Home Blog Page 12

How Much and Why Premiums are Going up for Small Businesses in 2026



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Small businesses with Affordable Care Act (ACA)-compliant plans could face a median premium increase of 11% for 2026, according to an analysis of preliminary rate filings from 318 insurers across all 50 states and DC. A deep dive into filings from 16 states and D.C. (with a 12% median proposed rate increase) shows that these small group market insurers cite rising health care costs (commonly estimated at about 9%) as the primary driver of the 2026 rate hike, including higher prices for hospital care, physician services, and prescription drugs.

Some insurers also cite broader inflation, labor shortages, uncertainty about tariff-driven cost increases, specialty drugs like GLP-1s, and decreased enrollment and worsening risk pools in small group plans as sources of the cost increases. A subset of insurers have responded to mounting prescription drug costs by excluding coverage of GLP-1s for weight-loss in 2026. Final premium changes are expected to be published in early fall.

The analysis is part of the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

Part-Time Workers Have Less Access to Employer-Based Coverage Than Full-Time Workers 



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Overview

Employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is the primary source of health coverage for working non-elderly adults, but adults working part time (fewer than 35 hours per week) have less access to these benefits than their full-time counterparts. Among non-elderly adults employed by public or private employers (excluding the self-employed), 18.5 million, or 14% of adult workers, work part time. This report examines the characteristics of part-time workers and their access to employer-sponsored health benefits.  

Part-time workers—particularly those living in households without a full-time worker—are less likely to be offered health coverage and less likely to be enrolled in an employer plan, either through their own employer or as a dependent on someone else’s plan. Part-time workers who do not have employer coverage may be eligible for Medicaid or for subsidized coverage in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces. However, recent cuts in these coverage programs included in the Republican tax and spending law, as well as the potential expiration of enhanced Marketplace tax credits, will make it harder for individuals who may not have access to an affordable, job-based plan to find coverage. 

Who are Part-Time Workers? 

Workers cite a wide range of reasons for usually working part-time. Some of the most common include enrollment in school or a training program (30%); family or personal obligations, including childcare obligations (26%); and having a job where full-time work is less than 35 hours per week (19%). Smaller shares report working part time because they are unable to find full-time work (7%) or due to illness, health, or medical limitations (4%).  

Generally, part-time workers can be broken into two categories: those working part time for economic reasons (such as inability to find work or seasonal declines in demand), and those working part time for non-economic reasons (such as medical limitations, childcare responsibilities, family or personal obligations, retirement, or jobs where full-time work is less than 35 hours per week). For this analysis, workers enrolled in school or training programs are treated as a separate category due to their large share of the part time workforce. The analysis focuses on non-elderly adult workers who usually work part time; it excludes full-time workers who happened to be working part time at the time of the survey. 

On average, part-time workers are younger than full-time workers (35 years old vs. 41 years old) and are more likely to be women (66% vs. 46%). More than half (52%) of part-time workers earned a high school diploma (or equivalent) as their highest level of education. Compared to full-time workers, part-time workers are less likely to have earned a bachelor’s degree (27% vs 44%), or a postgraduate degree such as a master’s or doctorate degree (9% vs 16%). 

Part Time Workers are Less Likely Than Full Time Workers to Have a Bachelors or Post Graduate Degree

Part-time workers are more likely than full-time workers to have household incomes below twice the federal poverty level (30% vs. 13%), which is about $30,120 for a single person and $62,400 for a family of four. At the same time, part-time workers are not a homogeneous group; many live in households with higher incomes. Specifically, 42% of part-time workers have household incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level (about $124,800 for a family of four), and 24% have incomes above 600% of the poverty level (about $187,200 for a family of four). 

Where do Part-Time Workers Work? 

About one in three part-time workers (33%) are employed in service occupations. More specifically, the most common occupations are food preparation and food service-related roles (15%), followed by office and administrative support (13%), sales (12%), transportation and material moving (9%), and education, training, and library occupations (9%). The most common jobs among part-time workers are cashier, waiter, retail salesperson, and personal care aide. 

Among the major industry categories, 31% of part-time workers are employed in education, health care, or social assistance; 21% work in the arts, entertainment, recreation, or food services industry; and 17% are in wholesale and retail trade. The most common industries for part-time workers overall are restaurants and other food services; elementary and secondary schools; colleges, universities, and professional schools; hospitals (excluding facilities specifically for psychiatric and substance abuse); and supermarkets or other grocery stores. 

What Share of Part-Time Workers Have a Full-Time Worker in the Household? 

Sixty-five percent of part-time workers live in a household with a full-time adult worker. Those living with a full-time worker are much less likely to have a household income below 200% of the federal poverty level compared to those without at least one full-time worker in their household (18% vs. 52%). 

Part Time Workers Are More Likely Than Full Time Workers to Have a Family Income Less than Twice the Poverty Level

What is the Health Insurance Coverage of Part-Time Workers ?

Compared to full-time workers, part-time workers are less likely to have employer-based health coverage, either through their own workplace or as a dependent on another plan. They are also less likely to work for an employer that offers health coverage to any of their employees. If a part-time worker is working for an employer that offers coverage, they are less likely to be eligible to enroll in that coverage. 

Fifty-four percent of part-time workers have employer-based health coverage, compared to 78% of full-time workers. Notably, part-time workers living in a household without a full-time worker are much less likely to have employer-based coverage (36%) than those in households with at least one full-time worker (63%). Only 19% of part-time workers have employer-based coverage from their own jobs, compared to 62% of full-time workers. 

