October 8, 2019
Medicaid is Crucial to Rural Hospitals
Rural hospital closings can be a matter of life or death.
Residents in these remote locations may have to drive 100 miles or more for emergency medical care. One new study found that hospital closings increase mortality in rural areas by 6 percent. No such impact occurred in urban areas with multiple medical centers.
Both urban and rural hospitals serving poor and low-income patients face myriad financial pressures, led by Medicare and Medicaid’s relatively low reimbursement rates for their disproportionate numbers of older and sicker patients. The 2013 federal budget, which cut Medicare reimbursements for hospitals and physicians by 2 percent, compounded the problems.
But what has become increasingly clear in rural areas is that the option given to states under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to expand their Medicaid-covered populations of high-need patients has created a dividing line between the most vulnerable hospitals and the survivors, said Brock Slabach, senior vice president of the National Rural Health Association, a hospital trade group.
With closures accelerating across the country over the past decade, 24 of the 31 rural hospitals that closed in 2018 and 2019 were located in the minority of states (14) that have not expanded their Medicaid programs, according to the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina, which tracks hospital closures.
In contrast, the ACA has bolstered rural hospitals in expansion states by cutting their uninsured populations roughly in half by bringing in a fresh supply of federal and state revenues to insure more patients under Medicaid. …Learn More
August 27, 2019
The ACA and Retirement: Is there a Link?
When older workers are able to get health insurance from a source outside of their jobs – Medicare, a spouse’s job, or an employer’s retiree health coverage – they become much more likely to decide it is time to retire.
So it’s reasonable to ask whether the Affordable Care Act, which provided millions of people with health insurance for the first time, has also helped to nudge more older workers into early retirement.
The answer, surprisingly, is no, according to a recent study for the University of Michigan Retirement and Disability Research Center. This finding is important, because baby boomers who are poorly prepared financially to retire should be working longer – not retiring sooner – to improve their retirement outlook.
The researchers, who are at the University of Michigan and Vanderbilt University, estimated that the uninsured rate of 50- to 64-year-olds dropped substantially after the ACA went into effect in 2014 – from 16 percent in 2013 to 12 percent in 2016. But when they tracked these older workers for several years, they found no evidence that they started retiring at a faster pace after the ACA established the state insurance exchanges and gave tax subsidies to people who purchased coverage on the exchanges.
The study also looked at whether retirement activity increased in response to a separate provision of the ACA: the expansion of the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income Americans. The expansion, which was voluntary for each state, was achieved by increasing the income ceiling for eligibility. The federal government gave a financial incentive to states that broadened eligibility for Medicaid coverage, and about two-thirds of the states have expanded to date.
In comparing states that expanded their Medicaid programs to states that had not, the researchers again found virtually no change in low-income workers’ retirement trends.
There is widespread agreement that turning 65 and becoming eligible for Medicare motivates people to retire. So why is the ACA different?
One possible explanation is that the “political uncertainty” surrounding the ACA and Medicaid expansion “discourage[s] older workers from counting on them when making career decisions,” the researchers said. …Learn More
August 22, 2019
Health Plan Confusion and Bad Decisions
A popular idea for reducing healthcare costs is to arm consumers with detailed information about the prices of drugs and medical procedures so they can make smarter decisions.
But the academic community is reaching the opposite conclusion: people don’t understand the information they already have and are making bad decisions based on these misconceptions. The latest example is a survey of Wisconsin state workers who sometimes defer care because they are under the mistaken impression that they can’t afford it.
“Workers do not understand how health plans work, the role of deductibles, co-insurance and co-pays … and what goes into out-of-pocket costs,” concludes a report by the University of Wisconsin public affairs school, which surveyed 2,200 government workers.
Before getting into the specific findings, it’s important to note that Wisconsin’s employees are in an enviable position. They choose from just four health insurance options approved and overseen by the state. The broader implications of the report are more distressing, if one considers that millions of Americans buying insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, Medicare Advantage plans, or Medicare Part D drug plans must sort through oodles of plan options with different copayments, deductibles, physician and hospital networks, or drug coverages.
The confusing patchwork of Part D plans hurts retirees’ pocketbooks, according to research in Health Affairs, which found that only one out of 20 retirees selects the cheapest drug plan to meet their medication needs. A different study found that health insurance buyers purchase overly expensive plans when they have to choose from a complex menu of options.
The Wisconsin report said state workers there are also overwhelmed: …