Avalere Health, Washington, DC.
Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Womens Health Issues. 2020 Jul-Aug;30(4):248-259. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2020.04.003. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
The United States has a relatively high preterm birth rate compared with other developed nations. Before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, many women at risk of a preterm birth were not able to access affordable health insurance or a wide array of preventive and maternity care services needed before, during, and after pregnancy. The various health insurance market reforms and coverage expansions contained in the Affordable Care Act sought in part to address these problems. This analysis aims to describe changes in the patterns of payer mix of preterm births in the context of a post-Affordable Care Act insurance market, explore possible factors for the observed changes, and discuss some of the implications for the Medicaid program.
We applied a repeated cross-sectional study design to explore payment mix patterns of all births and preterm births between 2011 and 2016, using publicly available National Vital Statistics Birth Data. We included an equal number of years with payment source available in the dataset before and after January 1, 2014, when the coverage expansions became effective.
We found a small relative change in payment mix during the study period. Private health insurance (PHI) paid for a higher percentage of all births and this rate increased steadily between 2011 and 2016. Preterm births paid by PHI increased by 1.4 percentage points between 2011 and 2016 and self-pay/uninsured preterm births decreased by 0.3 percentage points over the same time period. Medicaid had the highest, and a relatively stable, preterm birth coverage percentage (48.9% in 2011, 49.2% in 2014, and 48.9% in 2016). Medicaid was also more likely to pay for preterm births than PHI, but this likelihood decreased by more than one-half after 2014 (8.2% in 2013 vs. 3.8% in 2014).
After the 2010 reforms, Medicaid remained a constant source of coverage for the most vulnerable women in society when faced with the high cost of a preterm birth. Nationwide, of the 64 million women ages 15 to 44, 4% gained PHI (directly purchased or employer sponsored) and another 4% Medicaid, with a concomitant 8% decrease in uninsured women of reproductive age between 2013 and 2017. More research is needed to conclude with certainty that the reforms worked as intended, but the important role of Medicaid as a financial safety net is undeniable.
与其他发达国家相比,美国的早产率相对较高。在 2010 年《平价医疗法案》颁布之前,许多有早产风险的妇女无法获得负担得起的医疗保险或在怀孕前、怀孕中和怀孕后所需的广泛预防和产妇保健服务。《平价医疗法案》中包含的各种医疗保险市场改革和覆盖范围扩大旨在部分解决这些问题。本分析旨在描述平价医疗法案后保险市场中早产支付方组合模式的变化,探讨观察到的变化的可能因素,并讨论对医疗补助计划的一些影响。
我们应用重复横断面研究设计,使用公开的国家生命统计出生数据,探讨 2011 年至 2016 年期间所有分娩和早产的支付方组合模式。我们在数据集之前和之后包含了相同数量的有支付来源的年份,在 2014 年 1 月 1 日覆盖范围扩大生效之后。
我们发现研究期间支付方组合略有变化。私人健康保险(PHI)支付的所有分娩费用比例稳步上升。PHI 支付的早产比例在 2011 年至 2016 年间增加了 1.4 个百分点,而同期自付/无保险的早产比例下降了 0.3 个百分点。医疗补助的早产覆盖率最高(2011 年为 48.9%,2014 年为 49.2%,2016 年为 48.9%)且相对稳定。医疗补助支付早产的可能性也高于 PHI,但 2014 年后这一可能性下降了一半以上(2013 年为 8.2%,2014 年为 3.8%)。
2010 年改革后,当面临早产的高昂费用时,医疗补助仍然是社会最弱势群体的持续覆盖来源。在全国范围内,15 至 44 岁的 6400 万妇女中,有 4%获得了私人健康保险(直接购买或雇主赞助),另有 4%获得了医疗补助,而同期生育年龄的无保险妇女比例从 2013 年到 2017 年下降了 8%。需要更多的研究才能确定这些改革是否如预期的那样奏效,但医疗补助作为财务安全网的重要作用是不可否认的。