Search

Objective: To examine the temporal relationship between the anti-discrimination rules of the Affordable Care Act, which took full effect in 2017, and the incidence of commercial claims for gender-affirming care, as well as cost sharing for these services., Methods: We used a previously described algorithm to define a cohort of gender-diverse adults in the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Claims for gender-affirming medical and surgical care were identified using International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes plus pharmacy data; the annual incidence of surgical claims was calculated. Interrupted time series analyses were used to evaluate the temporal relationship between claims and anti-discrimination legislation. Claims data were also used to evaluate the patient contribution towards services., Results: There were 70,733 gender-diverse adults included in the study and 36,702 (51.9%) of them filed claims for gender-affirming care. The incidence of persons with claims for gender-affirming surgery increased from 0.002% in 2009 to 0.012% in 2021. Interrupted time series analyses demonstrated a greater year-to-year increase in claims after anti-discrimination policy influences took effect. This change was greatest for transmasculine chest procedures. The median lifetime net payment for gender-affirming surgery was $12,429.10 and cost sharing was $1019.20 (8.6%)., Conclusion: Commercial claims for gender-affirming surgery increased temporally with respect to implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and cost-sharing was reasonably low. However, many gender-diverse persons did not have claims for gender-affirming care, which may indicate continued out-of-pocket payment for these services., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) was the most significant policy breakthrough to expand health insurance coverage in the USA in 45 years. Culminating a decade-long effort by Republicans to repeal and undermine the ACA, the Trump administration launched a panoply of executive initiatives to sabotage the law. Benefitting from Democratic control of both the House and Senate during its first 2 years, the Biden administration through legislative and executive initiatives made substantial headway in reversing Trump's sabotage and further reinvigorating the ACA. The 2022 elections witnessed a shift in the partisan milieu. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives; Democrats scored modest gains in state elections. Emphasising two pivotal features of American governance - federalism and the outsized role of the courts - this essay examines the implications of this new partisan context for Biden's efforts to bolster ACA durability prior to the 2024 presidential election.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a central issue dividing Republicans and Democrats for the decade following its 2010 enactment. As such, it offers key lessons about policy making and public opinion during a highly polarized political period. The author draws out some of those lessons from his 2023 book Stable Condition: Elites' Limited Influence on Health Care Attitudes, detailing how polarization shaped both the elite- and mass-level politics of the ACA. At the elite level, polarization and nationalization within the federal and state governments laid the groundwork for a highly complex law that was a patchwork of policies experienced very differently by different Americans. At the mass level, polarization and nationalization contributed to a remarkable level of stability in public opinion, so much so that even direct beneficiaries of the law did not typically become markedly more positive toward it. Elite efforts at opinion leadership through policy making and messaging were largely unsuccessful., (Copyright © 2024 by Duke University Press.)

The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") contains a section titled "Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage." Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate's constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide the case on grounds of Article III standing. But how would the ACA have fared if the Court had in fact reached the merits? Did resetting the Individual Mandate penalty to zero uncloak the provision from the saving construction of Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius? This Note posits that, had the Court reached the merits, it would have found the Individual Mandate no longer met the requirements for classification as a tax under the rule relied on in NFIB. Moreover, it argues that the Court would have found the unconstitutional provision to be inseverable from the ACA insofar as it was integral to funding both the novel structure of the reformed healthcare system and the prohibition against insurance carriers denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This examination ultimately reveals that an outright repeal of the ACA would have been antidemocratic in the face of current consensus opinion that favors the reform and highlights the impact its abrogation would have had., (Copyright by Cleveland State University.)

