Cartoon – Misery Loves Our Company
Cartoon – Heading Up the Flagship
Cartoon – Ran Out of Metaphors
Cartoon – This Job Reminds Me of Being in Therapy
Few U.S. adults say they’ve been diagnosed with coronavirus, but more than a quarter know someone who has
Relatively few Americans say they have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, but many more believe they may have been infected or say they personally know someone who has been diagnosed.
Only 2% of U.S. adults say they have been officially diagnosed with COVID-19 by a health care provider, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. And 2% say they have taken a blood test that showed they have COVID-19 antibodies, an indication that they previously had the coronavirus. But many more Americans (14%) say they are “pretty sure” they had COVID-19, despite not getting an official diagnosis. And nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they’ve taken their temperature to check if they might have the disease.
Although few Americans have been diagnosed with COVID-19 themselves, many more say they know someone with a positive diagnosis. More than one-in-four U.S. adults (28%) say they personally know someone who has been diagnosed by a health care provider as having COVID-19. A smaller share of Americans (20%) say they know someone who has been hospitalized or who has died as a result of having the coronavirus.
Some groups are more likely than others to report personal experiences with COVID-19. For instance, black adults are the most likely to personally know someone who has been hospitalized or died as a result of the disease. One-third of black Americans (34%) know someone who has been hospitalized or died, compared with 19% of Hispanics and 18% of white adults. Black Americans (32%) are also slightly more likely than Hispanic adults (26%) to know someone diagnosed with COVID-19. Public health studies have found black Americans are disproportionately dying or requiring hospitalization as a result of the coronavirus.
Areas in the northeastern United States have recorded some of the highest rates of coronavirus cases and fatalities, and this is reflected in the Center’s survey. About four-in-ten adults living in the Northeast (42%) say they personally know someone diagnosed with COVID-19, significantly more than among adults living in any other region. People living in the Northeast (31%) are also the most likely to know someone who has been hospitalized or died as a result of the disease.
One aspect of personal risk for exposure to the coronavirus is whether someone is employed in a setting where they must have frequent contact with other people, such as at a grocery store, hospital or construction site. Given the potential for the spread of the coronavirus within households, risk to individuals is also higher if other members of the household are employed in similar settings. Among people who are currently employed full-time, 35% are working in a job with frequent public contact. Among those working part-time, almost half work (48%) in such a setting. For those living in a household with other adults, 35% report that at least one of those individuals is working in a job that requires frequent contact with other people.
Taken together, nearly four-in-ten Americans (38%) have this type of exposure – either currently working in a job that requires contact with others, living in a household with others whose jobs require contact, or both.
Hispanics (at 48%) are more likely than either blacks (38%) or whites (35%) to have this type of personal or household exposure. An earlier Center analysis of government data found Hispanic adults were slightly more likely to work in service-sector jobs that require customer interaction, and that are at higher risk of layoffs as a result of the virus. In fact, the current Center survey found Hispanics were among the most likely to have experienced pay cuts or job losses due to the coronavirus outbreak.
Interpersonal exposure in the workplace is also more widespread among younger adults. And there is a 10 percentage point difference between upper- and lower-income Americans in exposure, with lower-income adults more likely to work in situations where they have to interact with the public, or to live with people who do.
Health experts warn that COVID-19 is particularly dangerous to people who have underlying medical conditions. In the survey, one-third of adults say they have such a condition. Among this group, nearly six-in-ten (58%) say that the coronavirus outbreak is a major threat to their personal health. Among those who do not report having an underlying medical condition, just 28% see the outbreak as a major threat to their health. Americans who have an underlying health condition are also more likely than those who do not to say they’ve taken their temperature to check if they might have COVID-19 (47% vs. 33% of those without a health condition).
Self-reports of an underlying health condition vary greatly by age. Among those ages 18 to 29, just 16% say they have a condition; this rises steadily with age to 56% among those 65 and older. Whites are a little more likely than blacks and Hispanics to report having a health condition, but both blacks (at 54%) and Hispanics (52%) are far more likely than whites (32%) to say that the coronavirus outbreak is “a major threat” to their health.
U.S. adults still afraid to go to a hospital over Covid-19 fears
Seconds Count Survey Highlights
New research shows fear of COVID-19 is stopping people from seeking care during medical emergencies, like heart attacks or strokes.
