Year 2 of Affordable Care Act Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) in a Medicaid Nonexpansion State: QHPs Associated With Viral Suppression for Virginia AIDS Drug Assistance Program Clients.

BACKGROUND: For year 1 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Virginia AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) clients with Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) achieved a higher rate of viral suppression. This study characterizes the demographic and health care delivery factors associated with QHP enrollment in year 2 and assesses the relationship between 2015 QHP coverage and HIV viral suppression. METHODS: The cohort included Virginia ADAP clients who were eligible for ADAP-funded QHPs. Data were collected from 2014 to 2015. Multivariable binary logistic regression was conducted to assess the association of demographic and health care delivery factors with QHP enrollment and viral suppression. RESULTS: In year 2, 63% of the cohort (n = 4631) enrolled in QHPs; 2015 ADAP-funded QHP enrollment was associated with 2014 ADAP-funded QHP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 111.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 90.91-166.67), 2014 engagement in care (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.65-2.82), age (P < .001), race/ethnicity (P = .03), financial status (P < .001), and region (P < .001). For clients engaged in care (n = 2501), viral suppression was higher (83.3%) for those with ADAP-funded QHP coverage than for those who received medications from ADAP (79.9%). In multivariable binary logistic regression, achieving viral suppression was associated with 2015 QHP coverage (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60), an initially undetectable viral load (aOR, 2.69; 95% CI, 2.13-3.39), gender (P = .03), age (P = .01), no AIDS diagnosis (aOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.78), financial status (P = .004), and region (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Virginia ADAP client 2015 QHP enrollment increased compared with year 1 and varied based on demographic and health care delivery factors. QHP coverage was again associated with viral suppression, an essential outcome for individuals and for public health.

PPACA and Low-Income People Living with HIV: 2014 Qualified Health Plan Enrollment in a Medicaid Nonexpansion State.

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) often are uninsured or underinsured, and they may benefit from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and its improved access to medical care. Safety net programs, such as AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP) funded through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which serve low-income people living with HIV, are incorporating Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Marketplace-qualified health plans (QHPs) and helping to fund patients' participation. This changing landscape differs from state to state, and one main element contributing to the differing situations is whether a state elected to expand Medicaid. This review examines QHP enrollment of ADAP clients in Virginia, a Medicaid nonexpansion state, and explores some issues that affect people living with HIV in other Medicaid nonexpansion states. Virginia is a leader in the shift of ADAP healthcare delivery from direct medication provision to purchasing QHPs. Virginia ADAP clients accounted for approximately 2% of ADAP clients nationally, but they represent 17% of ADAP clients enrolled in QHPs nationwide. Ensuring good HIV care of the ADAP population is important to each patient's personal longevity, the public health, and the efficient use of healthcare dollars. As healthcare delivery models shift, the effects on patients and health outcomes achieved should be monitored, particularly for chronic diseases such as HIV.

Affordable Care Act Qualified Health Plan Coverage: Association With Improved HIV Viral Suppression for AIDS Drug Assistance Program Clients in a Medicaid Nonexpansion State.

BACKGROUND: With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) shifted their healthcare delivery model from direct medication provision to purchasing qualified health plans (QHPs). The objective of this study was to characterize the demographic and healthcare delivery factors associated with Virginia ADAP clients' QHP enrollment and to assess the relationship between QHP coverage and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral suppression. METHODS: The cohort included persons living with HIV who were enrolled in the Virginia ADAP (n = 3933). Data were collected from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2014. Multivariable binary logistic regression was conducted to assess for associations with QHP enrollment and between QHP coverage and viral load (VL) suppression. RESULTS: In the cohort, 47.1% enrolled in QHPs, and enrollment varied significantly based on demographic and healthcare delivery factors. In multivariable binary logistic regression, controlling for time, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and region, factors significantly associated with achieving HIV viral suppression included QHP coverage (adjusted odds ratio, 1.346; 95% confidence interval, 1.041-1.740; P = .02), an initially undetectable VL (2.809; 2.174-3.636; P < .001), HIV rather than AIDS disease status (1.377; 1.049-1.808; P = .02), and HIV clinic (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: QHP coverage was associated with viral suppression, an essential outcome for individuals and for public health. Promoting QHP coverage in clinics that provide care to persons living with HIV may offer a new opportunity to increase rates of viral suppression.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: impact on the care of gynecologic oncology patients in the absence of Medicaid expansion in central Virginia.

