Association of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion with Dilated Eye Examinations among the United States Population with Diabetes

Most State Medicaid Programs Cover Routine Eye Exams For Adults, But Coverage Of Other Routine Vision Services Varies

More than twelve million US adults ages forty and older are affected by vision impairment, and projections suggest that this number will double by 2050. Although most vision impairment can be eliminated with corrective lenses, many adults lack access to routine eye care. In this study, we analyzed detailed state-by-state Medicaid policies for 2022 and documented variability in coverage for adult vision services. Most fee-for-service Medicaid programs covered routine eye exams, although many did not cover glasses (twenty states) or low vision aids (thirty-five states), and about two-thirds of states with routine coverage required enrollee cost sharing. Managed care plans generally provided consistent or enhanced coverage relative to fee-for-service programs, although coverage sometimes varied between plans within a state. We estimated that about 6.5 million and 14.6 million adult enrollees resided in states without comprehensive coverage for routine eye exams and glasses, respectively. These findings reveal important gaps and opportunities for states to increase access to routine vision care.

Charity Care in Ophthalmology, 2024

PURPOSE

To review changes in the provision of charity eye care in the past 50 years with hypothesized resulting effects on surgical training and patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

Case report, comparison of experience in community and training program settings, and selected literature review.

RESULTS

The population to which charity care applies has shrunk as broader insurance coverage has been legislated, but in 2023 remains at approximately 7.3% of the US population. In areas with ophthalmology training programs, house staff supervised by faculty provide most of the charity care. In areas without training programs, a shrinking pool of willing private practitioners provides charity care. Because there is no organized financial support behind provision of charity, nonanecdotal data needed to assess the problem and guide decision making are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Charity eye care in ophthalmology in 2024 is a patchwork of transient, local efforts that have a few common themes: absent material basis for sustainability, a narrowing base of support by clinicians, transfer of care to training programs, and financial vetting of applicants by nonclinicians. Unless universal health care legislation passes, which would eliminate the issue, suggestions for improvement include broader voluntary participation by private practice ophthalmologists in charity eye care, allocation of charity care spending by nonprofit hospitals to support this effort, and clinician-determined criteria for provision of charitable surgery supported by involved hospital systems.

Effects of Cost Sharing on Ophthalmic Care Utilization in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace

PURPOSE

To determine the distribution and quantity of ophthalmic care consumed on Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, the demographics of the population utilizing these services, and the relationship between ACA insurance coverage plan tier, cost sharing, and total cost of ophthalmic care consumed.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed ACA individual and small group market claims data from the Wakely Affordable Care Act (WACA) 2018 dataset, which contains detailed claims, enrollment, and premium data from Edge Servers for 3.9 million individual and small group market lives. We identified all enrollees with ophthalmology-specific billing, procedure, and national drug codes. We then analyzed the claims by plan type and calculated the total cost and out-of-pocket (OOP) cost.

RESULTS

Among 3.9 million enrollees in the WACA 2018 dataset, 538,169 (13.7%) had claims related to ophthalmology procedures, medications, and/or diagnoses. A total of $203 million was generated in ophthalmology-related claims, with $54 million in general services, $42 million in medications, $20 million in diagnostics and imaging, and $86 million in procedures. Average annual OOP costs were $116 per member, or 30.9% of the total cost, and were lowest for members with platinum plans (16% OOP) and income-driven cost sharing reduction (ICSR) subsidies (17% OOP). Despite stable ocular disease distribution across plan types, beneficiaries with silver ICSR subsidies consumed more total care than any other plan, higher than platinum plan enrollees and almost 1.5× the cost of bronze plan enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

Ophthalmic care for enrollees on ACA plans generated substantial costs in 2018. Plans with higher OOP cost sharing may result in lower utilization of ophthalmic care.

Trends in Preventive Care Services Among U.S. Adults With Diagnosed Diabetes, 2008-2020

OBJECTIVE

Preventive care services are important to prevent or delay complications associated with diabetes. We report trends in receipt of six American Diabetes Association-recommended preventive care services during 2008-2020.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used 2008-2020 data from the cross-sectional Medical Expenditures Panel Survey to calculate the proportion of U.S. adults ≥18 years of age with diagnosed diabetes who reported receiving preventive care services, overall and by subpopulation (n = 25,616). We used joinpoint regression to identify trends during 2008-2019. The six services completed in the past year included at least one dental examination, dilated-eye examination, foot examination, and cholesterol test; at least two A1C tests, and an influenza vaccine.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2020, proportions of U.S. adults with diabetes receiving any individual preventive care service ranged from 32.6% to 89.9%. From 2008 to 2019, overall trends in preventive services among these adults were flat except for an increase in influenza vaccination (average annual percent change: 2.6% [95% CI 1.1%, 4.2%]). Trend analysis of subgroups was heterogeneous: influenza vaccination and A1C testing showed improvements among several subgroups, whereas cholesterol testing (patients aged 45-64 years; less than a high school education; Medicaid insurance) and dental visits (uninsured) declined. In 2020, 8.2% (95% CI 4.5%, 11.9%) of those with diabetes received none of the recommended preventive care services.