Part Time Workers Are More Likely to be Covered by Employer Insurance if They Have a Full Time Worker in the Household

Overall, part-time workers are more likely to be uninsured than their full-time counterparts (13% vs 9%). Among part-time workers, those living in a household without a full-time worker are more likely to be uninsured (17%) than those living with a full-time worker (11%). Part-time workers are also more likely to be covered by Medicaid (21%) or Direct-Purchase (12%) than full-time workers (7% and 6% respectively). Direct purchase coverage would primarily be through the ACA marketplaces and typically comes with a tax credit to subsidize the premium, scaled with income. 

Part Time Workers Are Less Likely to be Covered by a Job-Based Plan, and More Likely to be Uninsured

Offers and take-up of employer-based coverage 

One of the reasons part-time workers are less likely to have health coverage through their job is that they are less likely to work for employers who offer health benefits. Specifically, only 60% of part-time workers work for an employer that offers health insurance, compared to 84% for full-time workers.  

Among part-time workers who do work for an employer offering health benefits, just 64% are eligible to take up the coverage. For those who work for an employer offering coverage but are not eligible to enroll:

  •  84% do not work enough hours per week or weeks per year to qualify,
  •  8% are contract or temporary employees,
  •  and 5% have not worked for their employer long enough to become eligible. 

Under the ACA’s shared responsibility mandate, if employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees do not offer minimum essential coverage to 95% of their full-time employees and their dependent children, they are taxed. However, employers are not required to offer coverage to part- time workers. 

Part Time Workers Are Less Likely Than Full Time Workers to be Offered Coverage by Their Employer

Of the 60% of part-time workers that work for an employer that offers health insurance, only 64% are actually eligible for coverage at their job. Overall, 19% of part-time workers are covered by their own employer. Among those part-time employees who are eligible but do not take up coverage offered at work, 68% cite having other coverage as the reason for not enrolling, while 28% find the coverage too expensive. 

Only 6 in 10 Part Time Workers Are Eligible for Coverage Offered at Their Job, Compared to Almost All Full Time Workers

Part-time workers—especially those living in households without a full-time worker—tend to have lower incomes and are less likely to be covered by a job-based health plan. Even when coverage is offered, many part-time workers cite cost as a reason for not enrolling. These workers may struggle to afford the premiums required to enroll in the plan, or the cost-sharing required by the plan when they go to use services. While, overall, those with employer-sponsored plans spend an average of 3.9% of their income on premiums and cost-sharing, the financial burden is much higher for lower-income households. Fifteen percent of workers have household incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level. 

Employer-sponsored insurance remains the linchpin of coverage for non-elderly working adults, but workers with lower incomes or part-time schedules are significantly less likely to have access to this type of insurance. For part-time workers who are either ineligible for or cannot afford job-based coverage, upcoming federal policy changes may further limit their options. Changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in the Republican tax and spending package — formerly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”— are projected to result in 10 million more people becoming uninsured by 2034. Furthermore, if the enhanced premium tax credits that reduce the cost of ACA Marketplace coverage for many enrollees are not extended beyond 2025, an additional 4.2 million people are expected to lose coverage. 

Some employers have taken steps to make coverage more accessible for low-wage workers. In 2024, 14% of firms with 200 or more employees offered a plan with reduced benefits and low premium contributions specifically designed to be affordable for low-wage workers. Additionally, some firms provide voluntary benefits to part-time workers outside of their standard health plans. These benefits may include financial assistance for hospitalization or specialized services such as telehealth. In 2024, 3% of small firms and 14% of large firms that did not offer standard coverage to part-time workers offered a voluntary benefit. Despite these efforts, access to employer-sponsored health benefits remains a significant challenge for many part-time workers. 



Source link

Premium Payments if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs), first introduced as part of the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, have made ACA Marketplace coverage more affordable for the millions of enrollees that receive them. Enhanced tax credits have lowered the share of household income ACA Marketplace enrollees are expected to contribute out-of-pocket toward the premium payment for a benchmark silver plan. For those already eligible for premium subsidies, ePTCs have increased the total amount of tax credits the enrollee receives, while middle-income enrollees making above 400% of poverty ($62,600 for an individual enrolled in coverage for plan year 2026) have become newly eligible for the tax credits. The ePTCs were extended until the end of 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act.

This data note compares how the out-of-pocket portion of premiums would differ if the ePTCs expire, or become extended, for select scenarios. (To produce your own estimate of how premium payments would differ compared to if the enhanced tax credits become unavailable, KFF provides an interactive tool where users are able to input their desired geography, income, and family size).  

Premium Payments Would Increase for Subsidized Marketplace Enrollees Without Enhanced Premium Tax Credits (ePTC)

If enhanced premium tax credits expire, subsidized ACA Marketplace enrollees can expect their out-of-pocket premium payments to rise substantially. For example, a 27-year-old making $35,000 (224% of poverty) would pay $1,033 annually for a benchmark silver plan in 2026 with the ePTCs. Without the enhanced tax credits, however, they will pay $2,615 – a $1,582 (153%) increase.

With the enhanced tax credits in place, Marketplace enrollees making between 100%-150% of the federal poverty level are eligible for a fully subsidized benchmark plan. Prior to the availability of the ePTCs, enrollees making just above the poverty level were expected to contribute about 2% of their household income towards a benchmark plan. If the enhanced tax credits expire, low-income enrollees who are currently paying $0 for a benchmark plan will have to start paying for coverage again. For example, a 35-year-old couple earning $30,000 can expect to start paying $1,107 annually for a Marketplace benchmark plan.

What happens if premiums rise substantially in 2026?

There are two ways of thinking about premiums in the ACA Marketplaces. First, there is the net premium, which is what the enrollee pays out-of-pocket after taking into account their tax credit. Second, there is the gross premium, which is the amount the insurance company charges (part of which is paid by the federal government and part of which is paid by the enrollee). The expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits will affect the net premium directly (as enrollees receive less financial assistance) and it will also indirectly affect the gross premium insurers charge.