OBJECTIVE: Many gynecologic oncology (GO) patients in Virginia are low income and their care is supplemented by Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funds. Our objective is to estimate how many new GO patients may lose access to care if the state forgoes Medicaid expansion. METHODS: New patients referred to the GO service between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2012 were identified. Data were collected regarding age, race, referral diagnosis, payor, and state pay scale. Pay scale 1 (PS1) is equal to the federal poverty level (FPL). Assumptions included the following: (1) pay scale is a surrogate for income, (2) PS1 patients will be ineligible for discounted insurance through the exchanges, and (3) decreasing DSH funds will result in a reduction of the free-care pool. RESULTS: There were 1623 referrals to the GO service and the majority (83%) was Caucasian. The payor distribution was 44% commercial insurance, 5.6% Medicaid, 31% Medicare, and 10.4% uninsured. Among the 361 women who were PS1, 32% were uninsured. Thirty percent of PS1 patients were minorities and 47.4% had a malignancy. Of note, 52% of new patients with cervical cancer were PS1. CONCLUSION: Seven percent of new GO patients are PS1 and uninsured. This population contains a disproportionate number of minorities and women with cancer. These women will have difficulty affording care as DSH funding decreases, particularly in states with lean Medicaid that opt out of Medicaid expansion. The burden of lack of access to care will be shouldered by an unfortunate few.

Current challenges to the United states' AIDS drug assistance program and possible implications of the affordable care act.

AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, enacted through the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990, are the "payer of last resort" for prescription medications for lower income, uninsured, or underinsured people living with HIV/AIDS. ADAPs face declining funding from the federal government. State funding of ADAP is discretionary, but some states increased their contributions to meet the gap in funding. The demand for ADAP support is increasing as people living with HIV are living longer; the antiretroviral therapy (ART) guidelines have been changed to recommend initiation of treatment for all; the United States is increasing HIV testing goals; and the recession continues. In the setting of increased demand and limited funding, ADAPs are employing cost containment measures. Since 2010, emergency federal funds have bailed out ADAP, but these are not sustainable. In the coming years, providers and policy makers associated with HIV care will need to navigate the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Lessons learned from the challenges associated with providing sustainable access to ART for vulnerable populations through ADAP should inform upcoming decisions about how to ensure delivery of ART during and after the implementation of the ACA.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: what every provider of gynecologic oncology care should know.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. While initial implementation of the law began shortly thereafter, the full implementation will take place over the next few years. With respect to cancer care, the act was intended to make care more accessible, affordable, and comprehensive across different parts of the country. For our cancer patients and our practices, the ACA has implications that are both positive and negative. The Medicaid expansion and access to insurance exchanges are intended to increase the number of insured patients and thus improve access to care, but many states have decided to opt out of the Medicaid program and in these states access problems will persist. Screening programs will be put in place for insured patients but may supplant federally funded programs that are currently in place for uninsured patients and may not follow current screening guidelines. Both hospice and home health providers will be asked to provide more services with less funding, and quality measures, including readmission rates, will factor into reimbursement. Insured patients will have access to all phases of clinical trial research. There is a need for us as providers of Gynecologic Oncology care to be active in the implementation of the ACA in order to ensure that our patients and our practices can survive and benefit from the changes in health care reimbursement, with the ultimate goals of improving access to care and quality while reducing unsustainable costs.

The revolving door: hospital readmissions of gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVE: Rehospitalization within 30 days of discharge was identified by the Obama Administration as a target for reducing health care spending. We examined readmissions to our gynecologic oncology service to determine: 1) rates of readmission, 2) indication for readmissions, 3) whether the admission was planned, and 4) costs. METHODS: IRB approval was obtained for this 5-year retrospective review (2004-2008). Gynecologic oncology patients were included if they were readmitted within 30 days of discharge at a single academic hospital. Abstracted data included: demographics, dates of hospitalizations, cancer history, indication for admission, and cost. A series of admissions was any number of admissions that occurred within 30 days of discharge. An index admission was the first admission in a series. RESULTS: In the study period, 2455 unique patients were admitted to Gynecologic Oncology. 324 unique patients (13.2%) were readmitted within 30 days, with 37 experiencing >1 series of admission. 87.3% were readmitted to Gynecologic Oncology. Within a series of admissions, patients were admitted on average 1.5 times following the index admission, up to 9 admissions. The median cost of index admission was $9820; for readmissions, $8059. The total cost of readmissions over 5 years was $6,421,733. Unplanned readmissions accounted for the majority of this cost. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital readmissions affect the cost of care, but also the quality of care delivered to our patients. When extrapolated across institutions and across the country, unplanned readmissions are a costly expenditure to patients and the health system, deserving of attention.

Attacking obesity: lessons from smoking.

For the first time since the Civil War, American life expectancy is projected to decrease, owing to the diseases associated with obesity such as diabetes, ultimately causing cardiovascular death. In the past 30 years, the prevalence of obesity among U.S. adults has doubled, as has the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Enough data. The Surgeon General should attack obesity the same way as smoking in 1964, with: 1) Advisory Council creation of public statements; 2) warning labels and menu information in all restaurants; 3) legislation for tax incentives for industry to promote worksite health; and 4) consideration of taxation of fatty food; the cigarette tax is now 42%. It is abundantly clear that in short order, obesity will kill more people than smoking. The time has come for the country to get serious about obesity and take lessons from our nation's campaign to reduce smoking. As patient advocates, scientists, and medical professionals, cardiologists should appropriately take the lead.