A comparison of utilization, costs, and quality in Medicaid and Marketplace coverage
Research comparing public and private health insurance suggests poorer access to care and worse health outcomes in Medicaid than in Marketplace coverage. And with policymakers considering a range of policies to expand coverage, understanding the trade-offs between public and private insurance is critical. Researchers from Policies for Action’s hub at Harvard University compared differences in Medicaid and Marketplace coverage for adults with low incomes and found Marketplace was associated with fewer emergency room visits, and total costs were 83 percent higher than in Medicaid coverage. Results on quality of care were mixed.
Actionable policy-oriented evidence for dual pandemics
The nation is grappling with two pandemics; the novel coronavirus, which continues to reshape the lives of people everywhere, and the structural racism that permeates nearly every aspect of life have laid bare growing inequities across the nation. In a new blog post, the Policies for Action team looks at the work done in 2020 and the work ahead as we help build the evidence base needed in the face of these two pandemics.
State preemption of local immigration “sanctuary” policies
At least nine states have preempted municipal policies providing some form of “sanctuary” to immigrants, which can have a significant negative effect on access to crucial health services and broader social determinants of health. Researchers at Syracuse University investigated the legal considerations of these state preemption laws to help municipalities determine which immigrant-supportive measures are still permitted and how best to limit the negative public health effects of preemption.
The effects of COVID-19 are being felt across the country: rising unemployment levels, overwhelmed health care systems, and businesses closing each day. What actionable evidence can help inform policies that will effectively mitigate the impacts of the pandemic?
New research from the California Policy Lab
examining the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in California, commonly known as CalFresh, finds that more than half the households leaving the program each year are still income eligible but are leaving mainly because of paperwork burdens that occur every six months. This research suggests one of the most effective long-term strategies to keep more people enrolled in CalFresh would be to lengthen the amount of time between eligibility requirements.
