Funded by a grant from the RobertWood Johnson Foundation
Investigating the “Welcome Mat” Effect:
How Will the ACA Affect M...
Background
• Medicaid take-up and retention historically low
– Adults: 52-81% (Sommers et al. 2012)
• Increasing take up c...
Background
• The ACA will likely increase Medicaid enrollment
even in states that do not implement the
Medicaid expansion
...
Research Focus
• We use Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform as a
case study to better understand the potential of
the ACA to...
Prior Research
• Half to two-thirds of children enrolling in CHIP qualified
under pre-expansion rules (Georgetown CCF 2008...
Overview of Approach
• Population of interest is parents eligible for
“free” Medicaid under the rules that existed
prior t...
Data
• Microdata
– March CPS for 2004-2012
• Household survey collecting prior year health insurance, family
income and so...
Study Population
• Control States (NY, ME, VT, RI):
– Similar to MA in terms of eligibility level
– Eligibility for parent...
Study Population
• Analytic sample limited to low-income parents who
would have been eligible for Medicaid throughout
the ...
Measurement of key variables
• Medicaid Coverage
– Any means-tested coverage in previous calendar year
• Broad measure red...
Size of Participation Sample
Total,
CY 2003-2011
Average
per year
Massachusetts 540 60
Comparison
States
5,620 624
Total 6...
Select Sample Characteristics
Variable %
Public insurance
coverage
66
Age
19-25
26-44
45-64
10
66
23
Male 34
Race/ethnicit...
Unadjusted Participation Rates
13
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Controls Massa...
Unadjusted Enrollment Rates
14
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Controls Massachus...
Multivariate Analysis
• Difference-in-differences model, using logistic
regression
– DD compares the change in Massachuset...
Results
Post-Pre Adjusted Difference (S.E.)
Participation Rates Enrollment Rates
Massachusetts 21.7***
(5.00)
16.1**
(5.22...
Robustness
• Results are robust to:
– Choice of covariates
– Post period starting in 2006 instead of 2007
– Omitting 2006 ...
Limitations
• All DD studies suffer from the limitation that
an unobserved factor that is coincident with
treatment can bi...
Generalizable to ACA?
• Likely to see increase in Medicaid even in
states that do not expand
• MA had high participation r...
Cost and Benefit Implications
• A new liability for states
– Welcome mat enrollees financed at existing
federal match rate...
Acknowledgments
• Funding from RWJF
• Co-Authors
– Julie Sonier and Lynn Blewett
• Assisted by
– Pari McGarraugh
21
Sign up to receive our newsletter and updates at
www.shadac.org
@shadac
Michel Boudreaux
612-625-2206
boudr019@umn.edu
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Investigating the "Welcome Mat" Effect: How Will the ACA Affect Medicaid Participation among Previously Eligible but Not Enrolled Populations?

309 views
225 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
309
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
88
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Investigating the "Welcome Mat" Effect: How Will the ACA Affect Medicaid Participation among Previously Eligible but Not Enrolled Populations?

