Cost sharing in Medicaid and CHIP: how does it affect out-of-pocket spending?

Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 07/2009; 28(4):w607-19. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.w607
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Rapidly rising spending has prompted debate about increasing cost sharing in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In this paper we assess the role of cost sharing in Medicaid and the CHIP and its potential financial burden on low-income families with children. We find that many families would face high health spending burdens even with minimal cost sharing for their publicly insured children. Adding even modest cost sharing for such children could greatly increase high financial burdens. Our results also suggest that implementing income-based caps on family spending can help address the burden of high spending for low-income families.

4 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current health reform debate is greatly concerned with "bending the curve" of cost growth and containing costs, particularly in public programs. Our research demonstrates that spending in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is highly concentrated, particularly among children with chronic health problems. Ten percent of enrollees (two-thirds of whom have a chronic condition) account for 72 percent of the spending; 30 percent of enrolled children receive little or no care. These results highlight the importance of cost containment strategies that reduce avoidable hospitalizations among children with chronic problems and policies that increase preventive care, particularly among African American children.
    Health Affairs 09/2009; 28(6):w1025-36. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w1025 · 4.97 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this essay we argue that the concept of affordable health insurance is rooted in a social obligation to protect fair equality of opportunity. Specifically, health insurance plays a limited but significant role in protecting opportunity in two ways: it helps keep people functioning normally and it protects their financial security. Together these benefits enable household members to exercise reasonable choices about their plans of life. To achieve truly affordable coverage, society must be able to contain the overall cost of health care, and health insurance must be progressively financed, meaning that those who are best able to pay for coverage should pay the largest share. While the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) falls short on both of these counts, we argue that it makes important contributions toward household affordability through the use of subsidies and regulations. The main shortcoming of the ACA is an insufficient protection against burdensome cost sharing, which we illustrate using several hypothetical scenarios. We conclude with recommendations about how to make opportunity-enhancing expansions to the current coverage subsidies.
    Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 10/2011; 36(5):815-27. DOI:10.1215/03616878-1407631 · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2006, Idaho and Kentucky became two of the first states to implement changes to their Medicaid programs under authority granted by the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act (DRA). The DRA granted new flexibility in the design of state Medicaid programs, including a state plan amendment (SPA) option for changes that previously would have required a waiver. This paper uses state Medicaid administrative data to analyze the impact of Medicaid policy changes implemented in these states through a series of SPAs in 2006 and 2007. Changes in utilization are examined for multiple services, including physician, dental, and ER visits, inpatient stays, and prescriptions, among non-elderly adult Medicaid recipients following changes in cost sharing, reimbursement, service delivery, and covered services. Where possible, enrollees not affected by the changes served as a comparison group. While relatively few adults in Idaho received a wellness exam after such coverage was added, the adoption of managed care for dental services was associated with increased receipt of dental care, including preventive care. The new limits on brand name prescriptions in Kentucky were associated with a reduction in the proportion of enrollees with two or more monthly name brand prescriptions while the small copayments introduced did not appear to have a dramatic impact. We find that changes in financial incentives on both the supply-side (such as reimbursement increases) and the demand-side (i.e., benefit changes) alone may not be enough to generate the desired levels of preventive care, especially among those with chronic health conditions.
    Medicare and Medicaid Research Review 01/2012; 2(4). DOI:10.5600/mmrr.002.04.a05
Show more