CONCLUSIONS

Other than influenza vaccination, we observed no improvement in preventive care service use among U.S. adults with diabetes. These data highlight services and specific subgroups that could be targeted to improve preventive care among adults with diabetes.

United States Population Disparities in Ophthalmic Care: Blindness and Visual Impairment in the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight)

PURPOSE

To evaluate associations of patient characteristics with United States eye care use and likelihood of blindness.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (19 546 016) with 2018 visual acuity (VA) records in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).

METHODS

Legal blindness (20/200 or worse) and visual impairment (VI; worse than 20/40) were identified from corrected distance acuity in the better-seeing eye and stratified by patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations with blindness and VI. Blindness was mapped by state and compared with population characteristics. Eye care use was analyzed by comparing population demographics with United States Census estimates and proportional demographic representation among blind patients versus a nationally representative US population sample (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey [NHANES]).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence and odds ratios for VI and blindness; proportional representation in the IRIS® Registry, Census, and NHANES by patient demographics.

RESULTS

Visual impairment was present in 6.98% (n = 1 364 935) and blindness in 0.98% (n = 190 817) of IRIS patients. Adjusted odds of blindness were highest among patients ≥ 85 years old (odds ratio [OR], 11.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.33-13.59 vs. those 0-17 years old). Blindness also was associated positively with rural location and Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance vs. commercial insurance. Hispanic (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.46-1.74) and Black (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.63-1.84) patients showed a higher odds of blindness versus White non-Hispanic patients. Proportional representation in IRIS Registry relative to the Census was higher for White than Hispanic (2- to 4-fold) or Black (11%-85%) patients (P < 0.001). Blindness overall was less prevalent in NHANES than IRIS Registry; however, prevalence in adults aged 60+ was lowest among Black participants in the NHANES (0.54%) and second highest among comparable Black adults in IRIS (1.57%).

CONCLUSIONS

Legal blindness from low VA was present in 0.98% of IRIS patients and associated with rural location, public or no insurance, and older age. Compared with US Census estimates, minorities may be underrepresented among ophthalmology patients, and compared with NHANES population estimates, Black individuals may be overrepresented among blind IRIS Registry patients. These findings provide a snapshot of US ophthalmic care and highlight the need for initiatives to address disparities in use and blindness.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Disparities in Eye Care Access and Utilization: A Narrative Review

This narrative review summarizes the literature on factors related to eye care access and utilization in the United States. Using the Healthy People 2030 framework, this review investigates social determinants of health associated with general and follow-up engagement, screenings, diagnostic visits, treatment, technology, and teleophthalmology. We provide hypotheses for these documented eye care disparities, featuring qualitative, patient-centered research. Lastly, we provide recommendations in the hopes of appropriately eliminating these disparities and reimagining eye care.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Glaucoma Severity at First Presentation

PURPOSE

To test whether the increase in insurance coverage in Massachusetts due to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is associated with a decrease in glaucoma severity in patients presenting for the first time at a tertiary health system.

METHODS

Clinical and billing data of first-time glaucoma patients from a tertiary health system in Massachusetts from 2006 to 2021 was used. Pre-ACA is defined as before 2014 and post-ACA is defined as after 2014. Visual field mean deviation was used to define glaucoma severity: greater than -6 dB, less than -6 dB and greater than -12 dB, and less than -12 dB was classified as "mild," "moderate," and "severe" respectively. Ordinal logistic regression models adjusted for age, race, gender, and insurance type were used to determine the odds of presenting with more severe glaucoma.

RESULTS

2,394 pre-ACA and 3,651 post-ACA first-time glaucoma patients were identified. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of more severe glaucoma at first presentation post-ACA compared to pre-ACA (OR=0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.08; p=0.49) among the entire population. In stratified analyses, patients who utilized Medicaid for insurance had 52% decreased odds for presenting with more severe glaucoma at first presentation post-ACA compared to pre-ACA (OR=0.48; 95% CI 0.33-0.69; p<0.001). This remained significant after adjustment for age, race, and gender (adjusted OR=0.44; 95% CI 0.29-0.65; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

At a Massachusetts-based tertiary healthcare center, individuals on Medicaid were more likely to have more severe glaucoma at first presentation before the implementation of the ACA, compared to after.