- As States start to re-open, more than one-third of Americans (36 percent) consider going to the hospital to be one of the riskiest behaviors to take part in compared to going to a hair salon (27 percent) or going to the beach (16 percent)
- 61 percent of respondents think they are either somewhat likely or very likely to acquire COVID-19 in a hospital
- Half of respondents are more afraid of contracting COVID-19 than experiencing a heart attack or stroke
- Nearly 60 percent of respondents are more afraid of a family member or loved one contracting COVID-19 than experiencing a heart attack or stroke
- When asked which are you more afraid of, contracting COVID-19, experiencing a heart attack or experiencing a stroke – twice as many people over the age of 60 are more afraid of contracting COVID-19 (52 percent) than they are of experiencing a heart attack (23 percent) or stroke (25 percent)
How tariffs ravaged the COVID-19 medical supply chain
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/coronavirus-tariffs-trade-medical-supply-chain/578861/
Months into the pandemic, the U.S. faces an ongoing shortage of PPE and some of it is still subject to tariffs.
Gojo Industries, which makes Purell, builds automated hand sanitizer dispensers in the U.S. The devices rely on an electronic input made in China. But in early March, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) turned down Gojo’s tariff exemption request for the specific part needed for its dispensers, just before President Donald Trump declared a national emergency due to COVID-19.
The government later reversed its decision and waived the tariff after a senator from Ohio, where Gojo Industries is based, pressured the USTR because of the product’s importance to public health.
But several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many consumers still struggle to find public-health-related products, from hand sanitizer to wipes. There’s also a shortage of personal protective equiptment (PPE) in the United States, and some of it is still subject to tariffs, throwing a wrench into pandemic preparedness and response.
Health supply chain experts sound the warning bell
The healthcare industry warned the Trump administration long before COVID-19 that imposing tariffs on Chinese-produced essential healthcare products put the nation’s public health preparedness at risk.
In August 2018, Matt Rowan, president of the Health Industry Distributors Association (HIDA) told the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) 301 Committee that products on the proposed list were widely used in healthcare settings and “are a critical component of our nation’s response to public health emergencies, such as Ebola.”
Tariffs on items like masks, medical gloves, isolation gowns and wet wipes would not only increase U.S. healthcare costs, but impact government and commercial suppliers supporting patients and providers during a medical crisis, the industry warned.
“We did not make up for the lack of imports from China by more imports from the rest of the world.”
Jennifer Hillman
Senior fellow for trade and international political economy, Council on Foreign Relations
Disrupting this supply chain would erode the industry’s ability to deliver quality outcomes, and “placing tariffs on these products would lead to product shortages and further exacerbate public health challenges during times of crisis. It would significantly limit the ability of all levels of government, as well as the commercial healthcare supply chain, to adequately support response efforts during emergency events,” Rowan said.
In spite of healthcare industry testimony, the U.S. slapped 15% to 25% tariffs on many of these essential healthcare items. That included 25% Section 301 tariffs on items like disposable medical headwear, hand sanitizers and pulse oximeters. It included 15% Section 301 tariffs on medical protective clothing, protective goggles, and Nitrile and sterile gloves.
In 2018, the American Action Forum estimated if import numbers remained consistent, medical supply costs would rise by $400 million.
“A good portion of the reason why we are in such a difficult position is imports of those products went way down once those tariffs were imposed on China,” Jennifer Hillman, senior fellow for trade and international political economy at the Council on Foreign Relations, told reporters on a press call. “Our traditional stockpiles, the amount that we had just in storage, by FEMA, by Veterans Affairs, by HHS, and by a lot of state and local hospitals, they decreased the amount of their imports and decreased their stockpiles because of the tariffs.”
Shefali Kapadia / Supply Chain Dive, data from World Trade Organization
In placing the tariffs, one Trump administration goal was for buyers to procure items from other countries or manufacture in the U.S. instead. And that happened, but not to the extent necessary to maintain the stockpiles.
“We did not make up for the lack of imports from China by more imports from the rest of the world,” Hillman said. China was the largest exporter of medical face masks globally, accounting for 25% of the world’s supply in 2019, according to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The U.S. was the largest medical products importer during the last three years, with 19% of total world imports of these products in 2019, according to the WTO. Personal protective products (including face masks, hand sanitizer and protective eyewear) made up 10% of U.S. medical imports. Worldwide trade of products labeled “critical” and in severe shortage during the pandemic, included 1.7% of the total world trade for 2019, totaling $597 billion. The U.S. imported $5.2 billion in medical equipment in 2019.
