Health Care Access and Affordability Among US Adults Aged 18 to 64 Years With Self-reported Post-COVID-19 Condition.

Importance: Many US adults report having post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), but little is known about their access to health care. Objective: To estimate the association of PCC with access and affordability challenges among US adults aged 18 to 64 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used data from the Health Reform Monitoring Survey, a probability-based internet survey conducted June 17 to July 5, 2022. Participants included a nationally representative sample of 9484 US adults ages 18 to 64 years drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported PCC was defined as experiencing symptoms more than 4 weeks after first having COVID-19 that were not explained by another condition or factor. Access and affordability outcomes included having a usual place of care; forgoing care in the past 12 months because of costs, difficulty finding clinicians, or difficulty using health insurance; having problems paying family medical bills in the past 12 months; and having past-due medical debt. Results: Of 19 162 panel members recruited for the survey, 9599 individuals completed the survey (completion rate, 50.1%) and 9484 respondents were included in the final analytic sample (4720 females [50.6%, weighted]; mean [SD] age, 41.0 [13.5] years). A total of 3382 respondents (36.4%; 95% CI, 34.7%-38.2%) reported ever being diagnosed with COVID-19, among whom, 833 respondents (22.5%; 95% CI, 20.9%-24.2%) reported currently having PCC. After adjustment for differences in demographic, health, and geographic characteristics, adults with PCC were more likely than 2549 adults with a COVID-19 diagnosis but no report of PCC and 6102 adults never diagnosed with COVID-19 to report unmet health care needs in the past 12 months because of the following challenges: costs (27.0%; 95% CI, 23.2%-30.7% vs 18.3%; 95% CI, 15.9%-20.7% and 17.5%; 95% CI, 15.4%-19.6%) and difficulties finding clinicians accepting new patients (16.4%; 95% CI, 14.3%-18.4% vs 10.1%; 95% CI, 8.8%-11.5% and 10.7%; 95% CI, 9.6%-11.8%), getting a timely appointment (22.0%; 95% CI, 19.3%-24.8% vs 14.4%; 95% CI, 13.2%-15.7% and 13.9%; 95% CI, 12.9%-14.8%), and getting health plan care authorization (16.6%; 95% CI, 14.6%-18.6% vs 10.8%; 95% CI, 9.6%-12.1% and 10.3%; 95% CI, 9.4%-11.2%) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that adults aged 18 to 64 years with PCC were more likely than other adults to have difficulty getting and paying for health care. These findings suggest that policies aimed at improving access and affordability may focus on accelerating development of treatments and clinical guidelines, training clinicians, and addressing insurance-related administrative and cost barriers.

Assessing the difference in racial and ethnic disparities in access to and use of care between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

OBJECTIVE: Test whether racial-ethnic disparities in the access and use of care differ between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA). DATA SOURCE: Secondary data from the 2015-2018 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS). STUDY DESIGN: Measure Black-White and Hispanic-White disparities in access to care and use of preventive services within TM, within MA, and assess the difference-in-disparities between the two programs with and without controls for factors that could influence enrollment, access, and use. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION: Pool 2015-2018 MCBS data and restrict to non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic respondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Black enrollees have worse access to care relative to White enrollees in TM and MA, particularly for cost-related measures such as not having problems paying medical bills (11-13 pp. lower for Black enrollees; p < 0.05) and satisfaction with out-of-pocket costs (5-6 pp. lower; p < 0.05). We find no difference in Black-White disparities between TM and MA. Hispanic enrollees have worse access to care relative to White enrollees in TM but similar access relative to White enrollees in MA. Hispanic-White disparities in not delaying care due to cost and not reporting problems paying medical bills are narrower in MA relative to TM by about 4 pp (significant at the p < 0.05 level) each. We find no consistent evidence that Black-White or Hispanic-White differences in the use of preventive services differ between TM and MA. CONCLUSIONS: Across the measures of access and use studied here, racial and ethnic disparities in MA are not substantially narrower than in TM for Black and Hispanic enrollees relative to White enrollees. For Black enrollees, this study suggests that system-wide reforms are required to reduce existing disparities. For Hispanic enrollees, MA does narrow some disparities in access to care relative to White enrollees but, in part, because White enrollees do not do as well in MA as they do in TM.

