Effects of state reinsurance programs on health insurance exchange premiums and insurer participation

Objective

The aim of the study was to estimate the effect of the state-based reinsurance programs through the section 1332 State Innovation Waivers on health insurance marketplace premiums and insurer participation.

Data Source

2015 to 2022 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Insurance Exchange Compare Datasets.

Study Design

An event study difference-in-differences (DD) model separately for each year of implementation and a synthetic control method (SCM) are used to estimate year-by-year effects following program implementation.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

Not applicable.

Principal Findings

Reinsurance programs were associated with a decline in premiums in the first year of implementation by 10%–13%, 5%–19%, and 11%–17% for bronze, silver, and gold plans (p < 0.05). There is a trend of sustained declines especially for states that implemented their programs in 2019 and 2020. The SCM analyses suggest some effect heterogeneity across states but also premium declines across most states. There is no evidence that reinsurance programs affected insurer participation.

Conclusion

State-based reinsurance programs have the potential to improve the affordability of health insurance coverage. However, reinsurance programs do not appear to have had an effect on insurer participation, highlighting the need for policy makers to consider complementary strategies to encourage insurer participation.     

2010—2020年北京市房山区梅毒防治效果分析

目的了解北京市房山区梅毒规划(2010—2020年)实施期间梅毒防治效果和各考核指标达标情况,为下一步制定有效的梅毒防治策略提供科学依据。方法根据《中国预防与控制梅毒规划(2010—2020年)》(以下简称《梅控规划》)终期评估的要求,通过专网、现场调查、APP答题等方式对涉及的16个指标进行收集,并将16个指标划分为梅毒防治保障措施的落实、防治工作开展和防治效果3个层面进行评估,同时将评估结果与终期评估标准进行比较。采用SPSS 18.0软件进行描述性统计分析。结果2010—2020年北京市房山区共报告梅毒病例3260例,年均报告发病率27.99/10万,年均增长0.08%,男女比例基本持平,以25岁年龄组病例数最多,历年病例均以隐性梅毒为主。保障措施与能力建设方面均达标;防治工作方面:感染梅毒的孕产妇所生婴幼儿接受规范诊疗服务的比例为50.00%,梅毒患者接受规范化治疗的比例86.11%,两指标未达标,其余均达标;防治效果中一期和二期梅毒年报告发病率增长幅度为3.80%,未达标,先天梅毒年报告发病率为9.25/10万活产数达到了《梅控规划》的工作要求。结论2010—2020年北京市房山区梅毒防治工作取得了一定成效,但部分指标仍未达标,应继续加强梅毒防治工作,尤其是需提高规范化诊疗的比例同时控制新发梅毒发病率。     

Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.     

Losing the uphill battle? Emergent harm reduction interventions and barriers during the opioid overdose crisis in Canada

Canada continues to experience an escalating opioid overdose crisis that has claimed more than 8000 lives in the country since 2016. The presence of the synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogues is a central contributor to the increases in preventable opioid-related deaths. However, a number of converging social-structural factors (e.g., the continued criminalisation of drug use, political changes) and political barriers are also complicating and contributing to the current crisis. We briefly outline four harm reduction interventions (i.e., injectable opioid agonist treatment, naloxone distribution programs, overdose prevention sites, and drug checking services) as emerging and rapidly expanding responses to this crisis in Canada. These examples of innovation and expansion are encouraging but also occurring at the same time that the opioid overdose crisis shows few signs of abating. To truly address the crisis, Canada needs political environments at all government levels that are responsive and foster harm reduction innovation and drug policy experimentation.