A KFF analysis of rates (gross premiums) proposed by Marketplace insurers for the 2026 plan year found that insurers are requesting a median increase of 18% in their rates. Insurers cited several reasons for these rate increases, including that they anticipate that some healthier members will leave the ACA Marketplaces once their net (or, out-of-pocket) premium payments increase if the ePTCs expire. This results in an enrollee base that is less healthy and more expensive, on average. Insurers say that rates are rising by about 4 percentage points more than they otherwise would, due to the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credit.

If enhanced premium tax credits expire, enrollees with incomes between the poverty level and four times the poverty level will continue to be eligible for financial assistance – they will just receive a smaller tax credit than they currently do. As shown in the examples above, these enrollees will pay significantly more for their monthly premium, but they will still pay a certain percent of their income for the benchmark silver plan. In other words, the increase in their monthly premium will primarily be a result of a smaller tax credit — the amount subsidized enrollees pay is largely shielded from increases in the amount insurance companies charge.

However, if enhanced premium tax credits expire, people with incomes over four times the poverty level will no longer be eligible for any financial assistance. Because their monthly payments will no longer be tied to a certain percentage of their income, these enrollees will not only lose financial assistance but will also be exposed to any increase in underlying gross premiums. With the enhanced tax credits, middle-income enrollees making above 400% of poverty currently have their out-of-pocket premium payments for a benchmark plan capped at 8.5% of their income. However, if the ePTCs are not renewed, these enrollees will experience a “double whammy” – losing their eligibility for Marketplace premium tax credits and facing the annual increases in the cost of a Marketplace plan.

Enrollees Making Above 400% of Poverty Will Lose All Financial Assistance Without Enhanced Premium Tax Credits

On average, a 55-year-old couple making $85,000 is currently receiving $13,567 in premium tax credits annually, covering 65% of the total cost of a benchmark plan. If the ePTCs expire, this couple would lose financial assistance and pay the full annual cost of $20,792, assuming premiums stay the same. However, if the gross premium grows at a rate of 18% into 2026, the 55-year-old couple can expect their net (out-of-pocket) premium payments to more than triple if ePTCs expire, increasing by $17,310 (240%), from $7,225 to $24,535 annually for the same plan.

How do Trump Administration Regulations Affect Premium Payments?

The maximum household required contribution for a benchmark ACA Marketplace plan is indexed annually to adjust for growth in premiums relative to income. Since the introduction of enhanced premium tax credits, new (and more generous) required contribution levels for premiums were implemented without annual adjustment.

As the ePTCs are set to expire, the IRS has released the required contributions for 2026. The Trump administration introduced changes in the calculation of required contribution through the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule earlier this year. Compared to the indexing methodology in place previously, the maximum out-of-pocket contribution for benchmark premiums for those that receive premium tax credits has increased as a share of income.

Prior estimates indicated that in 2024, out-of-pocket premium payments among subsidized enrollees would have been over 75% higher without the enhanced tax credits. Enrollees could expect to pay even more in 2026, on average, due to annual increases in the average costs of premium and IRS changes to the contribution requirements.

Methods

Premium data for 2025 is used in table 1 as rates for 2026 have not yet been finalized. Premium data for 2025 were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), insurer rate filings, and information directly received or collected by KFF researchers from state exchanges or insurance departments. To isolate the effect on premiums without enhanced tax credits in table 1, the maximum required contribution was calculated using the federal poverty threshold for 2025, comparing the applicable percentage under the IRA to what is expected for 2026. In figure 1, the 2025 scenario reports values using required contribution and poverty guidelines in place for plan year 2025. An additional 18%  increase is applied in the 2026 (without enhanced tax credit) scenario to model annual increases in premiums.



Source link

DACA recipients no longer eligible for Marketplace health insurance and subsidies



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Under a new federal rule, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients became ineligible to enroll in Affordable Care Act Marketplace coverage (with or without subsidies), effective August 25, 2025. The change will result in the disenrollment of an estimated 10,000 people from Marketplace plans and 1,000 from Basic Health Program coverage.

DACA recipients will be disenrolled from Marketplace and BHPs

The Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule in June 2025 that eliminates DACA recipients’ eligibility to use the Marketplace. Under the rule, DACA recipients were no longer eligible to enroll in Marketplace coverage starting August 25, 2025. DACA recipients already enrolled in Marketplace plans (or Basic Health Program – or BHP – coverage) will be disenrolled as of October 1, 2025 (September 30 will be the last day of coverage) in states that use HealthCare.gov as their Marketplace.

However, some state-run Marketplaces, including those in California and Pennsylvania, announced that they would disenroll DACA recipients as of August 31. So there could be some variation in the coverage end date, depending on location.

DACA eligibility for Marketplace and subsidies

Ever since the ACA Marketplaces opened in 2013, they could be used by American citizens as well as lawfully present immigrants. But although DACA recipients are considered lawfully present for some purposes, they were not allowed to enroll in coverage through the federally run HealthCare.gov Marketplace platform or most of the state-run health insurance Marketplaces.

The Biden administration adopted federal rules to allow DACA recipients to enroll in Marketplace coverage nationwide, with income-based subsidies, starting in November 2024.

But 19 states challenged the rule change in court, and a federal judge blocked the rule allowing Marketplace access for DACA recipients in those 19 states.

In the rest of the country, DACA recipients continued to have access to Marketplace plans and subsidies. That has changed, however, due to the federal rule finalized by the Trump administration in June 2025.

Who are DACA recipients?

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was created in 2012 to protect young people who had arrived in the United States as children without proper immigration paperwork. The program temporarily protects them from deportation and allows them to work in the U.S. but does not grant them lawful status in the U.S. DACA recipients must renew their DACA status every two years.

As a result of a 2023 court order, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is no longer processing initial DACA applications. But the agency is continuing to process renewal applications for people who received their DACA status before July 16, 2021.