Background & Methods: National protests in the summer of 2020 drew attention to the significant presence of police in marginalized communities. Recent social movements have called for substantial police reforms, including "defunding the police," a phrase originating from a larger, historical abolition movement advocating that public investments be redirected away from the criminal justice system and into social services and health care. Although research has demonstrated the expansive role of police to respond a broad range of social problems and health emergencies, existing research has yet to fully explore the capacity for health insurance policy to influence rates of arrest in the population. To fill this gap, we examine the potential effect of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on arrests in 3,035 U.S. counties. We compare county-level arrests using FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program Data before and after Medicaid expansion in 2014-2016, relative to counties in non-expansion states. We use difference-in-differences (DID) models to estimate the change in arrests following Medicaid expansion for overall arrests, and violent, drug, and low-level arrests., Results: Police arrests significantly declined following the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA. Medicaid expansion produced a 20-32% negative difference in overall arrests rates in the first three years. We observe the largest negative differences for drug arrests: we find a 25-41% negative difference in drug arrests in the three years following Medicaid expansion, compared to non-expansion counties. We observe a 19-29% negative difference in arrests for violence in the three years after Medicaid expansion, and a decrease in low-level arrests between 24-28% in expansion counties compared to non-expansion counties. Our main results for drug arrests are robust to multiple sensitivity analyses, including a state-level model., Conclusions: Evidence in this paper suggests that expanded Medicaid insurance reduced police arrests, particularly drug-related arrests. Combined with research showing the harmful health consequences of chronic policing in disadvantaged communities, greater insurance coverage creates new avenues for individuals to seek care, receive treatment, and avoid criminalization. As police reform is high on the agenda at the local, state, and federal level, our paper supports the perspective that broad health policy reforms can meaningfully reduce contact with the criminal justice system under historic conditions of mass criminalization., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: The Balancing Incentive Program (BIP) was an optional program for states within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to promote Medicaid-funded home and community-based services (HCBS) for older adults and persons with disabilities. Twenty-one states opted to participate in BIP, including several states steadfastly opposed to the health insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act. This study focused on identifying what factors were associated with states' participation in this program., Methods: Event history analysis was used to model state adoption of BIP from 2011 to 2014. A range of potential factors was considered representing states' economic, political, and programmatic conditions., Results: The results indicate that states with a higher percentage of Democrats in the state legislature, fewer state employees per capita, and more nursing facility beds were more likely to adopt BIP. In addition, states with fewer home health agencies per capita, that devoted smaller proportions of Medicaid long-term care spending to HCBS, and that had more Money Follows the Person transitions were also more likely to pursue BIP., Discussion: The findings highlight the role of partisanship, administrative capacity, and program history in state BIP adoption decisions. The inclusion of BIP in the Affordable Care Act may have deterred some states from participating in the program due to partisan opposition to the legislation. To encourage the adoption of optional HCBS programs, federal policymakers should consider the role of financial incentives, especially for states with limited bureaucratic capacity and that have made less progress rebalancing Medicaid long-term services and supports., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Low-income young adults disproportionately experience traumatic injury and poor trauma outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, in its first 4 years, on trauma care and outcomes in young adults, overall and by race, ethnicity, and ZIP code-level median income., Study Design: Statewide hospital discharge data from 5 states that did and 5 states that did not implement Medicaid expansion were used to perform difference-in-difference (DD) analyses. Changes in insurance coverage and outcomes from before (2011-2013) to after (2014-2017) Medicaid expansion and open enrollment were examined in trauma patients aged 19 to 44 years., Results: Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in the percentage of uninsured patients (DD -16.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.1 to -15.9 percentage points). This decrease was larger among Black patients but smaller among Hispanic patients than White patients. It was also larger among patients from lower-income ZIP codes (p < 0.05 for all). Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in discharge to inpatient rehabilitation (DD 0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9 percentage points). This increase was larger among patients from the lowest-compared with highest-income ZIP codes (p < 0.05). Medicaid expansion was not associated with changes in in-hospital mortality or readmission or return ED visit rates overall, but was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality among Black patients (DD -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.1 percentage points)., Conclusions: The Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion, in its first 4 years, increased insurance coverage and access to rehabilitation among young adult trauma patients. It also reduced the socioeconomic disparity in inpatient rehabilitation access and the disparity in in-hospital mortality between Black and White patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients., Methods: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states., Results: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged., Conclusion: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Preconception health care is heralded as an essential method of improving pregnancy health and outcomes. However, access to health care for low-income US women of reproductive age has been limited because of a lack of health insurance. Expansions of Medicaid program eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (as well as prior expansions in some states) have changed this circumstance and expanded health insurance coverage for low-income women. These Medicaid expansions provide an opportunity to assess whether obtaining health insurance coverage improves prepregnancy and pregnancy health and reduces prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes. We tested this hypothesis using vital statistics data from 2011-2017 on singleton births to female US residents aged 15-44 years. We examined associations between preconception exposure to Medicaid expansion and measures of prepregnancy health, pregnancy health, and pregnancy outcomes using a difference-in-differences empirical approach. Increased Medicaid eligibility was not associated with improvements in prepregnancy or pregnancy health measures and did not reduce the prevalence of adverse birth outcomes (e.g., prevalence of preterm birth increased by 0.1 percentage point (95% confidence interval: -0.2, 0.3)). Increasing Medicaid eligibility alone may be insufficient to improve prepregnancy or pregnancy health and birth outcomes. Preconception programming in combination with attention to other structural determinants of pregnancy health is needed., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The year 2020 marks the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Perhaps the greatest overhaul of the US health care system in the past 50 y, the ACA sought to expand access to care, improve quality, and reduce health care costs. Over the past decade, there have been a number of challenges and changes to the law, which remains in evolution. While the ACA's policies were not intended to specifically target surgical care, surgical patients, surgeons, and the health systems within which they function have all been greatly affected. This article aims to provide a brief overview of the impact of the ACA on surgical patients in reference to its tripartite aim of improving access, improving quality, and reducing costs., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Before his incoherent response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus of President Trump's health policy agenda was the elimination of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which he has called a 'disaster'. The attacks on the ACA included proposals to repeal the law through the legislative process, to erode it through a series of executive actions, and to ask the courts to declare it unconstitutional. Despite these ongoing challenges, the ACA remains largely intact as the U.S. heads into the 2020 election. The longer term fate of the law, however, is uncertain and the outcome of the 2020 election is likely to have a dramatic effect on the direction of health policy in the U.S.

Background: Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, there has been a push away from fee-for-service payment models. The rise of bundled payments has drastically impacted plastic surgeons' incomes, especially nonsalaried surgeons in private practice. As a result, physicians must now attempt to optimize contractual reimbursement agreements (carve-outs) with insurance providers. The aim of this article is to explain the economics behind negotiating carve-outs and to offer a how-to guide for plastic surgeons to use in such negotiations., Methods: Based on work relative value units, Medicare reimbursement, overhead expenses, physician workload, and desired income, the authors present an approach that allows surgeons to evaluate the reimbursement they receive for various procedures. The authors then review factors that influence whether a carve-out can be pursued. Finally, the authors consider relevant nuances of negotiating with insurance companies., Results: Using tissue expander insertion (CPT 19357) as an example, the authors review the mathematics, thought process required, and necessary steps in determining whether a carve-out should be pursued. Strategies for negotiation with insurance companies were identified. The presented approach can be used to potentially negotiate a carve-out for any reconstructive procedure that meets appropriate financial criteria., Conclusions: Understanding practice costs will allow plastic surgeons to evaluate the true value of insurance reimbursements and determine whether a carve-out is worth pursuing. Plastic surgeons must be prepared to negotiate adequate reimbursement carve-outs whenever possible. Ultimately, by aligning the best quality patient care with insurance companies' financial motivations, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to improve reimbursement for some reconstructive procedures., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Abstract: To examine the impact of inadequate health insurance coverage on physician utilization among older adults using a novel quasi-experimental design in the time period following the elimination of cost sharing for most preventative services under the US Affordable Care Act of 2010.The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey full year consolidated data files for the period 2010 to 2017 were used to construct a