The time-consuming exemption process
Trump refused a blanket exemption for medical products when COVID-19 hit, but did grant some exemptions retroactively to Sept. 1, 2019, through Sept. 1, 2020, on supplies like sterile drapes, disposable gowns, some face masks and disposable shoe covers. The government granted exemptions in executive orders on March 10, March 16 and March 17.
“They issued over 200 exclusions from the tariffs, with more than a hundred of these items are the ones that were needed for medical devices and to fight COVID,” said Hillman.
Still, $1.1 billion worth of healthcare imports that could be used for treating COVID-19 remain subject to the 25% tariffs, according to a report by Chad P. Brown, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Tariffs from another $3.3 billion of critical healthcare product imports were lowered from 15% to 7.5%.
General Motors (GM), partnering with Ventec to produce ventilators under the Defense Production Act, needed to source more than 700 components for the new machines. While GM could obtain most from North America, it sourced components from a handful of categories from China, which fell under a 25% tariff. They included grommets, filter parts, compressor silencers and a power cord set. GM requested exclusions from the USTR for individual parts.
GM is producing ventilators in response to the pandemic. The company needed to source more than 700 component parts for the ventilators, many of which come from China and face 25% tariffs.
AJ Mast for General Motors
These types of requests are time-consuming, especially when efforts might be better spent on other priorities during this crisis, according to legislators. Senators on both sides of the aisle pointed this out in an April letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, saying “[companies] should not be subjected to the lengthy process of submitting tariff exemption requests for each individual input required to make products essential for addressing the ongoing pandemic.”
Tethered to China
Procuring from outside of China can alleviate the risk of single sourcing and increased costs from tariffs, but it’s not always possible due to availability of raw materials, FDA clearance or production capabilities,
In June 2019, Lara Simmons, Group President of Medline Industries, explained to the USTR why a manufacturer wasn’t easily able to source many of its healthcare products, like gloves, outside of China. She said 97% of vinyl gloves come from China.
“These products are not made in the United States and some of these products are effectively available only from China. Starting production in the U.S. or any third country would be a time-consuming expensive process due to the FDA regulatory procedure that is required for these products,” she said.
The process for FDA regulated Class I and Class II medical devices can take more than two years, she said, and includes development and installation of environmental controls, facility upgrades, equipment purchase, installation, process validation and multiple rounds of audits to ensure regulatory compliance and verification of the quality system effectiveness.
Personal protective products include face masks, hand soap, sanitizer and protective spectacles.
Shefali Kapadia / Supply Chain Dive, data from World Trade Organization
Even gloves used for hospital cleaning and industrial food prep are in short supply, sending buyers back to China in spite of high tariffs.
Minnesota-based Global Glove & Safety Manufacturing applied for a tariff exemption for unsupported gloves (rubber gloves without a fabric lining), which are subject to a 25% tariff. The company’s clients that traditionally use disposable supported gloves can’t keep those in stock and are now using unsupported gloves.
“Once stability is achieved in the marketplace, we won’t buy from China for unsupported gloves, especially because of the tariffs.”
Tanner Brehmer
Product development manager, Global Glove & Safety Manufacturing
Global Glove typically buys from producers in countries including Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Thailand, but due to lockdowns and limited production in those countries, it’s trying to source some from China. “It’s tough because nothing is really shipping and lead times are pushed out so far. We don’t know when we’ll get it from other countries,” Tanner Brehmer, the company’s product development manager, told Supply Chain Dive.
The 25% tariff on the gloves produced in China greatly increases the cost, yet China is one of the only countries producing these products at full speed, he said. So in spite of tariffs, his company may move some procurement back to China. “Once stability is achieved in the marketplace, we won’t buy from China for unsupported gloves, especially because of the tariffs,” Brehmer said.
A diversified future?
Lighthizer and the Trump administration has a long-term vision for the tariffs. “Indeed, if there is one lesson to be drawn from this crisis, it is that dependence on other countries as the source of key medical products has created a strategic vulnerability for the U.S. By encouraging diversification of supply chains and—better yet—more manufacturing in the U.S., President Trump’s economic and trade policies are helping to overcome that vulnerability,” Lighthizer wrote in the The Wall Street Journal.
As healthcare systems sourced PPE and other supplies to treat COVID-19, they often paid the tariffs if needed, even if that meant paying more for the products. Healthcare systems and the government also purchased from manufacturing companies converting their domestic factories to produce needed items for COVID-19 treatment.
