Person:

McCormick, Danny

Background: Physician opinion can influence the prospects for health care reform, yet there are few recent data on physician views on reform proposals or access to medical care in the United States. Objective: To assess physician views on financing options for expanding health care coverage and on access to health care. Design and Participants: Nationally representative mail survey conducted between March 2007 and October 2007 of U.S. physicians engaged in direct patient care. Measurements: Rated support for reform options including financial incentives to induce individuals to purchase health insurance and single-payer national health insurance; rated views of several dimensions of access to care. Main results: 1,675 of 3,300 physicians responded (50.8%). Only 9% of physicians preferred the current employer-based financing system. Forty-nine percent favored either tax incentives or penalties to encourage the purchase of medical insurance, and 42% preferred a government-run, taxpayer-financed single-payer national health insurance program. The majority of respondents believed that all Americans should receive needed medical care regardless of ability to pay (89%); 33% believed that the uninsured currently have access to needed care. Nearly one fifth of respondents (19.3%) believed that even the insured lack access to needed care. Views about access were independently associated with support for single-payer national health insurance. Conclusions: The vast majority of physicians surveyed supported a change in the health care financing system. While a plurality support the use of financial incentives, a substantial proportion support single payer national health insurance. These findings challenge the perception that fundamental restructuring of the U.S. health care financing system receives little acceptance by physicians.

Background: The Affordable Care Act was modeled on the Massachusetts Health Reform of 2006, which reduced the number of uninsured largely through a Medicaid expansion and the provision of publicly subsidized insurance obtained through a Health Benefits Exchange. Methods: We surveyed a convenience sample of 780 patients seeking care in a safety-net system who obtained Medicaid or publicly subsidized insurance after the Massachusetts reform, as well as a group of employed patients with private insurance. Results: We found that although most patients with Medicaid or publicly subsidized exchange-based plans were able to obtain assistance with applying for and choosing an insurance plan, substantial proportions of respondents experienced difficulties with the application process and with understanding coverage and cost features of plans. Conclusions: Under the Affordable Care Act, efforts to simplify the application process and reduce the complexity of plans may be warranted, particularly for vulnerable patient populations cared for by the medical safety net.

Objectives: To analyse changes in overall readmission rates and disparities in such rates, among patients aged 18-64 (those most likely to have been affected by reform), using all payer inpatient discharge databases (hospital episode statistics) from Massachusetts and two control states (New York and New Jersey). Design: Difference in differences analysis to identify the post-reform change, adjusted for secular changes unrelated to reform. Setting: US hospitals in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Participants: Adults aged 18-64 admitted for any cause, excluding obstetrical. Main outcome measure Readmissions at 30 days after an index admission. Results: After adjustment for known confounders, including age, sex, comorbidity, hospital ownership, teaching hospital status, and nurse to census ratio, the odds of all cause readmission in Massachusetts was slightly increased compared with control states post-reform (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.04, P<0.05). Racial and ethnic disparities in all cause readmission rates did not change in Massachusetts compared with control states. In analyses limited to Massachusetts only, there were minimal overall differences in changes in readmission rates between counties with differing baseline uninsurance rates, but black people in counties with the highest uninsurance rates had decreased odds of readmission (0.91, 0.84 to 1.00) compared with black people in counties with lower uninsurance rates. Similarly, white people in counties with the highest uninsurance rates had decreased odds of readmission (0.96, 0.94 to 0.99) compared with white people in counties with lower uninsurance rates. Conclusions: In the United States, and in Massachusetts in particular, extending health insurance coverage alone seems insufficient to improve readmission rates. Additional efforts are needed to reduce hospital readmissions and disparities in this outcome.

Objectives: To examine the impact of Massachusetts healthcare reform on changes in rates of admission to hospital for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs), which are potentially preventable with good access to outpatient medical care, and racial and ethnic disparities in such rates, using complete inpatient discharge data (hospital episode statistics) from Massachusetts and three control states. Design: Difference in differences analysis to identify the change, overall and according to race/ethnicity, adjusted for secular changes unrelated to reform. Setting: Hospitals in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, United States. Participants: Adults aged 18-64 (those most likely to have been affected by the reform) admitted for any of 12 ACSCs in the 21 months before and after the period during which reform was implemented (July 2006 to December 2007). Main outcome measures Admission rates for a composite of all 12 ACSCs, and subgroup composites of acute and chronic ACSCs. Results: After adjustment for potential confounders, including age, race and ethnicity, sex, and county income, unemployment rate and physician supply, we found no evidence of a change in the admission rate for overall composite ACSC (1.2%, 95% confidence interval −1.6% to 4.1%) or for subgroup composites of acute and chronic ACSCs. Nor did we find a change in disparities in admission rates between black and white people (−1.9%, −8.5% to 5.1%) or white and Hispanic people (2.0%, −7.5% to 12.4%) for overall composite ACSC that existed in Massachusetts before reform. In analyses limited to Massachusetts only, we found no evidence of a change in admission rate for overall composite ACSC between counties with higher and lower rates of uninsurance at baseline (1.4%, −2.3% to 5.3%). Conclusions: Massachusetts reform was not associated with significantly lower overall or racial and ethnic disparities in rates of admission to hospital for ACSCs. In the US, and Massachusetts in particular, additional efforts might be needed to improve access to outpatient care and reduce preventable admissions.

