factors affect coverage is necessary to inform policy that can effectively alleviate disparities experienced by Hispanics.     

Change in Health Insurance Coverage in Massachusetts and Other New England States by Perceived Health Status: Potential Impact of Health Reform

Objectives. We examined the impact of Massachusetts health reform and its public health component (enacted in 2006) on change in health insurance coverage by perceived health.Methods. We used 2003–2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. We used a difference-in-differences framework to examine the experience in Massachusetts to predict the outcomes of national health care reform.Results. The proportion of adults aged 18 to 64 years with health insurance coverage increased more in Massachusetts than in other New England states (4.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.5%, 5.6%). For those with higher perceived health care need (more recent mentally and physically unhealthy days and activity limitation days [ALDs]), the postreform proportion significantly exceeded prereform (P < .001). Groups with higher perceived health care need represented a disproportionate increase in health insurance coverage in Massachusetts compared with other New England states—from 4.3% (95% CI = 3.3%, 5.4%) for fewer than 14 ALDs to 9.0% (95% CI = 4.5%, 13.5%) for 14 or more ALDs.Conclusions. On the basis of the Massachusetts experience, full implementation of the Affordable Care Act may increase health insurance coverage especially among populations with higher perceived health care need.The sweeping health reform initiative in Massachusetts, An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care (enacted April 12, 2006),1 provides a natural experiment with outcomes that may foreshadow those of the comprehensive national health reform President Obama signed into law 4 years later. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (enacted March 23, 2010)2 and amendments in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (enacted March 30, 2010),3 are collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).This landmark federal law includes provisions to strengthen the public health system, provide mandatory funding for prevention and wellness programs and activities, strengthen the Medicare program, implement insurance market reforms, bolster public health and primary care workforce, and improve the overall quality of the nation’s health system. The act focuses on expanding health insurance coverage and improving the health care delivery system beginning with incremental reforms in 2010 and following up with more substantial changes such as individual mandates, employer requirements, expansion of public programs, premium and cost-sharing subsidies to individuals, premium subsidies to employers, tax changes, and health insurance exchanges in 2014. Importantly, the law also prevents insurers from denying health insurance coverage or charging higher premiums on the basis of health status.4,5 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, when fully implemented in 2019, ACA will provide coverage to an additional 32 million Americans leaving about 23 million nonelderly people uninsured.6Systematic reviews of the literature on the impact of health insurance on health care utilization and health outcomes provide some convincing and some nuanced conclusions. These reviews consistently report evidence of increased utilization of physician and preventive services, improvements in the health of vulnerable populations, and lower mortality, conditional on injury and disease; however, how health insurance affects health outcomes for nonelderly adults remains unclear.7,8From a public health perspective, monitoring implementation of ACA at federal, state, and local levels will be important because this act will change health insurance coverage and access to care, and uptake of care, including preventive services and needed treatment; may alter health care finance and payment structures and care delivery systems as well as health expenditures; and may modify individual and population outcomes of care and health status. Studying the effects of health insurance would ideally rely on experimental evidence7 where health insurance was randomly assigned like the RAND Health Insurance Experiment and the Oregon Medicaid Lottery.9,10 In the absence of randomized experiments, owing to ethical and practical considerations, the need for conducting some social experiments or other approaches to infer causal conclusions from observational data are essential.7,11Fortunately, a natural experiment of near universal health insurance coverage combined with a targeted public health intervention has been unfolding in Massachusetts for more than 3 years and has been the subject of many studies. Researchers have studied various aspects of the impact of Massachusetts health reform, after 1 year,12 over the short term, comparing 18 months before and 18 months after the reform,13 on young adults and children,14,15 and even the effects of the recession.16 This evolving new body of research leaves a gap in our understanding of the impact of health reform by perceived health care need. We examined the impact of the Massachusetts health reform and its public health component on change in health insurance coverage by perceived health. We examined the impact of the natural experiment in Massachusetts as a model to predict likely outcomes of implementing ACA. Because Medicare already covers most of those aged 65 years and older we compared the effectiveness of mandatory versus optional health insurance among only the nonelderly adult population (aged 18–64 years) residing in Massachusetts and other New England states (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont).To do this, we compared data between the 3 years (2003–2005) before and the 3 years (2007–2009) after Massachusetts enacted the health reform law and between Massachusetts and other New England states that had no similar health reform laws. Massachusetts and other New England states had similar sociodemographic population characteristics and macroeconomic profiles (e.g., gross domestic product, unemployment rates) over this time period, including a similar impact of 2 years of recession (2007–2009).17,18 This allows not only “before-versus-after” but also “with-versus-without” analyses, a strategy employed by other researchers to explicate the impact of health reform laws and policy as a control for other elements.16,19We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the largest and longest-running state-representative, population-based telephone survey that has asked questions about health insurance coverage, health-promoting and health-compromising behaviors, and doctor-diagnosed chronic conditions. Existing federal government and state-sponsored surveys generate different estimates of uninsurance possibly explained by differences in survey design including coverage, reference period, mode, and questionnaire design (wording and placement of questions).20–22 First, we established the quality and the consistency of BRFSS health insurance coverage estimates by comparing these estimates for selected demographic and socioeconomic characteristics with other federal surveys that gather data on health insurance—the American Community Survey (ACS), the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS ASEC), and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The US Census Bureau added a question about health insurance to the 2008 ACS leading to the release of the first set of estimates in September 2009.23 The CPS ASEC is the most widely cited source for health insurance statistics. It is annual, timely, relatively large, and has a state-based design. The NHIS is a continuing nationwide survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.23We hypothesized a greater increase in the proportion of nonelderly adults with health insurance coverage in Massachusetts than in other New England states. We further hypothesized that nonelderly adults with greater perceived health care needs would be more likely to obtain health insurance coverage. Groups with greater perceived health care need would show a larger increase in health insurance coverage from prereform to postreform and in Massachusetts compared with other New England states.     

Building blocks for reform: achieving universal coverage with private and public group health insurance

This paper presents a framework for universal health insurance that builds on the current U.S. mixed private-public system by expanding group coverage through private markets and publicly sponsored insurance. This Building Blocks approach includes a new national insurance "connector" that offers small businesses and individuals a structured choice of a Medicare-like public option and private plans. Other features include an individual mandate, required employer contributions, Medicaid/State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion, and tax credits to assure affordability. The paper estimates coverage and costs, and assesses the approach. Our findings indicate that the framework could reach near-universal coverage with little net increase in national health spending.     

Validity of self-reported health plan information in a population-based health survey.

OBJECTIVE: To validate information on private health insurance coverage in a population-based study. METHODS: Respondents to the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were asked the name of their health plan company (affiliation) and specific brand of insurance (product), the duration in which they belonged to the plan, and demographic and health-related data. Information on plan affiliation and product was used to classify individuals on type of coverage. At the end of the survey, respondents with health insurance were asked to retrieve their health plan cards, and to read detailed information from the cards. Self-reported data were compared with information from the cards. RESULTS: Self-reported information on health plan affiliation agreed with plan cards for 93 percent of individuals, while agreement was 79 percent for health plan product. Among health maintenance organization (HMO) participants, 93 percent correctly reported being in an HMO (sensitivity), whereas 76 percent of respondents in a non-HMO plan correctly self-reported (specificity). Individuals with higher levels of income, those with a primary care doctor, and those in a health plan for at least 1 year had higher agreement. Higher validity was associated with poor physical health and recent cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported data on health plan affiliation and product have good validity in a population-based sample of adults. While agreement differs according to specific respondent characteristics, these differences do not appear substantial.