Individual Health Insurance Coverage Research Articles

Who benefits from alcohol screening and brief intervention? A mini-review on socioeconomic inequalities with a focus on evidence from the United States

Alcohol-attributable mortality contributes to growing health inequalities. Addressing hazardous alcohol use and alcohol use disorders through alcohol screening and brief intervention is therefore a promising public health strategy to improve health equity. In this narrative mini-review, we discuss the extent to which socioeconomic differences exist in the alcohol screening and brief intervention cascade, highlighting the example of the United States. We have searched PubMed to identify and summarize relevant literature addressing socioeconomic inequalities in (a) accessing and affording healthcare, (b) receiving alcohol screenings, and/or (c) receiving brief interventions, focusing predominantly on literature from the Unites States. We found evidence for income-related inequalities in access to healthcare in the United States, partly due to inadequate health insurance coverage for individuals with low socioeconomic status. Alcohol screening coverage appears to be generally very low, as is the probability of receiving a brief intervention when indicated. However, research suggests that the latter is more likely to be provided to individuals with low socioeconomic status than those with high socioeconomic status. Individuals with low socioeconomic status also tend to benefit more from brief interventions, showing greater reductions in their alcohol use. Once access to and affordability of healthcare is ensured and high coverage of alcohol screening is achieved for all, alcohol screening and brief interventions have the potential to enhance health equity by reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related health harms.

Effects of the affordable care Act's Medicaid expansion on health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples.

To examine whether the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) Medicaid expansions affected health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples. We used data on adults aged 18-64 years in same-sex couples (n=33,512) from the 2008-2018 American Community Survey (ACS). To estimate the effect of the impact of the state Medicaid expansions under the ACA on health insurance coverage for sexual minorities, we utilize a standard difference-in-differences approach to leverage the variation across geography and time in expanding Medicaid. Secondary and publicly available ACS data were obtained from IPUMS at the University of Minnesota. We find that Medicaid expansion significantly increased health insurance coverage among low-income men and women in same-sex couples by 4.9 (standard error [SE]=1.75) and 6.5 (SE=1.96) percentage points, respectively. We find increases in the likelihood of having Medicaid and reductions in private health insurance from an employer or privately purchased insurance. Effects on Medicaid take-up are consistently larger for low-income women in same-sex couples as compared to low-income men in same-sex couples. We provide the first evidence on the relationship between state Medicaid expansions under the ACA and health insurance coverage among sexual minority adults, a group that has been understudied in past research. Our results confirm that sexual minority adults benefitted from the ACA's Medicaid expansions with respect to increased health insurance coverage.

Evaluation of Changes in US Health Insurance Coverage for Individuals With Criminal Legal Involvement in Medicaid Expansion and Nonexpansion States, 2010 to 2017

This cross-sectional study compares changes in health insurance coverage from 2010 to 2017 for low-income US adults with criminal legal involvement in states that did and did not adopt the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act.

Effects of the Affordable Care Act Dependent Coverage Mandate on Health Insurance Coverage for Individuals in Same-Sex Couples.

A large body of research documents that the 2010 dependent coverage mandate of the U.S. Affordable Care Act was responsible for significantly increasing health insurance coverage among young adults. No prior research has examined whether sexual minority young adults also benefitted from the dependent coverage mandate despite previous studies showing lower health insurance coverage among sexual minorities. Our estimates from the American Community Survey, using difference-in-differences and event study models, show that men in same-sex couples aged 21-25 experienced a significantly greater increase in the likelihood of having any health insurance after 2010 than older, 27- to 31-year-old men in same-sex couples. This increase is concentrated among employer-sponsored insurance, and it is robust to permutations of periods and age groups. Effects for women in same-sex couples and men in different-sex couples are smaller than the associated effects for men in same-sex couples. These findings confirm the broad effects of expanded dependent coverage and suggest that eliminating the federal dependent mandate could reduce health insurance coverage among young adult sexual minorities in same-sex couples.

Effects of the Affordable Care Act Dependent Coverage Mandate on Health Insurance Coverage for Individuals in Same-Sex Couples

A large body of research documents that the 2010 dependent coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act was responsible for significantly increasing health insurance coverage among young adults. No prior research has examined whether sexual minority young adults also benefitted from the dependent coverage mandate, despite previous studies showing lower health insurance coverage among sexual minorities and the fact that their higher likelihood of strained relationships with their parents might predict a lower ability to use parental coverage. Our estimates from the American Community Surveys using difference-in-differences and event study models show that men in same-sex couples age 21-25 were significantly more likely to have any health insurance after 2010 compared to the associated change for slightly older 27 to 31-year-old men in same-sex couples. This increase is concentrated among employer-sponsored insurance, and it is robust to permutations of time periods and age groups. Effects for women in same-sex couples and men in different-sex couples are smaller than the associated effects for men in same-sex couples. These findings confirm the broad effects of expanded dependent coverage and suggest that eliminating the federal dependent mandate could reduce health insurance coverage among young adult sexual minorities in same-sex couples.

ACA Heads Back To Supreme Court.

The high court will consider risk corridors payments as developments continue in areas like HRAs and contraceptive coverage.