All DACA recipients are undocumented immigrants who came to the United States when they were children. They are commonly referred to as “Dreamers,” though most Dreamers are not enrolled in DACA. Although an estimated 3.6 million Dreamers are living in the U.S., only about 530,000 of them are DACA recipients.

Dreamers who are not enrolled in DACA did not gain access to the health insurance Marketplaces under the 2024 federal rule change.

The term “Dreamers” comes from the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which would have given legal status to all eligible individuals who arrived in the U.S. as children without documentation. This legislation was first introduced in Congress in 2001 and has been reintroduced numerous times since then, but has never passed.

Can DACA recipients enroll in Basic Health Program coverage?

Under the ACA, states have the option to create a Basic Health Program (BHP), although only three have done so (New York, Minnesota, and Oregon), and New York’s BHP has since been converted to a different program with a higher income limit. A BHP provides coverage, with zero or low premiums, to people who don’t qualify for Medicaid and whose household income is up to 200% of the federal poverty level.

(New York officials announced in September 2025 that they plan to revert to the BHP model starting in mid-2026, due to federal funding cuts that make it impossible for the state to continue to offer the program to those with higher incomes.)

The 2024 federal rule change allowed DACA recipients to enroll in BHP coverage starting in November 2024, and the administration projected that roughly 1,000 DACA recipients would qualify for BHP coverage under the new rule.

But from a consumer perspective, Oregon was the only state where DACA health insurance eligibility rules for BHP coverage changed in November 2024.

  • Minnesota had allowed DACA recipients to enroll in BHP coverage since 2017, using state funds to provide the coverage. The 2024 federal rule change meant that from November 2024 through August 2025, Minnesota did not have to fully fund BHP coverage for DACA recipients, but it didn’t change anything about enrollees’ eligibility for coverage. And MinnesotaCare confirmed that nothing will change about DACA recipients’ access to coverage under the 2025 federal rule change. DACA recipients will not lose MinnesotaCare coverage.
  • New York began allowing DACA recipients to enroll in Essential Plan coverage (the state’s former BHP) in August 2024, under the terms of a 1332 waiver amendment. Since that program is no longer a BHP, the termination of DACA eligibility for Marketplace and BHP coverage is not applicable in New York. This will change, however, starting in July 2026, when the Essential Plan reverts to being a BHP. At that point, unless New York uses state funds to cover DACA recipients, they will no longer be eligible for Essential Plan coverage once it’s a BHP again.
  • Oregon’s BHP, which became operational in July 2024, did not initially allow DACA recipients to enroll. That changed in November 2024 due to the new federal rule. But starting on August 25, 2025, DACA recipients were once again ineligible to enroll in BHP coverage in Oregon. Those already enrolled in Oregon BHP coverage will be disenrolled as of October 1, 2025. State Medicaid programs are typically funded with a combination of state and federal funds, but federal funds cannot be used to provide Medicaid to DACA recipients (or to any undocumented immigrants).

Can undocumented immigrants get health insurance?

The 2024 DACA health insurance rule change temporarily allowed DACA recipients to enroll in Marketplace health coverage and qualify for federal premium subsidies, but that ended on August 25, 2025. (As noted above, DACA recipients do not have lawful status in the U.S., but they are considered lawfully present for some purposes.)

But beyond that, federal funding cannot be used to provide health insurance for undocumented immigrants. And undocumented immigrants cannot enroll in coverage through the Marketplace unless a state has obtained federal permission to allow this. Washington has done so, and Colorado established a separate enrollment platform that undocumented immigrants can use although Colorado’s funding for this program is expected to drop significantly in 2026 (the anticipated funding cut could be partially offset due to legislation enacted during a special session in August 2025). In January 2025, Maryland received federal approval to allow undocumented immigrants to use its state-run Marketplace starting in 2026, albeit without any subsidies.

Undocumented immigrants can obtain health coverage outside the Marketplace, either from an employer or directly purchased from an insurance company. And in some states, they can be eligible for state-funded Medicaid or similar coverage. But about half of all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are uninsured.


Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written hundreds of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org.





Source link

Potential Story Lines from Trump-Era Health Care Cuts



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

In his latest column for the JAMA Health Forum, KFF’s Larry Levitt talks about how popular shows like “The Pitt” can make changes to the health care system stemming from this year’s federal tax and budget bill tangible for viewers, and offers five suggested story lines that would illustrate how health care is changing under the Trump administration.



Source link

About Half of Adults with ACA Marketplace Coverage are Small Business Owners, Employees, or Self-Employed



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

The enhanced premium tax credits, created under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and later extended through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), have reduced premiums for millions of Marketplace enrollees. They have also contributed substantially to Marketplace enrollment more than doubling to 24.3 million people in 2025.

Currently, over nine in 10 enrollees (92%) receive some amount of premium tax credit. If these enhanced tax credits expire at the end of 2025, out-of-pocket premiums would rise by over 75% on average for the vast majority of individuals and families buying coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces. Additionally, insurers are proposing an increase in gross premiums (before premium tax credits are applied) of 18%, partly due to the impact on the risk pool of the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits. This double-digit increase would affect government costs for tax credits, as well as Marketplace enrollees not receiving premium assistance.

Much of the discussion about the ACA Marketplaces centers on individuals and families buying coverage on their own. However, many enrollees are connected to small businesses or are self-employed. A previous KFF analysis found that 38% of adult individual market enrollees under age 65 making over 400% of the federal poverty line (FPL) are self-employed, compared to 7% of adults (ages 19-64 years) with incomes over four times poverty nationally. If the enhanced premium tax credits expire, individuals and families with household incomes over 400% FPL would no longer be eligible for any premium tax credits, leaving them with the full cost of their health insurance premium.