Improving Access to Eye Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

The goals were to develop a working and inclusive definition of access to eye care, identify gaps in the current system that preclude access, and highlight recommendations that have been identified in prior studies. This manuscript serves as a narrative summary of the literature.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Health care disparities continue to plague the nation's well-being, and eye care is no exception. Inequities in eye care negatively affect disease processes (i.e., glaucoma, cataracts, diabetic retinopathy), interventions (surgical treatment, prescription of glasses, referrals), and populations (gender, race and ethnicity, geography, age).

METHODS

A systematic review of the existing literature included all study designs, editorials, and opinion pieces and initially yielded nearly 2500 reports. To be included in full-text review, an article had to be US-based, be written in English, and address 1 or more of the key terms "barriers and facilitators to health care," "access," and "disparities in general and sub-specialty eye care." Both patient and health care professional perspectives were included. One hundred ninety-six reports met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Four key themes regarding access to eye care from both patient and eye care professional perspectives emerged in the literature: (1) barriers and facilitators to access, (2) utilization, (3) compliance and adherence, and (4) recommendations to improve access. Common barriers and facilitators included many factors identified as social determinants of health (i.e., transportation, insurance, language, education). Utilization of eye care was largely attributable to having coverage for eye care, recommendations from primary care professionals, and improved health status. Geographic proximity, age, and lack of transportation surfaced as factors for compliance and adherence. There were a variety of recommendations to improve access to eye care, including improving presence in community health clinics, reimbursement for physicians, and funding of community-based programs such as DRIVE and REACH.

CONCLUSIONS

The eye care profession has abundant evidence of the disparities that continue to affect marginalized communities. Improving community-based programs and clinics, addressing social determinants of health, and acknowledging the effects of discrimination and bias on eye care serve as ways to improve equity in this field.

Changes in diabetes prescription patterns following Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion

INTRODUCTION

Most patients with diabetes mellitus are prescribed medications to control their blood glucose. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) led to improved access to healthcare for patients with diabetes. However, impact of the ACA on prescribing trends by diabetes drug category is less clear. This study aims to assess if long-acting insulin and novel agents were prescribed more frequently following the ACA in states that expanded Medicaid compared with non-expansion states.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this analysis of a natural experiment, prescriptions reimbursed by Medicaid (US public insurance) for long-acting insulins, metformin, and novel agent medications (DPP4 inhibitors, sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor antagonists, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) from 2012 to 2017 were obtained from public records. For each medication category, we performed difference-in-differences (DID) analysis modeling change in rate level from pre-ACA to post-ACA in Medicaid expansion states relative to Medicaid non-expansion states.

RESULTS

Expansion and non-expansion states saw a decline in both metformin and long-acting insulin prescriptions per 100 enrollees from pre-ACA to post-ACA. These decreases were larger in non-expansion states relative to expansion states (metformin: absolute DID = +0.33, 95% CI=0.323 to 0.344) and long-acting insulin (absolute DID: +0.11; 95% CI=0.098 to 0.113). Novel agent prescriptions in expansion states (+0.08 per 100 enrollees) saw a higher absolute increase per 100 Medicaid enrollees than in non-expansion states (absolute DID= +0.08, 95% CI=0.079 to 0.086).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a greater absolute increase for prescriptions of novel agents in expansion states relative to non-expansion states after accounting for number of enrollees. Reducing administrative barriers and improving the ability of providers to prescribe such newer therapies will be critical for caring for patients with diabetes-particularly in Medicaid non-expansion states.

Association of Medicaid Expansion with In-Hospital Outcomes After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

Multiple studies have shown improved outcomes and higher utilization of care with the increase of insurance coverage. This study aims to assess whether Medicaid expansion (ME) has changed the utilization and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

MATERIALS

Data of patients undergoing AAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2017).

METHODS

Interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was utilized to evaluate changes in annual trends of postoperative outcomes after elective AAA repair before and after 2014. We also assessed if these trend changes were significant by comparing the changes in states which adopted ME in 2014 versus nonexpansion states (NME), and conducting a difference-in-difference analysis. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and adverse events (bowel and leg ischemia, cardiac, renal, respiratory, stroke and return to the OR).