“We need a more resilient supply chain, which means we need to have multiple sources of supply.”
Jennifer Hillman
Senior fellow for trade and international political economy, Council on Foreign Relations
Which of these production lines will continue when the acute need for PPE is over, is hard to know. However, healthcare systems are now more aware of the risk in relying on foreign sources for their supplies.
“We need a more resilient supply chain, which means we need to have multiple sources of supply rather than sole sources of supply, and we need to do a better job of creating stockpiles,” said Hillman. “Part of the reason why we’re in such a world of hurt is because of our stockpiles were allowed to be depleted, again, in response to these tariffs.”
Ascension reports loss of $2.7B in Q1
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ascension-reports-loss-of-27b-in-q1-COVID/578579/
Dive Brief:
- Ascension reported a total loss of $2.7 billion in the first three months of 2020, compared to income of $1.2 billion during the same time last year, according to new financial statements from the nonprofit giant.
- The Catholic system, one of the largest hospital operators in the country, saw operating revenue decrease 2.5% year over year in the period ending March 31 to $6.1 billion. That came as expenses like salaries and supplies ticked up by more than 3% to $6.4 billion.
- Ascension also reported losses from investments of $2.48 billion, compared to return from investments of $1.1 billion from the same time last year. Nonprofit operators are reporting massive investment hits as the stock market slid in the beginning of the year following widespread business closures and shelter-in-place orders stifling the economy.
Dive Insight:
Nonprofit hospitals are posting huge losses for the outset of 2020 as analysts predict an even grimmer second quarter to come. However, though losses in the first three months of the year dragged St. Louis-based Ascension into the red, the provider behemoth is still in a relatively good position to weather the pandemic, with current assets of $38.3 billion and 231 days of cash on hand.
Though patient volume was up prior to the pandemic, revenue from providing medical care flagged in the three-month period, as inpatient and ambulatory care slowed as the coronavirus surfaced in the U.S. In mid-March, Ascension deferred all non-essential procedures as stay-at-home orders kept potential patients in the home, impacting the system’s volumes.
Total net patient service revenue was $5.7 billion, down 3% year over year. Net patient service revenues had the sharpest drop off in March, decreasing more than 15% in that month alone.
“COVID-19 has been encountered across all Ascension markets, to varying degrees, and has had an adverse effect,” Ascension management wrote in comments on the results.
The system, which operates more than 2,600 sites of care, including 150 hospitals across 20 states and the District of Columbia, has received federal help to make up for lower-than-expected revenue. Ascension said in the filing it has received Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act funding before March 31. Though a spokesperson declined to tell Healthcare Dive a specific figure, Ascension has received at least $211 million from HHS, according to a New York Times review of the grants finding large hospitals with deep pockets are receiving the lion’s share of congressional funds.
Smaller hospitals that serve more vulnerable populations were deeply critical of HHS’ initial method to distribute the CARES funds, which put high margin hospitals at an advantage. The department did not take into account hospitals’ existing financial resources in distributing the pot.
Nine-year-old Ascension also received just under $2 billion in accelerated loans from the Medicare program.
Normal increases in operations compounded the negative effect of the pandemic, Ascension said. The system was funneling money into expanding service lines and sites of care and standardizing revenue cycle services prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which sharply increased expenses.
Supplies expenses particularly jumped in March by almost 7%, as the system hustled to procure needed equipment at unexpected rates to prepare for an anticipated surge in COVID-19 patients.
Health Equity Principles for State and Local Leaders in Responding to, Reopening and Recovering from COVID-19
“Health equity means that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. This requires removing obstacles to health such as poverty, discrimination, and their consequences, including powerlessness and lack of access to good jobs with fair pay, quality education and housing, safe environments, and health care.”
COVID-19 has unleashed a dual threat to health equity in the United States: a pandemic that has sickened millions and killed tens of thousands and counting, and an economic downturn that has resulted in tens of millions of people losing jobs—the highest numbers since the Great Depression. The COVID pandemic underscores that:
- Our health is inextricably linked to that of our neighbors, family members, child- and adult-care providers, co-workers, school teachers, delivery service people, grocery store clerks, factory workers, and first responders, among others;
- Our current health care, public health, and economic systems do not adequately or equitably protect our well-being as a nation; and
- Every community is experiencing harm, though certain groups are suffering disproportionately, including people of color, workers with low incomes, and people living in places that were already struggling financially before the economic downturn.