Using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement, we estimate that 48% of adults under age 65 enrolled in individual market (direct purchase) coverage are either employed by a small business with fewer than 25 workers, self-employed entrepreneurs, or small business owners. In other words, about half of adult enrollees in the individual health insurance market – the vast majority of which is purchased through the ACA Marketplaces – is affiliated with a small business. For context, 16% of all adults under age 65 nationwide are employed by a small business or are self-employed.

Nearly Half of Individual Market Enrollees Work for a Small Business or Are Self-Employed

For many employees of small businesses and self-employed individuals, the individual market functions as their main source of comprehensive health insurance outside of traditional employer coverage. Unlike larger firms, small businesses are less likely to offer health benefits to their employees, leaving workers and entrepreneurs dependent on the affordability and stability of the individual market.

The enhanced premium tax credits have lowered premium costs for enrollees across the Marketplaces. If those subsidies expire as scheduled at the end of 2025, individual market enrollees—including many people tied to small businesses—would face higher out-of-pocket premiums.

Methods

The data above is based on KFF analysis of 2024 CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement. The analysis includes adults under age 65 who directly purchase their health insurance and are not currently students. People were considered to be self-employed or employed by a small business if they self-reported being self-employed or working at a business with between one and 24 employees. Can you add this sentence to the end of the methods. Employer size is measured for the primary job in the previous year, and may be different at the time of the survey.



Source link

Health Costs Associated with Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Infant Care



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Pregnancy is one of the most common causes of hospitalization among non-elderly people. In addition to the cost of the birth itself, pregnancy also involves costs associated with prenatal visits as well as treatment for psychological and medical conditions that can arise during pregnancy, birth, and the postpartum period.

This analysis examines the health costs associated with pregnancy, childbirth, post-partum care, and infancy using a subset of claims from the Merative MarketScan Encounter Database were analyzed from 2021 through 2023 for enrollees with employer-sponsored health insurance plans and their young (two years old or less) children. It finds that health costs associated with pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum care average a total of $20,416, including $2,743 in out-of-pocket expenses, for women enrolled in employer plans. In addition to the cost of pregnancy and birth, newborns, defined as children with fewer than three months of enrollment, had average total health care spending of $5,820, including $475 in out-of-pocket costs.

The analysis can be found on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

How Healthcare Prices and Utilization in the United States Compare to Peer Nations?



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

This updated chart collection compares indicators of health care utilization and prices in the United States and 11 similarly wealthy countries to investigate whether higher prices or higher utilization of healthcare services drives the high healthcare expenditures in the U.S. relative to peer nations.

The U.S. spends nearly twice as much on health care per person as peer nations ($13,432 vs. $7,393 per person), meanwhile health care utilization in the U.S. — from doctor visits to surgeries — is generally lower than in other wealthy countries. The evidence continues to support the finding that higher prices – as opposed to higher utilization – explain the United States’ high health spending relative to other high-income countries.

The analysis is part of the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

5 Key Facts about Medicaid’s Share of National Health Spending



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Medicaid, as the primary program providing comprehensive coverage of health care and long-term services and supports to about 80 million low-income people in the United States, accounts for one-fifth of all personal health care spending in the United States and a large share of state budgets. During its 60 years since enactment, Medicaid’s share of health insurance coverage and health care spending have incrementally increased; the program has evolved over time through a series of legislative and judicial actions, within the context of broader changes in the health care landscape. Now, landmark changes to Medicaid coverage and enrollment policies are set to roll out over the next several years.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the recently enacted reconciliation package is estimated to reduce federal Medicaid spending by $911 billion over 10 years (after accounting for interactions that produce overlapping reductions across different provisions of the law), and to increase the number of uninsured people by 10 million in 2034. The most recent projections for national health spending do not account for the changes in the law; but changes in the law are expected to have big implications for Medicaid coverage and spending that could reverse longstanding incremental trends. Policy changes in the reconciliation package that lead to more uninsured people are likely to increase out-of-pocket spending as a share of national health care spending. Shifts in spending patterns are likely to be more profound over time and beyond the ten year projection period if there are no other changes in federal laws that affect health spending.

To provide historical context for how changes to Medicaid spending may impact national health spending trends, this brief explores how Medicaid spending contributes to national health spending and how different service areas contribute to Medicaid costs. This brief uses National Health Expenditures (NHE) historic data, published annually by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which provide estimates of national spending on health care, by payer and by type of service. The analyses in this brief focus on spending for personal health care, which excludes the costs of public health programs and payers’ administrative spending (see Methods).

1. Over time, Medicaid has covered an increasing share of the population and health care costs.

Over the past two decades, the percent of the population enrolled in Medicaid increased by more than 10 percentage points (from 12% in 2000 to 25% in 2023 by NHE enrollment estimates). During the same time, Medicaid’s share of national health spending increased by only 3 percentage points, from 16% to 19%. Medicaid spending is driven by multiple factors, including the number and mix of enrollees, their use of health care and long-term services and supports, the prices of Medicaid services, and state policy choices about benefits, provider payment rates, and other program factors. Some of the faster growth in Medicaid enrollment relative to spending is that enrollment growth over the past two decades was driven by increased enrollment stemming from the Great Recession, implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of those events spurred increased enrollment of working-age adults and their families, groups that tend to have lower per-enrollee Medicaid costs than older adults and people who come into Medicaid because they need long-term care. CBO estimates predict that changes to Medicaid enacted in the reconciliation package will result in a downward shift in future Medicaid spending and in enrollment. KFF analyses show how these recent changes to Medicaid policy are likely to reduce federal Medicaid spending and impact enrollment, with varying impacts to different states or areas.

