The Graham-Cassidy Senate proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that could have a far-reaching impact on women’s health care access and coverage. A new fact sheet outlines the ways women could be affected.
- view as grid
- view as list
The Effects of Premiums and Cost Sharing on Low-Income Populations: Updated Review of Research Findings
This brief reviews research from 65 papers published between 2000 and March 2017 on the effects of premiums and cost sharing on low-income populations in Medicaid and CHIP. This research has primarily focused on how premiums and cost sharing affect coverage and access to and use of care; some studies also have examined effects on safety net providers and state savings.
A new issue brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation reviews what the research shows about the effects of premiums and cost sharing on low-income populations in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), drawing upon 65 peer-reviewed studies and government and research and policy organization reports and studies published…
This issue brief, co-authored by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute, describes the income, savings, and home equity of current Medicare beneficiaries, considers variations by race, ethnicity and other demographic characteristics, and examines the extent to which income and assets are projected to be higher among the next generation of beneficiaries.
Policymakers are currently considering proposals that would fundamentally change the structure and financing of Medicaid, and potentially affect 11 million people on Medicare. This brief discusses the potential implications of Medicaid per capita cap or block grant proposals for the 11 million low-income seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare. It also describes how the per capita cap model proposed in the American Health Care Act could potentially affect low-income people on Medicare who receive assistance from Medicaid.
The Medicaid program covers 74 million low-income Americans, including many of the poorest and sickest people in our society. Among those served are pregnant women and children, parents and other adults, poor seniors, and people with disabilities. Given Medicaid’s major coverage role and the complex needs of the populations it covers, data and evidence on access to care and health outcomes in Medicaid are of key interest. Such an assessment is also important to ensure that debate about the effectiveness of the Medicaid program is grounded in facts and analysis. This Data Note discusses what the research shows.
11 Million People on Medicare Are Also Covered by Medicaid. What Could Switching to a Medicaid Per Capita Cap Mean for Them?
A major structural change to Medicaid financing such as the per capita cap system called for under the American Health Care Act could have significant implications for the 11 million seniors and people with disabilities who are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid, according to a new brief by the…
To date, Minnesota and New York are the only states to have adopted a Basic Health Program (BHP), an option in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that permits state-administered coverage in lieu of marketplace coverage for those with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) who would otherwise qualify for marketplace subsidies. BHP covers adults with incomes between 138-200% of FPL and lawfully present non-citizens with incomes below 138% FPL whose immigration status makes them ineligible for Medicaid. This brief reviews Minnesota’s and New York’s approaches to BHP and assesses BHP’s impact on consumers, marketplaces, and state costs. Although there is uncertainty around the future of the ACA (including BHP) following the 2016 election, BHP implementation offers important lessons for consideration in future reforms about structuring coverage programs for low-income uninsured consumers.
Modifying Traditional Medicare’s Benefit Design Could Reduce Federal Spending But With Cost Tradeoffs Between Beneficiaries and The Federal Government
Revamping traditional Medicare’s benefit design and restricting “first-dollar” supplemental coverage could reduce federal spending, simplify cost sharing, protect against high medical costs, decrease out-of-pocket spending for many beneficiaries, and provide more help to those with low incomes — but would be unlikely to achieve all of these goals simultaneously.