pooled cross-sectional dataset of adults aged 60 to 70. Regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the impact of transitioning between non-Medicare and Medicare plans on use of routine office-based physician visits and emergency room visits.For the overall population, gaining access to Medicare at age 65 is associated with a higher propensity to make routine office-based visits (2.94 percentage points [pp]; P < .01) and lower out-of-pocket costs (-23.86 pp; P < .01) Similarly, disenrollment from non-Medicare insurance plans at age 66 was associated with more routine office-based visits (3.01 pp; P < .01) and less out-of-pocket costs (-8.09 pp; P < .10). However, some minority groups reported no changes in visits and out-of-pocket costs or reported an increased propensity to make emergency department visits.Enrollment into Medicare from non-Medicare insurance plans was associated with increased use of routine office-based services and lower out-of-pocket costs. However, some subgroups reported no changes in routine visits or costs or an increased propensity to make emergency department visits. These findings suggest other nonfinancial, structural barriers may exist that limit patient's ability to access routine services., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: To provide evidence on the effects of expansions to private and public insurance programs on adolescent specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment use., Data Source/study Setting: The Treatment Episodes Data Set (TEDS), 1996 to 2017., Study Design: A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design using observational data., Data Collection: The TEDS provides administrative data on admissions to specialty SUD treatment., Principal Findings: Expansions of laws that compel private insurers to cover SUD treatment services at parity with general health care increase adolescent admissions by 26% (P < .05). These increases are driven by nonintensive outpatient admissions, the most common treatment episodes, which rise by 30% (P < .05) postparity law. In contrast, increases in income eligibility for public insurance targeting those 6-18 years old are not statistically associated with SUD treatment., Conclusions: Private insurance expansions allow more adolescents to receive SUD treatment, while public insurance income eligibility expansions do not appear to influence adolescent SUD treatment., (© 2020 Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: Women with gynecologic cancer face socioeconomic disparities in care that affect survival outcomes. The Affordable Care Act offered states the option to expand Medicaid enrollment eligibility criteria as a means of improving timely and affordable access to care for the most vulnerable. The variable uptake of expansion by states created a natural experiment, allowing for quasi-experimental methods that offer more unbiased estimates of treatment effects from retrospective data than the traditional regression adjustment., Objective: To use a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference framework to create unbiased estimates of impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer., Study Design: We performed a quasi-experimental retrospective cohort study from the National Cancer Database files for women with invasive cancers of the uterus, ovary and fallopian tube, cervix, vagina, and vulva diagnosed from 2008 to 2016. Using a marker for state Medicaid expansion status, we created difference-in-difference models to assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on the outcomes of access to and timeliness of care. We excluded women aged <40 years owing to the suppression of the state Medicaid expansions status in the data and women aged ≥65 years owing to the universal Medicare coverage availability. Our primary outcome was the rate of uninsurance at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included Medicaid coverage, early-stage diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and any treatment or surgery within 30 days of diagnosis. Models were run within multiple subgroups and on a propensity-matched cohort to assess the robustness of the treatment estimates. The assumption of parallel trends was assessed with event study time plots., Results: Our sample included 335,063 women. Among this cohort, 121,449 were from nonexpansion states and 213,614 were from expansion states, with 79,886 posttreatment cases diagnosed after the expansion took full effect in expansion states. The groups had minor differences in demographics, and we found occasional preperiod event study coefficients diverging from the mean, but the outcome trends were generally similar between the expansion and nonexpansion states in the preperiod, satisfying the necessary assumption for the difference-in-difference analysis. In a basic difference-in-difference model, the Medicaid expansion in January 2014 was associated with significant increases in insurance at diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and treatment within 30 days of diagnosis (P<.001 for all). In an adjusted model including all states and accounting for variable expansion implementation time, there was a significant treatment effect of Medicaid expansion on the reduction in uninsurance at diagnosis (-2.00%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3 to -1.7; P<.001), increases in early-stage diagnosis (0.80%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.4; P=.02), treatment at an academic facility (0.83%; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.5; P=.02), treatment within 30 days (1.62%; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.3; P<.001), and surgery within 30 days (1.54%; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.3; P<.001). In particular, large gains were estimated for women living in low-income zip codes, Hispanic women, and women with cervical cancer. Estimates from the subgroup and propensity-matched cohorts were generally consistent for all outcomes