For communities and their residents to recover fully and fairly, state and local leaders should consider the following health equity principles in designing and implementing their responses. These principles are not a detailed public health guide for responding to the pandemic or reopening the economy, but rather a compass that continually points leaders toward an equitable and lasting recovery.
Pandemics and economic recessions exacerbate disparities that ultimately hurt us all. Therefore, state and local leaders cannot design equitable response and recovery strategies without monitoring COVID’s impacts among socially and economically marginalized groups.¹ Data disaggregation should follow best practices and extend not only to public health data on COVID cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities, but also to: measures of access to testing, treatment, personal protective equipment (PPE), and safe places to isolate when sick; receipt of social and economic supports; and the downstream consequences of COVID on well-being, ranging from housing instability to food insecurity.
Geographic identifiers would allow leaders and the public to understand the interplay between place and social factors, as counties with large black populations account for more than half of all COVID deaths, and rural communities and post-industrial cities generally fare worse in economic downturns. Legal mandates for data disaggregation are proliferating, but 11 states are still not reporting COVID deaths by race; 16 are not reporting by gender; and 26 are not reporting based on congregate living status (e.g., nursing homes, jails). Only three are reporting testing data by race and ethnicity.
While states and cities can do more, the federal government should also support data disaggregation through funding and national standards.
Our communities are stronger, more stable, and more prosperous when every person, including the most disadvantaged residents, is healthy and financially secure. Throughout the response and recovery, state and local leaders should ask: Are we making sure that people facing the greatest risks have access to PPE, testing and treatment, stable housing, and a way to support their families? And, are we creating ways for residents—particularly those hardest hit—to meaningfully participate in and shape the government’s recovery strategy?
Accordingly, policymakers should create space for leaders from these communities to be at decision-making tables and should regularly consult with community-based organizations that can identify barriers to accessing health and social services, lift up grassroots solutions, and disseminate public health guidance in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways. For example, they could recommend trusted, accessible locations for new testing sites and advise on how to diversify the pool of contact tracers, who will be crucial to tamping down the spread of infection in reopened communities. They could also collaborate with government leaders to ensure that all people who are infected with coronavirus (or exposed to someone infected) have a safe, secure, and acceptable place to isolate or quarantine for 14 days. Key partners could include community health centers, small business associations, community organizing groups, and workers’ rights organizations, among others. Ultimately, state and local leaders should measure the success of their response based not only on total death counts and aggregate economic impacts but also on the health and social outcomes of the most marginalized.
Establish and empower teams dedicated to promoting racial equity in response and recovery efforts.
Race or ethnicity should not determine anyone’s opportunity for good health or social well-being, but, as COVID has shown, we are far from this goal. People of color are more likely to be front-line workers, to live in dense or overcrowded housing, to lack health insurance, and to experience chronic diseases linked to unhealthy environments and structural racism. Therefore, state and local leaders should empower dedicated teams to address COVID-related racial disparities, as several leaders, Republican and Democrat, have already done.
To be effective, these entities should: include leaders of color from community, corporate, academic, and philanthropic sectors; be integrated as key members of the broader public health and economic recovery efforts; and be accountable to the public. These teams should foster collaboration between state, local, and tribal governments to assist Native communities; anticipate and mitigate negative consequences of current response strategies, such as bias in enforcement of public health guidelines; address racial discrimination within the health care system; and ensure access to tailored mental health services for people of color and immigrants who are experiencing added trauma, stigma, and fear. Ultimately, resources matter. State and local leaders must ensure that critical health and social supports are distributed fairly, proportionate to need, and free of undue restrictions to meet the needs of all groups, including black, Latino, Asian, and Indigenous communities.
Proactively identify and address existing policy gaps while advocating for further federal support.
The Congressional response to COVID has been historic in its scope and speed, but significant gaps remain. Additional federal resources are needed for a broad range of health and social services, along with fiscal relief for states and communities facing historically large budget deficits due to COVID. Despite these challenges, state and local leaders must still find ways to take targeted policy actions. The following questions can help guide their response.
Who is left out?Inclusion of all populations will strengthen the public health response and lessen the pandemic’s economic fallout for all of society, but federal actions to date have not included all who have been severely harmed by the pandemic. As a result, many states and communities have sought to fill gaps in eviction protections and paid sick and caregiving leave. Others are extending support to undocumented immigrants and mixed-status families through public-private partnerships, faith-based charities, and community-led mutual aid systems. Vital health care providers, including safety net hospitals and Indian Health Service facilities, have also been disadvantaged and need targeted support.