Association of Commercial-to-Medicare Relative Prices With Health System Financial Performance.

Importance: Various studies have documented the rise in commercial insurance prices during the past 2 decades; however, estimates on the association of rising costs with health systems' financial health are lacking. This study calculated 2 measures from standardized Audited Financial Statements (AFSs)-operating margins and days of unrestricted cash on hand-to explore the associations. Objective: To estimate the association between health systems' financial condition and the ratio of commercial to Medicare relative prices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis combined standardized 2018 AFSs from a large sample of US health systems with publicly available relative price data to assess the association between their financial outcomes and commercial-to-Medicare relative inpatient prices. The 2018 AFSs were collected and standardized from a convenience sample of multihospital health systems and single hospitals that were included in round 4 of the RAND Hospital Price Transparency Study. Cross-sectional, multivariate regression models were estimated, controlling for payer mix and other system characteristics, and models were weighted by health systems' 2018 adjusted admissions. The analyses were conducted July 2021 through November 2022. Exposures: The commercial-to-Medicare relative price for inpatient services (2018-2020 pooled average), which represents the average amount paid by commercial plans as a percentage of what Medicare would have paid to the same health system for the same services. Main Outcomes and Measures: Operating margins and days cash on hand, which capture complementary aspects of financial performance (profitability and liquidity). Results: The study sample included 156 health systems in the US, representing diverse geography, size, and ownership type. Mean (SD) days cash on hand were 180.1 (113.3) and operating margins were 3.3% (3.6%) in 2018. Overall, a 1-unit increase in the commercial-to-Medicare relative price ratio was associated with a 21.3% (95% CI, 21.3% to 21.4%; P < .001) increase in days cash on hand and a 2.7 (95% CI, 2.7 to 2.7; P < .001) percentage point increase in average operating margins. Higher Medicaid payer mix share was associated with fewer days cash on hand (-3.3%; 95% CI, -3.3% to -3.3%; P < .001) and lower operating margins (-0.081; 95% CI, -0.082 to -0.081; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of health system financial data found that higher commercial-to-Medicare relative prices and a lower Medicaid payer share were associated with higher profits and more days cash on hand. These findings provide evidence against the claim that relatively higher commercial prices are primarily used to offset losses from public payers rather than to increase profits and liquidity.

Medicaid Physician Fees Remained Substantially Below Fees Paid By Medicare In 2019.

In 2019, as in prior years, Medicaid physician fees remained well below Medicare and private insurance fees despite growth in Medicaid enrollment. Low Medicaid physician fees have important implications in terms of access to care for Medicaid enrollees and the effects of proposals to expand coverage through a Medicaid buy-in program or a Medicaid-like public option.

Association of Cost Sharing With Delayed and Complicated Presentation of Acute Appendicitis or Diverticulitis.

Importance: Treatment delays are associated with increased morbidity and cost of disease, although the extent to which cost sharing influences timely presentation and management of acute surgical disease remains unknown. Given recent policy changes using cost sharing to modify health care behavior, this study examines the association of cost sharing with the health of the patient at presentation and with receipt of optimal or minimally invasive surgery. Objective: To assess whether cost sharing is associated with the likelihood of early, uncomplicated patient presentation or with surgical management of 2 representative emergency general surgery diagnoses: acute appendicitis and acute diverticulitis. Design Setting and Participants: This cohort study used Health Care Cost Institute claims from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017, to analyze data of commercially insured individuals hospitalized for acute appendicitis or diverticulitis. In total, 151 852 patients in the data set aged 18 to 64 years and presenting with acute appendicitis or diverticulitis were included as identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Data were analyzed from January 2020 through February 2021. Exposures: The primary exposure was patient total cost sharing incurred for the index hospitalization, defined as their summed deductible, copayments, and coinsurance. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was early, uncomplicated disease presentation. Secondary outcomes were receipt of optimal surgical care and minimally invasive surgery if undergoing an operation. Analyses were conducted with multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient characteristics and community-level socioeconomic and geographic factors. High cost sharing was defined as quartile 4 (>$3082), and low cost sharing as quartile 1 ($0-$502). Results: Among 151 852 patients, 52.4% were men, and the total cost-sharing median was $1725 (interquartile range, $503-$3082). Higher cost sharing was associated with lower odds of early, uncomplicated disease presentation (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65). Patients with higher cost sharing were less likely to receive optimal surgical care (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) or minimally invasive surgery (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that, as policymakers debate the degree of cost sharing in public and private insurance plans, attention should be given to the clinical and financial implications associated with care delays.