Medicaid Covers an Increasing Share of the Population and Health Care Costs

2. Medicaid’s share of spending has grown, but remains lower than that of private insurance and Medicare.

Prior KFF analysis has shown that generally, third party payers cover a greater share of total health spending than in previous decades because more people have gained coverage, especially public coverage, and payers’ spending per enrollee has grown. The total share of national health care spending for each type of coverage reflects the number and mix of enrollees and the amount spent to cover each enrollee. The share of health care spending paid by people out-of-pocket decreased as more spending was paid by Medicare and private insurance. Out-of-pocket spending includes payments for care from people who are not insured, and payments for care from people with health coverage when coverage requires enrollees to pay some of the costs. Common types of out-of-pocket spending among people with coverage include copayments (a flat fee per service), coinsurance (a percentage of the total costs), and deductibles (an amount enrollees pay before coverage kicks in). Historically, one difference between Medicaid and other forms of health coverage was the low out-of-pocket spending. Estimated increases in the uninsured following implementation of the reconciliation package could reverse incremental declines in out-of-pocket costs.

Medicaid’s Share of Spending Has Grown, but Remains Lower Than That of Other Insurance Types

3. Over 70% of Medicaid spending pays for hospital services and long-term care.

Over the last 23 years, the largest share of Medicaid spending paid for hospital services, which accounted for 38% of Medicaid spending on average and varied between 37% and 39% during the 2000-2023 period. Medicaid mirrors broader hospital spending trends; spending on hospitals makes up the largest share of all health care spending, a trend projected to continue. During the same period, long-term care accounted for an average of 37% of Medicaid spending, although it declined somewhat from a high of 40% in 2007 to 36% in 2023. The category with the greatest relative growth was payments to providers such as physicians which increased from 11% in 2000 to 17% in 2023. The percent of spending that paid for prescription drugs decreased from 11% in 2000 to 7% in 2023, which is likely attributable to the enactment of the Medicare prescription drug benefit which took effect in 2006. Prior to that point, Medicaid paid for prescription drugs for low-income Medicare beneficiaries who were also enrolled in Medicaid (e.g., dual-eligible individuals).

Over 70% of Medicaid Spending Pays for Hospital Services and Long-Term Care

4. Medicaid pays for nearly 20% of hospital spending.

Medicaid pays for nearly 20% of hospital spending, a share that has changed little since 2000. During that time, Medicare’s share of national spending on hospital care decreased from 30% in 2000 to 25% in 2023, while the share paid by private health insurance rose from 33% to 37%. People pay a much smaller percentage of hospital spending out-of-pocket compared with other types of health care. Medicaid covered 41% of all U.S. births in 2023; births are the most common reason for a hospital inpatient stay. Medicaid financing for hospitals is complex, but Medicaid studies have shown that Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion is associated with improved hospital financial performance and lower likelihood of hospital closure, particularly in rural areas.

Medicaid Pays for Nearly 20% of Hospital Spending

5. Medicaid is the primary payer of long-term care, most of which is now provided in people’s homes and the community.

Medicaid continues to be the primary payer of long-term care, comprising an increasing share of all spending on long-term care. Medicaid’s share of spending on long-term care rose nine percentage points, growing from 52% in 2000 to 61% in 2023. Since 2000, Medicaid’s spending on care delivered in people’s homes and communities (e.g., home care) increased faster than spending on institutional care such as nursing facilities. In 2000, the 52% of long-care spending that was paid by Medicaid included 29% on home care and 23% on institutional care. In 2023, the 61% that was paid by Medicaid included 47% on home care and only 14% on institutional care. Prior KFF analysis has shown that in 2021, three-quarters of the 5.7 million people who used Medicaid long-term care were receiving home care, although that percentage varies across the states widely. The larger share of people receiving care in the community as opposed to in an institution reflects initiatives to make home care more widely available in recent years and to remove what has been referred to as the “institutional bias” in Medicaid. 

Medicaid is the Primary Payer of Long-Term Care, Most of Which Is Now Provided in People’s Homes and the Community

Methods

This analysis uses National Health Expenditures (NHE) historic data. Unlike other sources of information on health care spending, the NHE data use an accounting structure that captures all expenditures of health care goods and services and investment in the health care sector. Expenditures are classified into high-level service categories and by source of payment. Data sources include federal administrative data, household and individual surveys, surveys of businesses, and economic data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Medicaid spending estimates are derived from financial reporting through Form CMS-64, except for durable medical equipment estimates which are developed from person-level payment data.

See the NHE Accounts Methodology documentation for additional information including definitions, sources, and methods; CMS publishes both complete documentation and short definitions.

Enrollment: This KFF analysis uses NHE Accounts enrollment data to estimate Medicaid’s share of total health insurance enrollment (Figure 1). NHE Accounts data estimates Medicaid enrollment using the Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) for years 2000-2013, and enrollment projections reported on form CMS-64 for years 2014-2023. The NHE Accounts data estimates for total health insurance enrollment include private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Departments of Defense and of Veterans Affairs.

Personal Health Care Services: Personal health care services in the NHE Accounts data represent aggregate revenue received by health care providers and retail providers of medical goods and services. Cost estimates for personal health care services expenditures exclude administrative costs, government public health activities, or investments in structures or equipment. KFF analyzes NHE personal health care data using service categories (i.e. “hospitals,” “providers,” or “prescription drugs,”) that align with the classification system used within the NHEA, except for Long-Term Care.