Introduction: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the 2006 Massachusetts (MA) health reform law, on which the ACA was based, aimed to improve the affordability of care largely by expanding publicly sponsored insurances. Both laws also aimed to promote consumer understanding of how to acquire, maintain and use these public plans. A prior study found an association between the level of cost-sharing required in these plans and the affordability of care. Preparatory to a quantitative study we conducted this qualitative study that aimed to examine (1) whether cost sharing levels built into the public insurance types that formed the backbone of the MA health reform led to unaffordability of care and if so, (2) how insurances with higher cost sharing levels led to unaffordability of care in this context. Methods: We interviewed 12 consumers obtaining the most commonly obtained insurances under MA health reform (Medicaid and Commonwealth Care) at a safety net hospital emergency department. We purposefully interviewed a stratified sample of higher and low cost sharing recipients. We used a combination of inductive and deductive codes to analyze the data according to degree of cost-sharing required by different insurance types. Results: We found that higher cost sharing plans led to unaffordability of care, as evidenced by unmet medical needs, difficulty affording basic non-medical needs due to expenditures on medical care, and reliance on non-insurance resources to pay for care. Participants described two principal mechanisms by which higher cost sharing led to unaffordability of care: (1) cost sharing above what their incomes allowed and (2) poor understanding of how to effectively acquire, maintain and utilize insurance new public plans. Conclusions: Further efforts to investigate the relationship between perceived affordability of care and understanding of insurance for the insurance types obtained under MA health reform may be warranted. A potential focus for further work may be quantitative investigation of how the level of calibration of cost-sharing to income and understanding of insurances under the MA reform was associated with perceived affordability of care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0240-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The prevalence of schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis among Brazilian immigrants in the United States is unknown. We performed a retrospective chart review of serologic screening of asymptomatic Brazilian immigrants during routine physicals. Of 208 eligible patients, 189 were screened: 27.7% (n = 52) had elevated Schistosoma antibodies and 5.8% (n = 11) had elevated Strongyloides stercoralis antibodies.

Introduction: Under the Massachusetts health reform, low income residents (those with incomes below 150 % of the Federal Poverty Level [FPL]) were eligible for Medicaid and health insurance exchange-based plans with minimal cost-sharing and no premiums. Those with slightly higher incomes (150 %-300 % FPL) were eligible for exchange-based plans that required cost-sharing and premium payments. Methods: We conducted face to face surveys in four languages with a convenience sample of 976 patients seeking care at three hospital emergency departments five years after Massachusetts reform. We compared perceived affordability of insurance, financial burden, and satisfaction among low cost sharing plan recipients (recipients of Medicaid and insurance exchange-based plans with minimal cost-sharing and no premiums), high cost sharing plan recipients (recipients of exchange-based plans that required cost-sharing and premium payments) and the commercially insured. Results: We found that despite having higher incomes, higher cost-sharing plan recipients were less satisfied with their insurance plans and perceived more difficulty affording their insurance than those with low cost-sharing plans. Higher cost-sharing plan recipients also reported more difficulty affording medical and non-medical health care as well as insurance premiums than those with commercial insurance. In contrast, patients with low cost-sharing public plans reported higher plan satisfaction and less financial concern than the commercially insured. Conclusions: Policy makers with responsibility for the benefit design of public insurance available under health care reforms in the U.S. should calibrate cost-sharing to income level so as to minimize difficulty affording care and financial burdens. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0235-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: To estimate the impact of the insurance expansion in 2006 on use of knee and hip replacement procedures by race/ethnicity, area income, and the use of hospitals that predominantly serve poor people (“safety net hospitals”). Design: Quasi-experimental difference in differences study examining change after reform in the share of procedures performed in safety net hospitals by race/ethnicity and area income, with adjustment for patients’ residence, demographics, and comorbidity. Setting: State of Massachusetts, United States. Participants: Massachusetts residents aged 40-64 as the target beneficiaries of reform and similarly aged residents of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania as the comparison (control) population. Main outcomes measures Number of knee and hip replacement procedures per 10 000 population and use of safety net hospitals. Procedure counts from state discharge data for 2.5 years before and after reform, and multivariate difference in differences. Poisson regression was used to adjust for demographics, economic conditions, secular time, and geographic factors to estimate the change in procedure rate associated with health reform by race/ethnicity and area income. Results: Before reform, the number of procedures (/10 000) in Massachusetts was lower among Hispanic people (12.9, P<0.001) than black people (28.1) and white people (30.1). Overall, procedure use increased 22.4% during the 2.5 years after insurance expansion; reform in Massachusetts was associated with a 4.7% increase. The increase associated with reform was significantly higher among Hispanic people (37.9%, P<0.001) and black people (11.4%, P<0.05) than among white people (2.8%). Lower income was not associated with larger increases in procedure use. The share of knee and hip replacement procedures performed in safety net hospitals in Massachusetts decreased by 1.0% from a level of 12.7% before reform. The reduction was larger among Hispanic people (−6.4%, P<0.001) than white people (−1.0%), and among low income residents (−3.9%, p<0.001) than high income residents (0%). Conclusions: Insurance expansion can help reduce disparities by race/ethnicity but not by income in access to elective surgical care and could shift some elective surgical care away from safety net hospitals.

Descriptive studies have suggested that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) health insurance Marketplaces improved access to care. However, no quasi-experimental evidence is currently available to support these findings. We use longitudinal survey data to compare previously- uninsured adults to adults who had employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) prior to the ACA, in the income range eligible for subsidized Marketplace coverage (138-400% of poverty). Among the previously-uninsured group, the ACA led to a significant decline in the uninsurance rate (-10.8 percentage points), decreased barriers to medical care, increased use of outpatient services and prescriptions drugs, and increased identification of high blood pressure, compared to a control group with stable ESI. Changes were largest among those with incomes between 138-250% of poverty, who were eligible for the ACA’s cost-sharing reductions. Our quasi-experimental approach provides rigorous new evidence that the ACA’s Marketplaces led to improvements in several important health care outcomes, particularly among lower-income adults.