besides early-stage diagnosis and treatment within 30 days., Conclusion: Medicaid expansion was significantly associated with gains in the access and timeliness of treatment for nonelderly women with gynecologic cancer. The implementation of Medicaid expansion could greatly benefit women in nonexpansion states. Gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists should advocate for Medicaid expansion as a means of improving outcomes and reducing socioeconomic and racial disparities., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Summary: The Affordable Care Act's provisions have affected and will continue to affect plastic surgeons and their patients, and an understanding of its influence on the current American health care system is essential. The law's impact on pediatric plastic surgery, craniofacial surgery, and breast reconstruction is well documented. In addition, gender-affirmation surgery has seen exponential growth, largely because of expanded insurance coverage through the protections afforded to transgender individuals by the Affordable Care Act. As gender-affirming surgery continues to grow, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to adapt and diversify their practices., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

States' decisions to expand Medicaid may have important implications for their hospitals' financial ability to weather the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study estimated the effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on hospital finances in 2017 to update earlier findings. The analysis also explored how the ACA Medicaid expansion affects different types of hospitals by size, ownership, rurality, and safety-net status. We found that the early positive financial impact of Medicaid expansion was sustained in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 as hospitals in expansion states continued to experience decreased uncompensated care costs and increased Medicaid revenue and financial margins. The magnitude of these impacts varied by hospital type. As COVID-19 has brought hospitals to a time of great need, findings from this study provide important information on what hospitals in states that have yet to expand Medicaid could gain through expansion and what is at risk should any reversal of Medicaid expansions occur.

Building a culture of precision public health requires research that includes health delivery model with innovative systems, health policies, and programs that support this vision. Health insurance mandates are effective mechanisms that many state policymakers use to increase the utilization of preventive health services, such as colorectal cancer screening. This study estimated the effects of health insurance mandate variations on colorectal cancer screening post Affordable Care Act (ACA) era. The study analyzed secondary data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the NCI State Cancer Legislative Database (SCLD) from 1997 to 2014. BRFSS data were merged with SCLD data by state ID. The target population was U.S. adults, age 50 to 74, who lived in states where health insurance was mandated or nonmandated before and after the implementation of ACA. Using a difference-in-differences (DD) approach with a time-series analysis, we evaluated the effects of health insurance mandates on colorectal cancer screening status based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. The adjusted average marginal effects from the DD model indicate that health insurance mandates increased the probability of up-to-date screenings versus noncompliance by 2.8% points, suggesting that an estimated 2.37 million additional age-eligible persons would receive a screening with such health insurance mandates. Compliant participants' mean age was 65 years and 57% were women ( n = 32,569). Our findings are robust for various model specifications. Health insurance mandates that lower out-of-pocket expenses constitute an effective approach to increase colorectal cancer screenings for the population, as a whole. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: The value added includes future health care reforms that increase access to preventive services, such as CRC screening, are likely with lower out-of-pocket costs and will increase the number of people who are considered "up-to-date". Such policies have been used historically to improve health outcomes, and they are currently being used as public health strategies to increase access to preventive health services in an effort to improve the nation's health., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: The Affordable Care Act allows insurers to charge up to 50% higher premiums to tobacco users, making tobacco use the only behavioral factor that can be used to rate premiums in the nongroup insurance market. Some states have set more restrictive limits on rating for tobacco use, and several states have outlawed tobacco premium surcharges altogether. We examined the impact of state level tobacco surcharge policy on health insurance enrollment decisions among smokers., Study Design: We compared insurance enrollment in states that did and did not allow tobacco surcharges, using a difference-in-difference approach to compare the policy effects among smokers and nonsmokers. We also used geographic variation in tobacco surcharges to examine how the size of the surcharge affects insurance coverage, again comparing smokers to nonsmokers., Data Collection: We linked data from two components of the Current Population Survey-the 2015 and 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the Tobacco Use Supplement, which we combined with data on marketplace plan premiums. We also collected qualitative data from a survey of smokers who did not have insurance through an employer or public program., Principal Findings: Allowing a tobacco surcharge reduced insurance enrollment among smokers by 4.0 percentage points (P = .01). Further, smokers without insurance through an employer or public program