In a Western North Carolina region ravaged by opioids, innovative programming provides comprehensive, judgement-free care.In 2018 New Jersey implemented a final-offer arbitration system to resolve payment disputes between insurers and out-of-network providers over surprise medical bills. Similar proposals are being considered by Congress and other states. In this article we examine how arbitration decisions compare with other relevant provider payment amounts by linking administrative data from New Jersey arbitration cases to Medicare and commercial insurance claims data. We find that decisions track closely with one of the metrics that arbitrators are shown-the eightieth percentile of provider charges-with the median decision being 5.7 times prevailing in-network rates for the same services. It is not a foregone conclusion that arbitrators will select winning offers based on proximity to this target, although our findings suggest that it is a strong anchor. The amount that providers can expect to receive through the arbitration process also affects their bargaining leverage with insurers, which could affect in-network negotiated rates more broadly. Therefore, basing arbitration decisions or a payment standard on unilaterally set provider-billed charges appears likely to increase health care costs relative to other surprise billing solutions and perversely incentivizes providers to inflate their charges over time.Physician consolidation into health systems increased in nearly all metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) from 2016 to 2018. Of the 382 US MSAs, 113 had more than half of their physicians in health systems in 2018. Consolidation of physicians was most notable in the Midwest and Northeast and in small-to-midsize MSAs.Income inequality estimates based on traditional poverty measures do not capture the effects of health care spending and health insurance. To explore the distributional effects of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) expansion of health benefits and the resulting income inequality, this study used alternative income measures that incorporate the value of the ACA’s health insurance changes under the law. The study simulated the impact of the ACA on income inequality in 2019 compared with a scenario without the ACA. We found that the ACA reduced income inequality and that the decrease was much larger in states that expanded Medicaid than in states that did not. We also decomposed the effect of the ACA on inequality by race/ethnicity, age, and family educational attainment. The ACA reduced inequality both across groups and within these groups. With efforts to repeal the ACA-specifically, California v. Texas-having shifted from Congress to the courts, it remains important to consider the consequences of fully repealing the ACA, which would likely reverse reduced inequality observed under the law.A woman with serious mental illness cycles between a state hospital, shelters, nursing homes, and psychiatric units, with no permanent place to land.Primary care access for Medicaid patients is an ongoing area of concern. Most studies of providers’ participation in Medicaid have focused on factors associated with the Medicaid program, such as reimbursement rates. Few studies have examined the characteristics of primary care practices associated with Medicaid participation. We used a nationally representative survey of primary care practices to compare practices with no, low, and high Medicaid revenue. Seventeen percent of practices received no Medicaid revenue; 38 percent and 45 percent were categorized as receiving low and high Medicaid revenue, respectively. EPZ005687 datasheet Practices with no Medicaid revenue were more often small, independent, and located in urban areas with higher household income. These practices also have lower population health capabilities.Medicare’s Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program, which awards value-based incentive payments based on hospital readmissions, distributed its first two rounds of incentives during fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Incentive payments were based on achievement or improvement scores-whichever was better. Incentive payments were as low as -2.0 percent in both program years and as high as +1.6 percent in FY 2019 and +3.1 percent in FY 2020. In FY 2019, 26 percent of facilities earned positive incentives and 72 percent earned negative incentives, compared with 19 percent positive and 65 percent negative incentives in FY 2020. Larger, rural, and not-for-profit facilities were more likely to earn positive incentives, as were those with the highest registered nurse staffing levels. Although these findings indicate the potential to reward high-quality care at skilled nursing facilities, intended and unintended outcomes of this new value-based purchasing program should be monitored closely for possible program refinements, particularly in light of the disproportionate impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on nursing facilities.States’ decisions to expand Medicaid may have important implications for their hospitals’ financial ability to weather the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study estimated the effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on hospital finances in 2017 to update earlier findings. The analysis also explored how the ACA Medicaid expansion affects different types of hospitals by size, ownership, rurality, and safety-net status. We found that the early positive financial impact of Medicaid expansion was sustained in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 as hospitals in expansion states continued to experience decreased uncompensated care costs and increased Medicaid revenue and financial margins. The magnitude of these impacts varied by hospital type. As COVID-19 has brought hospitals to a time of great need, findings from this study provide important information on what hospitals in states that have yet to expand Medicaid could gain through expansion and what is at risk should any reversal of Medicaid expansions occur.The return of a Democratic administration to the White House, coupled with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-induced contractions of job-based insurance, may reignite debate over public coverage expansion and its costs. Decades of research demonstrate that uninsured people and people with copays and deductibles use less care than people with first-dollar coverage. Hence, most economic analyses of Medicare for All proposals and other coverage expansions project increased utilization and associated costs. We review the utilization surges that such analyses have predicted and contrast them with the more modest utilization increments observed after past coverage expansions in the US and other affluent nations. The discrepancy between predicted and observed utilization changes suggests that analysts underestimate the role of supply-side constraints-for example, the finite number of physicians and hospital beds. Our review of the utilization effects of past coverage expansions suggests that a first-dollar universal coverage expansion would increase ambulatory visits by 7-10 percent and hospital use by 0-3 percent.