  1. 1. Funded by a grant from the RobertWood Johnson Foundation Investigating the “Welcome Mat” Effect: How Will the ACA Affect Medicaid Participation Among Previously Eligible But Not Enrolled Populations? Julie Sonier, Michel Boudreaux, Lynn Blewett State Health Research and Policy Interest Group Baltimore, Maryland June 22, 2013
  2. 2. Background • Medicaid take-up and retention historically low – Adults: 52-81% (Sommers et al. 2012) • Increasing take up could lead to: – More efficient use of services – Reduced financial hardship on low-income households – Increased health • But also… – Higher state costs – More crowd-out – More strain on provider supply 2
  3. 3. Background • The ACA will likely increase Medicaid enrollment even in states that do not implement the Medicaid expansion • Drivers: – Mandate increases cost of remaining uninsured (though many low-income will be exempt) – Increased awareness due to health insurance exchange and mandate – Reduced burden of applying for Medicaid – Increased social acceptability of Medicaid due to the expectation that everyone have coverage 3
  4. 4. Research Focus • We use Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform as a case study to better understand the potential of the ACA to change take-up patterns • We focus on parents who were eligible for Medicaid under the rules that existed prior to 2006 reform – Fiscally important: states get standard match – Empirically important: observe take-up in a group that faced two different sets of incentives 4
  5. 5. Prior Research • Half to two-thirds of children enrolling in CHIP qualified under pre-expansion rules (Georgetown CCF 2008) • Sommers et al. 2012 (ASPE): Review of Medicaid participation rate studies • Sommers/Epstein 2011: % of nonelderly population Medicaid eligible but uninsured by state • Sommers/Epstein 2012: State Medicaid participation rates and factors influencing participation No research studies investigating the size of the “welcome mat effect” with comprehensive reforms similar to ACA 5
  6. 6. Overview of Approach • Population of interest is parents eligible for “free” Medicaid under the rules that existed prior to MA reform – Estimate the welcome mat effect • Difference-in-differences (DD) – Pre/Post period: 2003-2006 vs 2007-2011 – Control states • NY, RI, ME, VT 6
  7. 7. Data • Microdata – March CPS for 2004-2012 • Household survey collecting prior year health insurance, family income and socio-demographics • SHADAC Enhanced weights account for imputation bias (these weights are more state representative) • Medicaid Eligibility – KFF surveys of state Medicaid Offices • Consider eligibility threshold for “free” parents’ coverage • Varies by state, year, and work status • Data supplemented with direct examination of state reports 7
  8. 8. Study Population • Control States (NY, ME, VT, RI): – Similar to MA in terms of eligibility level – Eligibility for parents did not change substantially during the analysis period – Experienced the same regional economic trends 8
  9. 9. Study Population • Analytic sample limited to low-income parents who would have been eligible for Medicaid throughout the period (Years: 2003-2011) • Ages 19 to 64 • Exclude people with SSI • Exclude women with infants (likely pregnant during previous calendar year) 9
  10. 10. Measurement of key variables • Medicaid Coverage – Any means-tested coverage in previous calendar year • Broad measure reduces error from under-reporting, but introduces misclassification – 2 Populations • Participation: Medicaid + Uninsured • Enrollment: All Eligible Parents • Family Income – Sum of personal annual income within nuclear family (health insurance unit) – Compared to FPG 10
  11. 11. Size of Participation Sample Total, CY 2003-2011 Average per year Massachusetts 540 60 Comparison States 5,620 624 Total 6,160 684 11
  12. 12. Select Sample Characteristics Variable % Public insurance coverage 66 Age 19-25 26-44 45-64 10 66 23 Male 34 Race/ethnicity Hispanic White Black Other 34 35 19 12 12 Variable % Married 52 Education < High school HS grad Some college College or more 32 40 14 14 Employment No work Worked part time Worked full time 40 19 41
  13. 13. Unadjusted Participation Rates 13 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Controls Massachusetts
  14. 14. Unadjusted Enrollment Rates 14 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Controls Massachusetts
  15. 15. Multivariate Analysis • Difference-in-differences model, using logistic regression – DD compares the change in Massachusetts to the change in the controls states to isolate the effect of the reform – Assumes control states accurately represent what would have happened in MA if reform not occurred • Covariates: socio-demographics, state, and year 15
  16. 16. Results Post-Pre Adjusted Difference (S.E.) Participation Rates Enrollment Rates Massachusetts 21.7*** (5.00) 16.1** (5.22) Control States 2.2 (3.99) -0.23 (3.36) Difference in Difference 19.4*** (4.88) 16.3*** (4.80 Implied % Change 29.8 36.2 16 Adjusted difference obtained using average marginal effects. **p<0.01; ***p<.001
  17. 17. Robustness • Results are robust to: – Choice of covariates – Post period starting in 2006 instead of 2007 – Omitting 2006 and 2007 – Official CPS instead of SHADAC-Enhanced Weights – Broad vs. narrow definition of Medicaid 17
  18. 18. Limitations • All DD studies suffer from the limitation that an unobserved factor that is coincident with treatment can bias results • Measurement error in Medicaid • Robustness exercise gives us confidence 18
  19. 19. Generalizable to ACA? • Likely to see increase in Medicaid even in states that do not expand • MA had high participation rate compared to other states, prior to reform (less “room to improve”) • MA reform included a well organized outreach campaign • Providers and community outreach groups may pick up the slack 19
  20. 20. Cost and Benefit Implications • A new liability for states – Welcome mat enrollees financed at existing federal match rate • Important Benefits – Key factor in reaching uninsurance targets – Improve efficiency of care • Preventative Care (Kolstad & Kowalski, 2012) • Decreased ED (Miller, 2012) 20
  21. 21. Acknowledgments • Funding from RWJF • Co-Authors – Julie Sonier and Lynn Blewett • Assisted by – Pari McGarraugh 21
  22. 22. Sign up to receive our newsletter and updates at www.shadac.org @shadac Michel Boudreaux 612-625-2206 boudr019@umn.edu

×