Will protections last long enough?Many programs, such as expanded Medicaid funding, are tied to the federal declaration of a public health emergency, which will likely end before the economic crisis does. Other policies, like enhanced unemployment insurance and mortgage relief, are set to expire on arbitrary dates. And still others, such as stimulus checks, were one-time payments. Instead, policy extensions should be tied to the extent of COVID infection in a state or community (or its anticipated spread) and/or to broader economic measures such as unemployment. This is particularly important as communities will likely experience re-openings and closings over the next six to 12 months as COVID reemerges.
Have programs that meet urgent needs been fully and fairly implemented?Allexisting federal resources should be used in a time of great need. For example, additional states should adopt provisions that would allow families with school-age children to receive added Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and more communities need innovative solutions to provide meals to young children who relied on schools or child care providers for breakfast and lunch. States should also revise eligibility, enrollment, and recertification processes that deter Medicaid use by children, pregnant women, and lawfully residing immigrants.
Invest in strengthening public health, health care, and social infrastructure to foster resilience.
Health, public health, and social infrastructure are critical for recovery and for our survival of the next pandemic, severe weather event, or economic downturn. A comprehensive public health system is the first line of defense for rural, tribal, and urban communities. While a sizable federal reinvestment in public health is needed, states and communities must also reverse steady cuts to the public health workforce and laboratory and data systems.
Everyone in this country should have paid sick and family leave to care for themselves and loved ones; comprehensive health insurance to ensure access to care when sick and to protect against medical debt; and jobs and social supports that enable families to meet their basic needs and invest in the future. As millions are projected to lose employer-sponsored health insurance, Medicaid expansion becomes increasingly vital for its proven ability to boost health, reduce disparities, and provide a strong return on investment. In the longer term, policies such as earned income tax credits and wage increases for low-wage workers can help secure economic opportunity and health for all. Finally, states and communities should invest in affordable, accessible high-speed internet, which is crucial to ensuring that everyone—not just the most privileged among us—is informed, connected to schools and jobs, and engaged civically.
These principles can guide our nation toward an equitable response and recovery and help sow the seeds of long-term, transformative change. States and cities have begun imagining and, in some cases, advancing toward this vision, putting a down payment on a fair and just future in which health equity is a reality. Returning to the ways things were is not an option.
COVID-19, Unemployment Compensation, and State Medicaid Expansion Decisions
Some Workers Losing Jobs and Health Insurance Remain Ineligible for Subsidized Coverage.
People who have lost jobs due to COVID-19 and live in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid are at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing affordable health insurance coverage.
The Issue
More than 70 percent of the 7.4 million workers with pre-pandemic employer-based insurance through industries now vulnerable to high rates of unemployment were found to be eligible for some assistance with health insurance (Medicaid or marketplace subsidies) if they lost their jobs. However, eligibility differs significantly between workers in states that have and have not expanded Medicaid.
Authors expand upon earlier work to show how varied levels of unemployment insurance provided through the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program affects eligibility for subsidized coverage.
Key Findings
Authors find that whether unemployment compensation is included in determining eligibility for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies affects workers living in states that expanded Medicaid differently than those living in states that do not.
-
If the additional federal unemployment compensation was not used to determine eligibility for health insurance assistance, 78 percent of expansion state workers in the most vulnerable industries would be eligible for assistance compared to 59 percent of their counterparts in the 15 nonexpansion states.
-
Under current law, more than 70 percent of expansion and nonexpansion state workers with pre-pandemic employer-based insurance through industries now vulnerable to high rates of unemployment would be eligible for some assistance with health insurance if they lost their jobs.
Conclusion
The current limits on marketplace subsidies mean that fewer workers are likely to be eligible for financial assistance in getting or maintaining health insurance coverage. At the same time, additional funds could help them meet other pressing needs. This research suggests that eligibility for financial assistance above 400 percent of the federal poverty level under current rules would address this problem.
About the Urban Institute
The nonprofit Urban Institute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and economic policy. For nearly five decades, Urban scholars have conducted research and offered evidence-based solutions that improve lives and strengthen communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps expand opportunities for all, reduce hardship among the most vulnerable, and strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector. Visit the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center for more information specific to its staff and its recent research.