RESULTS

A total of 19,143 procedures were included (Endovascular: 85.8% and open: 14.2%), of which 40.9% were performed in ME States. Compared to preexpansion trends (P1), there was a 2% annual increase in elective AAA repair in ME states (P1: -1.8% versus P2: +0.2%, P< 0.01) with no significant change in NME (P1: +0.3% versus P2: +0.2%, P = 0.97). Among elective cases, annual trends in the use of EVAR increased by 2% in ME states (95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.1, 4.1, P = 0.06), compared to a 3% decrease in NME States [95%CI = -5.8, -0.6, P = 0.01) (P_MEversusNME < 0.01]. There was no association between ME and in-hospital mortality. Nonetheless, it was associated with a decrease in the annual trends of in-hospital complications (ME: -1.4% (-2.1,-0.8) versus NME: +0.2% (-0.2, +0.8), P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

While no association between ME and increased survival was noted in states which adopted ME, there was a significant increase of elective AAA cases and EVAR utilization and a decrease in in-hospital complications in ME States.

Medicaid Expansion and Utilization of Antihyperglycemic Therapies

OBJECTIVE

Certain antihyperglycemic therapies modify cardiovascular and kidney outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes, but early uptake in practice appears restricted to particular demographics. We examine the association of Medicaid expansion with use of and expenditures related to antihyperglycemic therapies among Medicaid beneficiaries.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We employed a difference-in-difference design to analyze the association of Medicaid expansion on prescription of noninsulin antihyperglycemic therapies. We used 2012-2017 national and state Medicaid data to compare prescription claims and costs between states that did (n = 25) and did not expand (n = 26) Medicaid by January 2014.

RESULTS

Following Medicaid expansion in 2014, average noninsulin antihyperglycemic therapies per state/1,000 enrollees increased by 4.2%/quarter in expansion states and 1.6%/quarter in nonexpansion states. For sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), quarterly growth rates per 1,000 enrollees were 125.3% and 20.7% for expansion states and 87.6% and 16.0% for nonexpansion states, respectively. Expansion states had faster utilization of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA than nonexpansion states. Difference-in-difference estimates for change in volume of prescriptions after Medicaid expansion between expansion versus nonexpansion states was 1.68 (95% CI 1.09-2.26; P < 0.001) for all noninsulin therapies, 0.125 (-0.003 to 0.25; P = 0.056) for SGLT2i, and 0.12 (0.055-0.18; P < 0.001) for GLP-1RA.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of noninsulin antihyperglycemic therapies, including SGLT2i and GLP-1RA, increased among low-income adults in both Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states, with a significantly greater increase in overall use and in GLP-1RA use in expansion states. Future evaluation of the population-level health impact of expanded access to these therapies is needed.

Adherence to ophthalmology referral, treatment and follow-up after diabetic retinopathy screening in the primary care setting

INTRODUCTION

Telemedicine-based diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in primary care settings has increased the screening rates of patients with diabetes. However, blindness from vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) is a persistent problem. This study examined the extent of patients' adherence to postscreening recommendations.

RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS

A retrospective record review was conducted in primary care clinics of a large county hospital in the USA. All patients with diabetes detected with VTDR in two time periods, differing in record type used, were included in the study: 2012-2014, paper charts only; 2015-2017, combined paper charts/electronic medical records (EMRs), or EMRs only. Adherence rates for keeping initial ophthalmology appointments, starting recommended treatments, and keeping follow-up appointments were determined.

RESULTS

Adequate records were available for 6046 patients; 408 (7%) were detected with VTDR and recommended for referral to ophthalmology. Only 5% completed a first ophthalmology appointment within recommended referral interval, 15% within twice the recommended interval, and 51% within 1 year of DRS. Patients screened in 2015-2017 were more likely to complete a first ophthalmology appointment than those in 2012-2014. Ophthalmic treatment was recommended in half of the patients, of whom 94% initiated treatment. A smaller percentage (41%) adhered completely to post-treatment follow-up. Overall, 28% of referred patients: (1) kept a first ophthalmology appointment; (2) were recommended for treatment; and (3) initiated the treatment. Most patients failing to keep first ophthalmology appointments continued non-ophthalmic medical care at the institution. EMRs provided more complete information than paper charts.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing vision impairment from VTDR requires greater emphasis on timely adherence to ophthalmology referral and follow-up. Prevention of visual loss from VTDR starts with retinopathy screening, but must include patient engagement, adherence monitoring, and streamlining ophthalmic referral and management. Revision of these processes has already been implemented at the study site, incorporating lessons from this investigation.