were 9.0 percentage points less likely (P < .01) to enroll in a nongroup plan if they were subject to a tobacco surcharge. In states with surcharges, enrollment among smokers was 3.4 percentage points lower (P < .01) for every 10 percentage point increase in the tobacco surcharge., Conclusions: Tobacco use is the largest cause of preventable illness in the United States. State tobacco surcharge policy may have a substantial impact on whether tobacco users choose to remain insured and consequently their ability to receive care critical for preventing and treating tobacco-related disease., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objective: To assess the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion's impact on new hypertension and diabetes diagnoses in community health centres (CHCs)., Design: Rates of new hypertension and diabetes diagnoses were computed using generalised estimating equation Poisson models and we tested the difference-in-difference (DID) pre-ACA versus post-ACA in states that expanded Medicaid compared with those that did not., Setting: We used electronic health record data (pre-ACA: 1 January 2012-31 December 2013-post-ACA: 1 January 2014-31 December 2016) from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network clinical data network. We included clinics with ≥50 patients contributing to person-time-at risk in each study year., Participants: Patients aged 19-64 with ≥1 ambulatory visit in the study period were included. We then excluded patients who were pregnant during the study period (N=127 530). For the hypertension outcome, we excluded individuals with a diagnosis of hypertension prior to the start of the study period, those who had a hypertension diagnosis on their first visit to a clinic or their first visit after 3 years without a visit, and those who had a diagnosis more than 3 years after their last visit (pre-ACA non-expansion N=130 973; expansion N=193 198; post-ACA non-expansion N=186 341; expansion N=251 015). For the diabetes analysis, we excluded patients with a diabetes diagnosis prior to study start, on their first visit or first visit after inactive patient status, and diagnosis while not an active patient (pre-ACA non-expansion N=145 435; expansion N=198 558; post-ACA non-expansion N=215 039; expansion N=264 644)., Results: In non-expansion states, adjusted hypertension diagnosis rates saw a relative decrease of 6%, while in expansion states, the adjusted rates saw a relative increase of 7% (DID 1.14, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.18). For diabetes diagnosis, adjusted rates in non-expansion states experienced a significant relative increase of 28% and in expansion states the relative increase was 25%; yet these differences were not significant pre-ACA to post-ACA comparing expansion and non-expansion states (DID 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05)., Conclusion: There was a differential impact of Medicaid expansion for hypertension and diabetes diagnoses. Moderate increases were found in diabetes diagnosis rates among all patients served by CHCs post-ACA (both in expansion and non-expansion states). These increases suggest that ACA-related opportunities to gain health insurance (such as marketplaces and the Medicaid expansion) may have facilitated access to diagnostic tests for this population. The study found a small change in hypertension diagnosis rates from pre-ACA to post-ACA (a decrease in non-expansion and an increase in expansion states). Despite the significant difference between expansion and non-expansion states, the small change from pre-ACA to post-ACA suggests that the diagnosis of hypertension is likely documented for patients, regardless of health insurance availability. Future studies are needed to understand the impact of the ACA on hypertension and diabetes treatment and control., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may be associated with increased screening and may improve access to earlier treatment for cancer, but its association with mortality for patients with cancer is uncertain., Objective: To determine whether Medicaid expansion is associated with improved mortality among patients with cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference (DID), cross-sectional, population-based study. Patients in the National Cancer Database with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer newly diagnosed from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, were included. Data analysis was performed from January to May 2020., Exposure: Living in a state where Medicaid was expanded vs a nonexpansion state., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was mortality rate according to whether the patient lived in a state where Medicaid was expanded., Results: A total of 523 802 patients (385 739 women [73.6%]; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [6.5] years) had a new diagnosis of invasive breast (273 272 patients [52.2%]), colorectal (111 720 patients [21.3%]), or lung (138 810 patients [26.5%]) cancer; 289 330 patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states, and 234 472 patients (44.8%) lived in nonexpansion states. After Medicaid expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; P = .43), resulting in a significant DID (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P = .01). This difference was seen primarily in patients with nonmetastatic cancer (stages I-III). After adjusting for cancer stage, the mortality improvement in expansion states from the periods before and after expansion was no longer evident (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; P = .94), nor was the difference between expansion vs nonexpansion states (DID HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; P = .84)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with newly diagnosed breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decreased hazard of mortality in the postexpansion period, which was mediated by earlier stage of diagnosis.