Patient-Centered Medical Home Activities Associated With Low Medicare Spending and Utilization.

PURPOSE: To identify components of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of care that are associated with lower spending and utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Regression analyses of changes in outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries in practices that engaged in particular PCMH activities compared with beneficiaries in practices that did not. We analyzed claims for 302,719 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries linked to PCMH surveys completed by 394 practices in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' 8-state Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice demonstration. RESULTS: Six activities were associated with lower spending or utilization. Use of a registry to identify and remind patients due for preventive services was associated with all 4 of our outcome measures: total spending was $69.77 less per beneficiary per month (PBPM) (P = 0.00); acute-care hospital spending was $36.62 less PBPM (P = 0.00); there were 6.78 fewer hospital admissions per 1,000 beneficiaries per quarter (P1KBPQ) (P = 0.003); and 11.05 fewer emergency department (ED) visits P1KBPQ (P = 0.05). Using a patient registry for pre-visit planning and clinician reminders was associated with $29.31 lower total spending PBPM (P = 0.05). Engaging patients with chronic conditions in goal setting and action planning was associated with 4.62 fewer hospital admissions P1KBPQ (P = 0.01) and 11.53 fewer ED visits P1KBPQ (P = 0.00). Monitoring patients during hospital stays was associated with $22.06 lower hospital spending PBPM (P = 0.03). Developing referral protocols with commonly referred-to clinicians was associated with 11.62 fewer ED visits P1KBPQ (P = 0.00). Using quality improvement approaches was associated with 13.47 fewer ED visits P1KBPQ (P =0.00). CONCLUSIONS: Practices seeking to deliver more efficient care may benefit from implementing these 6 activities.

Home Health Use In Medicare Advantage Compared To Use In Traditional Medicare.

Medicare covers home health benefits for homebound beneficiaries who need intermittent skilled care. While home health care can help prevent costlier institutional care, some studies have suggested that traditional Medicare beneficiaries may overuse home health care. This study compared home health use in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, as well as within Medicare Advantage by beneficiary cost sharing, prior authorization requirement, and plan type. In 2016 Medicare Advantage enrollees were less likely to use home health care than traditional Medicare enrollees were, had 7.1 fewer days per home health spell, and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital during their spell. Among Medicare Advantage plans, those that imposed beneficiary cost sharing or prior authorization requirements had lower rates of home health use. Qualitative interviews suggested that Medicare Advantage payment and contracting approaches influenced home health care use. Therefore, changes in traditional Medicare home health payment policies implemented in 2020 may reduce these disparities in home health use and spell length.

Home Health And Postacute Care Use In Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare.

This article compares patterns of postacute care-including care provided by skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies-under Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Overall, Medicare Advantage enrollees received less postacute care, both institutional and home health, than traditional Medicare enrollees did for three common conditions.