Spending by Payer: NHE Accounts data estimate spending attributable to certain payer categories. KFF uses the payer categories defined by the NHE Accounts data and defines “Other” spending (Figures 2 and 4) below. For personal health care services:

  • Medicaid spending estimates include both state and federal spending on both fee-for-service and managed care enrollees but exclude Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) spending.
  • Medicare spending estimates include Medicare Parts A, B, and C (Medicare Advantage). Medicare spending estimates also include Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage Part D. Private supplemental Medicare insurance, i.e. Medigap and employer-sponsored Medicare Part D, is excluded from Medicare spending and included in private insurance spending.
  • Private Insurance spending estimates include premiums and benefits from traditional fully-insured health coverage whether purchased individually or through an employer, self-insured employer health benefit plans, plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and indemnity plans such as those covering hospital care or long-term care. Private insurance spending estimates also include supplemental Medicare plans (e.g., Medigap).
  • Out-of-Pocket spending estimates include direct consumer spending including coinsurance, deductibles, and any other amounts not covered by insurance. Premiums are included in private insurance spending and excluded from out-of-pocket spending.
  • Other: KFF defines “Other” spendingas personal health care expenditures by the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Indian Health Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, federal spending through the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plans (PCIP) or COVID-19 relief funds (e.g. the Provider Relief Fund), direct payments to the needy through general assistance programs (e.g. the State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program), certain state and local programs (e.g. temporary disability insurance or provider subsidies), and property or casualty insurance.

Spending by Service Category: KFF uses the NHE Accounts definitions for hospital care, provider care, and prescription drugs. KFF definitions for “Other” services (Figure 3) and “Long-Term Care (Figures 3 and 5) are included below.

  • Hospital Care includes all services provided by hospitals to patients. These expenditures include the services of resident physicians, inpatient pharmacy, room and board and ancillary costs, hospital-based home health care, and other services billed by hospitals. Services rendered in a hospital by a physician who bills independently are considered Provider Care.
  • Provider Care includes services provided in non-hospital clinics and practices. These include physician-operated practices, outpatient care centers, and certain federally operated clinics and clinics operated by non-physician clinicians (such as private-duty nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, chiropractors, or occupational therapists). Provider care also includes certain medical laboratory services.
  • Prescription Drugs covers “retail” sales of products available only by a prescription, such as drugs, biologics, and diagnostic products.
  • Other: KFF defines Medicaid spending on “Other” services to include personal health care expenditures not attributable to hospitals, providers, prescription drugs, nor long-term care. This includes dental care, durable medical equipment, non-durable medical equipment (e.g. diagnostic tools or wound dressings and other medical supplies), and non-prescription drugs.
  • Long-Term Care: KFF defines long-term care to include spending for nursing care and continuing care retirement communities; home health; and other health, residential, and personal care if it is paid for by Medicaid, individuals who are paying out-of-pocket, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Indian Health Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, general assistance, other federal programs, other state and local programs, school health. See 10 Things about LTSS for more information.



Source link

Medicare Advantage Enrollees Account for 25% of all Inpatient Hospital Days



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage has grown rapidly in recent years, with more than half of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries now receiving their coverage from a private plan. Although the pace of enrollment increases slowed in 2025, the total number of Medicare Advantage enrollees still increased and the share of Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their Medicare benefits from a private plan is expected to continue to grow over the next decade. This trend has implications for beneficiaries and health care providers, including hospitals, because Medicare Advantage differs from traditional Medicare in many ways.

For hospitals and beneficiaries, one key distinction is that virtually all Medicare Advantage enrollees are in a plan that requires prior authorization for inpatient hospital stays (96%), post-acute skilled nursing facility stays (99%) and home health care (91%). Prior authorization is intended to reduce unnecessary care and lower costs, but it also imposes administrative burdens on providers, and sometimes leads to delays and barriers to care. Medicare Advantage plans also typically establish provider networks and impose higher out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network care. In light of the reported uptick in utilization among some Medicare Advantage enrollees, insurers looking to protect profits and guard against losses may seek to cut costs in ways that could impact hospitals, such as by tightening networks to direct patients to providers with lower costs. As Medicare Advantage enrollment grows, decisions made by insurers (related to networks, payment rates, prior authorization, and denials) along with decisions made by hospitals (whether to be in a Medicare Advantage network) can be expected to affect a larger share of the Medicare population.

Recently, hospitals and other providers—including in rural areas—have raised concerns about the impact of Medicare Advantage on their finances. Some hospitals have terminated contracts over payment rates, delays in payment, more restrictive coverage determinations, and denials. One issue that has drawn scrutiny from these groups has been plans’ practice of shifting hospitalized patients to “observation status,” which often means lower payments to hospitals and higher costs for patients. Additionally, one study estimated that Medicare Advantage denials of inpatient services reduced provider revenue by approximately 7%.

This data note examines the growth of Medicare Advantage as a share of hospital inpatient days between 2015 and 2023 based on cost reports submitted by hospitals to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Key Takeaways

  • Medicare Advantage represents a growing share of total hospital inpatient days. Medicare Advantage grew from 13% to 25% of total inpatient hospital days between 2015 and 2023, and as of 2023, half (50%) of all Medicare inpatient hospital days were attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees.
  • Nearly four in ten hospitals had more inpatient days from Medicare Advantage enrollees than traditional Medicare enrollees in 2023. The share of hospitals with more Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare inpatient days grew from 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023.
  • Medicare Advantage inpatient shares have grown fastest in rural areas. The share of inpatient hospital days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees more than doubled in rural counties adjacent to metropolitan areas between 2015 and 2023 and nearly tripled in rural counties not adjacent to metropolitan areas.
  • Medicare Advantage inpatient shares ranged from 2% to 33% across states in 2023. Medicare Advantage inpatient shares were lowest in Alaska (2%) and Wyoming (6%) and highest in Ohio (32%) and Michigan (33%).
  • Within counties, the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees also varied widely across hospitals in 2023. For example, in Allegheny County, PA (where Medicare Advantage penetration is relatively high), inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees ranged from 14% to 59% across hospitals. Similarly, in Cook County, Illinois (where Medicare Advantage penetration is relatively low), the Medicare Advantage inpatient share ranged from 2% to 38% across hospitals.