Importance: Reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with improved patterns of contraception use. It is unknown whether reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with fewer births., Objective: To evaluate changes in birth rates by income level among commercially insured women before (2008-2013) and after (2014-2018) the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from Clinformatics Data Mart database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, for women aged 15 to 45 years who were enrolled in an employer-based health plan and had pregnancy benefits for at least 1 year. Women without household income information and women with evidence of having undergone a hysterectomy were excluded., Exposure: Section 2713 of the ACA., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of reproductive-aged women with a live birth by year (measured yearly from 2008 to 2018 [11 time points]) within 3 income categories. The secondary outcome was the distribution of contraceptive method fills in 3 categories by year: (1) most effective methods (long-acting reversible contraception or sterilization), (2) moderately effective methods (pill, patch, ring, and injectable), and (3) no prescription or surgical method., Results: The analytic sample included 4 590 989 women (mean [SD] age; 30.8 [9.1] years in 2013; 3 069 053 White [66.9%]) enrolled in 47 721 health plans. A total of 500 898 participants (40.8%) resided in households with incomes less than 400% of the federal poverty level in 2013. In all 3 years (2008, 2013, and 2018), women in the lowest income category were younger than women in the other income groups (median range, 21-22 years vs 30-34 years) and in households with a higher median number of dependents (9-10 vs 2-4). There was an associated decrease in births in all income groups in the period after the elimination of out-of-pocket costs. The estimated probability of birth decreased most precipitously among women in the lowest income group from 8.0% (95% CI, 7.4%-8.5%) in 2014 to 6.2% (95% CI, 5.7%-6.7%) in 2018, representing a 22.2% decrease (P < .001). The estimated probability decreased in the middle income group by 9.4%, from 6.4% (95% CI, 6.3%-6.4%) to 5.8% (95% CI, 5.7%-5.8%) (P < .001), and in the highest income group by 1.8%, from 5.6% (95% CI, 5.6%-5.7%) to 5.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-5.5%) (P < .001) in the period after the elimination of cost sharing., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the ACA was associated with improvements in contraceptive method prescription fills and a decrease in births among commercially insured women. Women with low income had more precipitous decreases than women with higher income, suggesting that enhanced access to contraception may address well-documented income-related disparities in unintended birth rates.

Introduction: The Affordable Care Act of 2010 expanded Medicaid to low-income adults at or below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The aim of this study was to examine if expanding Medicaid to adults had an impact on preventive health care utilization of children from low-income families (focusing on families with annual incomes 0%-99% and 100%-199% of the FPL)., Methods: This study used data from the 2016 and 2017 National Survey of Children's Health and a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences method. The dependent variable was the number of preventive care visits in the past year and the primary independent variable was the Medicaid expansion status of the state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016 (treatment group) and neighboring nonexpansion states of Texas and Mississippi constituted the control group. Differences in dependent variable were calculated between survey years 2016 and 2017., Results: In Louisiana, the change in the predicted probability of at least 1 preventive care visit among children of ages 0-17 years, from 0% to 99% FPL families, was higher by 26 percentage points after Medicaid was expanded (2017 vs. 2016), as compared with the change in the predicted probability (2017 vs. 2016) of at least 1 preventive care visit among children of ages 0-17 years, from 0% to 99% FPL families in the nonexpansion states, Texas and Mississippi., Conclusions: Children in poverty residing in a Medicaid expansion state, Louisiana, had increased likelihood of having an annual preventive care visit after expansion of Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, as compared with children in nonexpansion states. Thus, this study showed that the implications of the public health insurance expansion for adults were not limited to adult health outcomes, but extended to children's health care utilization.

The Affordable Care Act has been a lightning rod for litigation, generating hundreds of cases seeking to have all or parts of the law declared illegal. This article focuses on Supreme Court cases that have assessed the ACA over the past decade and highlights those on the Court's pending docket., (©2020 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.)