New evidence of state variation in Medicaid payment policies for dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: To develop the first longitudinal database of state Medicaid policies for paying the cost sharing in Medicare Part B for services provided to dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees ("duals") and an index summarizing the impact of these policies on payments for physician office services. DATA SOURCES: Medicaid policy data collected from electronic sources and inquiries with states. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed a national database of Medicaid payment policies for the period 2004-2018, consolidating information from online Medicaid policy documents, state laws, and policy data reported to us by state Medicaid programs. Using this database and state Medicaid fee schedules, we constructed a Medicaid payment index for duals. This index represented the proportion of the Medicare allowed amount that physicians would expect to be paid from Medicare and Medicaid for a subset of physician office services (evaluation and management services) based on annual state payment policies and Medicaid fee schedules. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 2018, 42 states had policies to limit Medicaid payments of Medicare cost sharing when Medicaid's fee schedule was lower than Medicare's-an increase from 36 such states in 2004. In the preponderance of states with these policies, combined Medicare and Medicaid payments for evaluation and management services provided to duals averaged 78 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services, reflecting relatively low Medicaid fee schedules in these states. In 2013 and 2014, physicians who qualified for the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid "fee bump" were paid 100 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid programs vary across states and over time in their payments of cost sharing for physician office services provided to duals. Our database and index can facilitate monitoring of these policies and research on the consequences of policy changes for duals.

Did Medicare Advantage payment cuts affect beneficiary access and affordability?

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s Medicare Advantage (MA) payment cuts were associated with changes in enrollees' access to and affordability of healthcare relative to traditional Medicare (TM). STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analyses of changes in access and affordability in MA relative to TM between 2009 and 2017 and between 2011 and 2017. METHODS: Respondents who reported Medicare coverage on the National Health Interview Survey were divided into MA and TM enrollees. Using multivariate regression to adjust for demographic, economic, and health status changes over time, we compared changes in healthcare access and affordability for the 2 groups between 2009 and 2017, as the ACA payment cuts were implemented. For some measures, the analysis covers 2011 to 2017. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, MA respondents did not report statistically significant changes in healthcare access or affordability after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health status changes in the MA population. There were no statistically significant differences between changes in access and affordability for beneficiaries in MA relative to those in TM over this period. CONCLUSIONS: Although MA payment cuts were expected to reduce the attractiveness of the MA program to both plans and enrollees, the program's enrollment grew steadily from 2009 to 2017. Over this period, plans reduced their costs for providing Part A and Part B benefits to their enrollees, thereby preserving room for rebates. Our findings show that plans made such cost reductions without significantly affecting enrollees' access to or affordability of care compared with TM beneficiaries.

Do Medicare Advantage Plans Respond to Payment Changes? A Look at the Data from 2009 to 2014.

Issue: Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment has grown significantly since 2009, despite legislation that reduced what Medicare pays these plans to provide care to enrollees. MA payments, on average, now approach parity with costs in traditional Medicare. Goal: Examine changes in per enrollee costs between 2009 and 2014 to better understand how MA plans have continued to thrive even as payments decreased. Methods: Analysis of Medicare data on MA plan bids, net of rebates. Findings: While spending per beneficiary in traditional Medicare rose 5.0 percent between 2009 and 2014, MA payment benchmarks rose 1.5 percent and payment to plans decreased by 0.7 percent. Plans' expected per enrollee costs grew 2.6 percent. Plans where payment rates decreased generally had slower growth in their expected costs. HMOs, which saw their payments decline the most, had the slowest expected cost growth. Conclusions: In general, MA plans responded to lower payment by containing costs. By preserving most of the margin between Medicare payments and their bids in the form of rebates, they could continue to offer additional benefits to attract enrollees. The magnitude of this response varied by geographic area and plan type. Despite this slower growth in expected per enrollee costs, greater efficiencies by MA plans may still be achievable.

