Balancing adequacy and affordability?: Essential Health Benefits under the Affordable Care Act

Scope of Health Care Benefits for Neonates, Infants, Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults Through Age 26

Timely access to appropriate health care from the prenatal period onward is one of several pillars essential to optimize the health of a child preparing to become an adult. In 1967, Congress passed legislation that specified an Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment standard as the mandatory child health component of Medicaid. Subsequent legislative amendments have generally strengthened this standard. In particular, state Medicaid programs must provide any health care service for children that is covered by the federal Medicaid program even if the state does not cover that service for adults. An initial set of detailed recommendations concerning the best preventive care services for children, adolescents, and young adults was published in 1994 based on deliberations of a large group of expert pediatric health care providers and family representatives. The most recent updated recommendations are available in the 2017 fourth edition of Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub L No. 114-148) referenced Bright Futures recommendations as a standard for access to and design of age-appropriate health insurance benefits for neonates, infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. This policy statement summarizes recent developments pertaining to the scope of health care benefits offered for children by public and private payers. The statement identifies barriers that impede achievement of a uniform standard that all payers can adopt. Finally, the statement refreshes a recommended set of health insurance benefits for neonates, infants, children, adolescents, and young adults through age 26.

Past experiences with surprise medical bills drive issue knowledge, concern and attitudes toward federal policy intervention

Scholars and journalists have devoted considerable attention to understanding the circumstances in which Americans receive surprise medical bills. Previous research on this issue has focused on the scope of the problem, including the conditions that are most likely to lead to surprise bills. However, the existing literature has almost exclusively relied on claims data, limiting our understanding of consumer experiences and attitudes toward policy changes to address surprise billing. Using a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of 4998 Americans, we analyze consumer experiences with surprise billing, knowledge of the issue, how concerned Americans are about receiving surprise bills and how past experiences influence policy preferences toward federal action on surprise billing. Our analysis demonstrates that knowledge and concern about surprise billing are the highest among the educated and those who have previously received a surprise bill. These factors also predict support for federal policy action, with high levels of support for federal policy action across the population, including among both liberals and conservatives. However, more detailed federal policy proposals receive significantly less support among Americans, suggesting that stand-alone policy action may not be viable. Our results show bipartisan support among American consumers for federal action on surprise billing in the abstract but no consistent views on specific policy proposals.

A scoping review of acupuncture insurance coverage in the United States

BACKGROUND

Increasing access to non-pharmacologic pain management modalities, including acupuncture, has the potential to reduce opioid overuse. A lack of insurance coverage for acupuncture could present a barrier for both patients and providers. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the existing literature on acupuncture insurance coverage in the United States and to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities.

METHODS

We utilized the Arksey and O'Malley framework to guide our scoping review methodology. We followed a pre-determined study protocol for the level-one abstract and level-two full text screenings. We synthesized information into subject-area domains and identified knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

We found a lack of published data on acupuncture coverage in 44 states, especially in the Midwest and the South. Where data were available, a large proportion of acupuncture users did not have insurance coverage. Consumer demand, state mandates, and efforts to reduce opioid use were motivations to cover acupuncture. Licensed acupuncturists were less likely to be reimbursed and were reimbursed at lower rates compared to physicians. Reported barriers encountered when implementing coverage included a lack of providers, challenges determining when to offer non-pharmacologic treatments, and a lack of evidence for clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

We found a lack of recent publications and data comparing regional coverage in the United States. A key challenge is that commercial insurance plan data are not in the public domain. Further research should assess insurance coverage implementation for acupuncture and measure the impact of policy changes on acupuncture utilization and rates of opioid overuse.

A Look Under the Hood: Regulatory Policy Making and the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law a decade ago. Partisanship has limited the number of statutory changes, leaving the law mostly unchanged across the past 10 years. However, the ACA delegated vast powers to the executive branch, which opened the door for significant regulatory policy-making activities (also called "rulemaking"). We collected data on all regulatory actions related to the Affordable Care Act that have been taken since its passage to provide the first exploratory analyses of both the public law itself and the ensuing rulemaking activities. We also provide illustrative examples of two controversial issues: short-term limited-duration insurance plans and contraceptive coverage for women. Despite relative statutory stasis, regulatory actions have continued to shape the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have taken advantage of a vast delegation of policy-making power. Importantly, regulatory policy making holds the potential to yield significant changes depending on the policy goals of the presidential administration. Scholars, policy makers, and the public are well-advised to pay attention to ACA-related rulemaking activities. Moreover, "quasi-rulemaking" (i.e., the use of agency guidance as a policy tool) remains largely unexplored but could indicate an even greater regulatory enterprise than illustrated here.

Inadequate in the Best of Times: Reevaluating Provider Networks in Light of the Coronavirus Pandemic

The coronavirus has affected billions of people worldwide. As of early June, estimates of infections exceeded six million individuals, about double the number from early May. The United States has experienced more cases than Spain, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Canada, Japan, and Russia combined. To make things worse, the structure of the U.S. health‐care system may significantly impede access to needed medical services while exposing patients to financial liabilities. One particularly concerning feature may be the limitations on access imposed by provider networks. This article briefly reviews what we know about the narrowing of provider networks, and how findings from a series of recent articles illustrating the often‐severe restrictions imposed by these networks may be particularly detrimental in the middle of a global health emergency. I also highlight how the actions taken by policymakers to temporarily mitigate these problems have fallen short and what potential long‐term solutions might look like.