Assessing Individual Health Insurance Coverage and Utilization Before and After the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The adoption of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010 with the intent to improve the U.S. health care delivery system by expanding health insurance coverage and controlling health care costs has generated intense debate regarding its implementation. Marketplaces known as insurance exchanges have been established to provide coverage for Americans who otherwise could not get affordable health care benefits. These exchanges have been plagued with financial losses and other challenges leading to several large insurance providers discontinuing participation in the program. There are many possible remedies under consideration to make the program work better. This research seeks to support program evaluation as well as potential modifications to the law by providing baseline data to compare access and costs in states with state-based exchanges compared to states with federal exchanges. The authors perform an analysis by state for the years 2012 and 2013 (pre-PPACA implementation) using data from the Current Population Survey (U.S. Census) as well as de-identified claims data from Inovalon, Inc.

Change, Challenge, and Opportunity: Psychiatry in the Age of Health Care Reform

Change, Challenge, and Opportunity: Psychiatry in the Age of Health Care Reform

Health Insurance Exchanges: Governance Issues for New Jersey

The Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) enacted sweeping changes in public and private insurance law. One key aspect of the ACA’s reform of the private insurance market is its provision for the creation of health insurance exchanges. The idea of health insurance exchanges is not new. Indeed, New Jersey for almost two decades has operated versions of exchanges for the individual and small group markets, and therefore has some experience in organizing relatively uniform and transparent insurance markets for the benefit of consumers. The ACA creates obligations and opportunities for New Jersey to further this effort. Before the exchanges can begin operating, facilitating the broader provision of health coverage for the people of New Jersey, a fundamental question must be asked: how might the New Jersey Legislature design the governance of this new entity? The issues that arise in connection with exchange governance are many, and their difficulty should not be minimized. The goal, however, is to effectively and efficiently serve the needs of New Jersey within the framework created by the ACA in a manner consistent with the public principles of our State regarding health insurance coverage for individuals and small groups. Other implementation issues will be addressed in future Briefs; the focus of this Brief is the governance of the new entity that will implement the Legislature’s vision.The New Jersey Legislature is actively considering several bills that would create health insurance exchanges.

Creation Of State Basic Health Programs Would Lead To 4 Percent Fewer People Churning Between Medicaid And Exchanges

The Affordable Care Act gives states the option of creating a so-called Basic Health Program to provide health insurance coverage for individuals and families whose incomes are low but who do not qualify for Medicaid. The Basic Health Program is intended, in part, to decrease churning, or frequent movement between Medicaid and state-run health insurance exchanges, by increasing the income-based eligibility transition point between the two programs to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. We analyzed data from the 2008 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation and found that among adults likely to participate in Medicaid and exchanges, only somewhat fewer experienced a change in eligibility with a 200 percent federal poverty level eligibility threshold compared with the previous threshold of 138 percent. As a result, we found that a Basic Health Program would prevent churning for 1.8 million adults nationally each year-reducing by about 4 percent the expected churning of low-income Americans between Medicaid and exchanges within a year. Such programs would also decrease the risk that lower-income families would be subject to recouping of premium tax credits. But churning rates would remain very high, and additional policy steps would be required to minimize the effect of coverage disruptions.

Self-Employment and the Role of Health Insurance

We investigate the effect of health insurance on labor market transitions in and out of self-employment as well as on the likelihood of being self-employed. We consider the role of individual health insurance coverage along with that from a spouse. Next, we examine a series of tax deductions granted to the self-employed through amendments made to the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Using data from the Current Population Survey for 1996-2007, we find significant but small effects of the after-tax health insurance premium on the entry rate, with no effect on exits from self-employment or the likelihood of being self-employed.

Universal Mandatory Health Insurance In The Netherlands: A Model For The United States?

Policy analysts consider the Netherlands health system a possible model for the United States. Since 2006 all Dutch citizens have to buy standardized individual health insurance coverage from a private insurer. Consumers have an annual choice among insurers, and insurers can selectively contract or integrate with health care providers. Subsidies make health insurance affordable for everyone. A Risk Equalization Fund compensates insurers for enrollees with predictably high medical expenses. The reform is a work in progress. So far the emphasis has been on the health insurance market. The challenge is now to successfully reform the market for the provision of health care.

Individual Health Insurance within the Family: Can Subsidies Promote Family Coverage?

This paper examines the role of price in health insurance coverage decisions within the family to guide policy in promoting whole family coverage. We analyze the factors that affect individual health insurance coverage among families, and explore family decisions about whom to cover and whom to leave uninsured. The analysis uses household data from California combined with abstracted individual health plan benefit and premium data. We find that premium subsidies for individual insurance would increase family coverage; however, their effect likely would be small relative to their implementation cost.

Patterns Of Individual Health Insurance Coverage, 1996–2000

Information about patterns of individual health insurance coverage is limited. Knowledge gaps include the extent to which individual insurance provides transitional versus long-term coverage, and participants' insurance status before and after being covered by an individual plan. In this study we use data from the 1996-2000 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to examine how long the individually insured maintain their coverage; sources of coverage before and after enrolling in an individual health plan; and characteristics of those who rely on individual insurance coverage. Understanding the dynamics of this market will better inform federal and state insurance reform efforts.

Expanding individual health insurance coverage: are high-risk pools the answer?

Thirty states operate high-risk pools intended to offer coverage to persons denied coverage in the individual health insurance market. But in most states the high-risk pool mirrors the individual market's problems: Coverage is expensive, the waiting period for coverage of preexisting conditions is long, and benefits may be limited. A few states with high-risk pools have addressed these problems by adequately funding high enrollment and comprehensive benefits; some also require the market to accept more risk. But most discourage enrollment in the high-risk pool in myriad ways and fall to ensure access to the individual market for persons with health problems.