Medicare Advantage steadily increased as a share of inpatient days between 2015 and 2023, while the share attributed to traditional Medicare decreased.

The share of total inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees grew from 13% in 2015 to 25% in 2023 among general short-term hospitals in the U.S (see Figure 1). During this same period, the share of inpatient days attributed to traditional Medicare declined from 36% to 25%. As of 2023, half of all Medicare inpatient days were attributed to Medicare Advantage patients. The rise in the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees coincided with an increase in Medicare Advantage enrollment as a share of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries from 32% in 2015 to 51% in 2023.

Medicare Advantage Steadily Increased as a Share of Inpatient Days Between 2015 and 2023, While the Share Attributed to Traditional Medicare Decreased

The share of hospitals with more inpatient days from Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare increased from 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023.

The increase in Medicare Advantage enrollment has contributed to a shift in patient mix across hospitals, affecting some more than others. The share of hospitals with more Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare inpatient days increased from just 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023 (Figure 2). Hospitals with a greater share of patients from Medicare Advantage than traditional Medicare may be more reliant on revenue from these plans and more affected by various plan rules and decisions, such as prior authorization requirements, denials of claims, observation stay designations, and network restrictions.

The Share of Hospitals With More Inpatient Days From Medicare Advantage Than Traditional Medicare Grew From 4% in 2015 to 38% in 2023

Among rural hospitals, the share of inpatient days for Medicare Advantage enrollees more than doubled between 2015 and 2023.

Medicare inpatient shares more than doubled (from 11% in 2015 to 26% in 2023) in rural counties that are adjacent to metropolitan areas and nearly tripled (from 7% in 2015 to 19% in 2023) in rural counties that are not adjacent to metropolitan areas (referred to here as the “most rural” counties). Medicare inpatient shares were lower in adjacent rural areas versus urban areas in 2015 (11% versus 13%) but were higher in 2023 (26% versus 25%). Although Medicare inpatient shares grew fastest in the most rural areas, they also were lower in these areas in any given year than in other areas (e.g., 19% in 2023 versus 26% in adjacent rural areas and 25% in urban areas). The majority of Medicare beneficiaries in the most rural counties receive their coverage through traditional Medicare, unlike in rural counties adjacent to metropolitan areas and urban counties, where most beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

Some rural hospitals have raised concerns about the growth of Medicare Advantage, pointing to payment rates that are lower than rates paid by traditional Medicare and payment delays and denials. Rural hospitals often face unique financial challenges, which could make it harder to adjust to the expansion of Medicare Advantage than other hospitals. As Medicare Advantage enrollment continues to climb, and as Medicare Advantage enrollees comprise a larger share of patients, rural hospitals may face new challenges.

Among Rural Hospitals, the Share of Inpatient Days for Medicare Advantage Enrollees More Than Doubled Between 2015 and 2023

Medicare Advantage inpatient shares ranged from 2% to 33% across states in 2023.

State-level Medicare Advantage inpatient shares tracked with Medicare Advantage enrollment. Medicare Advantage inpatient shares were lowest in Alaska (2%), and Wyoming (6%), which were also the two states with the lowest Medicare Advantage penetration in 2023 (2% and 11%, respectively). Meanwhile, Medicare Advantage inpatient shares were among the highest in states like Michigan (33%) and Hawaii (29%) where penetration was at least 60% of all Medicare beneficiaries. State-level Medicare Advantage penetration is influenced by a range of factors, including insurance market dynamics, beneficiary characteristics, and the share of the state’s population living in urban or rural areas. 

Medicare Advantage Inpatient Shares Ranged From 2% to 33% Across States in 2023

Medicare Advantage comprised a higher share of inpatient days in counties with higher Medicare Advantage penetration in 2023.

Across the country, the share of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage varies widely. As might be expected, counties with higher Medicare Advantage penetration also had higher Medicare Advantage inpatient shares than counties with lower Medicare Advantage penetration. Among counties in the top quartile of Medicare Advantage penetration, Medicare Advantage comprised 28% of inpatient days in 2023 (Figure 4), substantially greater than the 18% share among the bottom quartile of counties.

Medicare Advantage Comprised a Higher Share of Inpatient Days in Counties With Higher Medicare Advantage Penetration in 2023

The share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage enrollees varied widely across hospitals within counties in 2023.

Although the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage tracked county-level Medicare Advantage penetration, there was large variation within counties. The figure below illustrates the range in Medicare Advantage inpatient shares for a set of counties that have several hospitals and are geographically dispersed in each quartile of Medicare Advantage penetration. For example, in Allegheny County, PA, a high-penetration county where 73% of eligible Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2023, Medicare Advantage enrollees accounted for just 14% of all inpatient days in one hospital but more than half (59%) in others. Even in counties with lower than average penetration, there was substantial variation in the share of inpatient days attributed to Medicare Advantage. For instance, in Cook County, Illinois, where 42% of beneficiaries were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, the Medicare Advantage inpatient share ranged from 2% to 38% across hospitals.

Differences in Medicare Advantage inpatient shares across hospitals within the same county may be due to a number of factors, including whether a given hospital is in Medicare Advantage networks, the extent to which a given hospital tends to serve people with Medicare based on the types of services and procedures it provides, and beneficiary preferences that might be based on convenience or perceived quality. As noted above, hospitals with a relatively large number of patients from Medicare Advantage may be more affected by prior authorization requirements, denials of claims, observation stay designations, and network restrictions of these plans. As Medicare Advantage enrollment continues to rise, the decisions made by Medicare Advantage plans related to reimbursement, coverage, and networks could have revenue implications for hospitals and other health care providers that can be expected to vary across counties and within local markets.

The Share of Inpatient Days Attributed to Medicare Advantage Enrollees Varied Widely Across Hospitals Within Counties in 2023

This work was supported in part by Arnold Ventures. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.



Source link