Double-edged sword of federalism: variation in essential health benefits for mental health and substance use disorder coverage in states

The Affordable Care Act requires all insurance plans sold on health insurance marketplaces and individual and small-group plans to cover 10 Essential Health Benefits (EHB), including behavioral health services. Instead of applying a uniform EHB plan design, the Department of Health and Human Services let states define their own EHB plan. This approach was seen as the best balance between flexibility and comprehensiveness, and assumed there would be little state-to-state variation. Limited federal oversight runs the risk of variation in EHB coverage definitions and requirements, as well as potential divergence from standardized medical guidelines. We analyzed 112 EHB documents from all states for behavioral health coverage in effect from 2012 to 2017. We find wide variation among states in their EHB plan required-coverage, and divergence between medical-practice guidelines and EHB plans. These results emphasize consideration of federated regulation over health insurance coverage standards. Federal flexibility in states benefit design nods to state-specific policymaking-processes and population needs. However, flexibility becomes problematic if it leads to inadequate coverage that reduces access to critical health care services. The EHBs demonstrate an incomplete effort to establish appropriate minimum standards of coverage for behavioral health services.

Health reform under the patient protection and Affordable Care Act: characteristics of exchange-based health insurance enrollees

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reformed and expanded healthcare coverage with an exchange-based health insurance program. While millions of Americans have benefited from enrollment in ACA marketplace insurance plans, many individuals are likely to be affected by potential future policy changes. Since few studies on the features of marketplace enrollees exist, we adopted a retrospective, cross-sectional study design using 2016 National Health Interview data to identify sociodemographic and health characteristics of enrollees, comparing them to those without insurance. Chi-square tests and logistic regression examined factors associated with enrollees. Adults with multiple chronic diseases (AOR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.44, 2.50), a history of smoking (AOR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.82, 3.26), females, married, age 50-64 years, higher educational attainment, and retirees (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.06, 3.27) were more likely to be enrollees. Since enrollees are largely higher risk individuals with greater healthcare needs, policies that modify the ACA should take these factors into account to reduce potential adverse impacts on enrollees.

Health Benefits Mandates and Their Potential Impacts on Racial/Ethnic Group Disparities in Insurance Markets

Addressing racial/ethnic group disparities in health insurance benefits through legislative mandates requires attention to the different proportions of racial/ethnic groups among insurance markets. This necessary baseline data, however, has proven difficult to measure. We applied racial/ethnic data from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey to the 2012 California Health Benefits Review Program Cost and Coverage Model to determine the racial/ethnic composition of ten health insurance market segments. We found disproportional representation of racial/ethnic groups by segment, thus affecting the health insurance impacts of benefit mandates. California's Medicaid program is disproportionately Latino (60 % in Medi-Cal, compared to 39 % for the entire population), and the individual insurance market is disproportionately non-Latino white. Gender differences also exist. Mandates could unintentionally increase insurance coverage racial/ethnic disparities. Policymakers should consider the distribution of existing racial/ethnic disparities as criteria for legislative action on benefit mandates across health insurance markets.

Barriers to a Career Focus in Cancer Prevention: A Report and Initial Recommendations From the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Prevention Workforce Pipeline Work Group

PURPOSE

To assist in determining barriers to an oncology career incorporating cancer prevention, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Cancer Prevention Workforce Pipeline Work Group sponsored surveys of training program directors and oncology fellows.

METHODS

Separate surveys with parallel questions were administered to training program directors at their fall 2013 retreat and to oncology fellows as part of their February 2014 in-training examination survey. Forty-seven (67%) of 70 training directors and 1,306 (80%) of 1,634 oncology fellows taking the in-training examination survey answered questions.

RESULTS

Training directors estimated that ≤ 10% of fellows starting an academic career or entering private practice would have a career focus in cancer prevention. Only 15% of fellows indicated they would likely be interested in cancer prevention as a career focus, although only 12% thought prevention was unimportant relative to treatment. Top fellow-listed barriers to an academic career were difficulty in obtaining funding and lower compensation. Additional barriers to an academic career with a prevention focus included unclear career model, lack of clinical mentors, lack of clinical training opportunities, and concerns about reimbursement.

CONCLUSION

Reluctance to incorporate cancer prevention into an oncology career seems to stem from lack of mentors and exposure during training, unclear career path, and uncertainty regarding reimbursement. Suggested approaches to begin to remedy this problem include: 1) more ASCO-led and other prevention educational resources for fellows, training directors, and practicing oncologists; 2) an increase in funded training and clinical research opportunities, including reintroduction of the R25T award; 3) an increase in the prevention content of accrediting examinations for clinical oncologists; and 4) interaction with policymakers to broaden the scope and depth of reimbursement for prevention counseling and intervention services.