Characteristics of Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiatives that Generated Savings for Medicare: a Qualitative Multi-Case Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Through the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) Demonstration, Medicare, Medicaid, and private payers offered supplemental payments to 849 primary care practices that became patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) in eight states; practices also received technical assistance and data reports. Average Medicare payments were capped at $10 per beneficiary per month in each state. OBJECTIVE: Since there was variation in the eight participating states' demonstration designs, experiences, and outcomes, we conducted a qualitative multi-case analysis to identify the key factors that differentiated states that were estimated to have generated net savings for Medicare from states that did not. PARTICIPANTS: States' MAPCP Demonstration initiatives were comprehensively profiled in case studies based on secondary document review, three rounds of annual interviews with state staff, payers, practices, and other stakeholders, and other data sources. APPROACH: Case study findings were summarized in a case-ordered predictor-outcome matrix, which identified the presence or absence of key demonstration design features and experiences and arrayed states based on the amount of net savings or losses they generated for Medicare. We then used this matrix to identify initiative features that were present in at least three of the four states that generated net savings and absent from at least three of the four states that did not generate savings. RESULTS: A majority of the states that generated net savings: required practices to be recognized PCMHs to enter the demonstration, did not allow late entrants into the demonstration, used a consistent demonstration payment model across participating payers, and offered practices opportunities to earn performance bonuses. Practices in states that generated net savings also tended to report receiving the demonstration payments and bonuses they expected to receive, without any issues. CONCLUSIONS: Designers of future PCMH initiatives may increase their likelihood of generating net savings by incorporating the demonstration features we identified.

Do Medicare Advantage Plans Minimize Costs? Investigating the Relationship Between Benchmarks, Costs, and Rebates.

Issue: Medicare Advantage (MA), the program that allows people to receive their Medicare benefits through private health plans, uses a benchmark-and-bidding system to induce plans to provide benefits at lower costs. However, prior research suggests medical costs, profits, and other plan costs are not as low under this system as they might otherwise be. Goal: To examine how well the current system encourages MA plans to bid their lowest cost by examining the relationship between costs and bonuses (rebates) and the benchmarks Medicare uses in determining plan payments. Methods: Regression analysis using 2015 data for HMO and local PPO plans. Findings: Costs and rebates are higher for MA plans in areas with higher benchmarks, and plan costs vary less than benchmarks do. A one-dollar increase in benchmarks is associated with 32-cent-higher plan costs and a 52-cent-higher rebate, even when controlling for market and plan factors that can affect costs. This suggests the current benchmark-and-bidding system allows plans to bid higher than local input prices and other market conditions would seem to warrant. Conclusion: To incentivize MA plans to maximize efficiency and minimize costs, Medicare could change the way benchmarks are set or used.

Sustained Gains In Coverage, Access, And Affordability Under The ACA: A 2017 Update.

The significant gains in health insurance coverage and improvements in health care access and affordability that followed the implementation of the key coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act in 2014 have persisted into 2017. Adults in all parts of the country, of all ages, and across all income groups have benefited from a large and sustained increase in the percentage of the US population that has health insurance. The gains have been particularly striking among low- and moderate-income Americans living in states that expanded Medicaid. Our latest survey data from the Urban Institute's 2017 Health Reform Monitoring Survey shows that only 10.2 percent of nonelderly adults are now uninsured-a decline of almost 41 percent from the period before implementation of the ACA. Nonetheless, repealing and replacing the ACA remained under consideration during the summer of 2017, along with more systematic changes to the financing of the Medicaid program. Many people will be at substantial risk if key components of the law are repealed or otherwise changed without carefully considering the health and financial consequences for those projected to lose coverage. Though the politics of health reform are challenging, opportunities exist to create a more equitable and efficient health care system.

Understanding Characteristics Of Likely Marketplace Enrollees And How They Choose Plans.

In 2015, adults likely to have enrolled in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace were predominantly non-Hispanic whites and, on average, older and more aware of the availability of Marketplace subsidies than adults who remained uninsured. Enrollees were also significantly more likely than adults who remained uninsured to rely on some type of application assistance instead of exclusively looking for information through the Marketplace website.

Appointment availability after increases in Medicaid payments for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Providing increases in Medicaid reimbursements for primary care, a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), raised Medicaid payments to Medicare levels in 2013 and 2014 for selected services and providers. The federally funded increase in reimbursements was aimed at expanding access to primary care for the growing number of Medicaid enrollees. The reimbursement increase expired at the end of 2014 in most states before policymakers had much empirical evidence about its effects. METHODS: We measured the availability of and waiting times for appointments in 10 states during two periods: from November 2012 through March 2013 and from May 2014 through July 2014. Trained field staff posed as either Medicaid enrollees or privately insured enrollees seeking new-patient primary care appointments. We estimated state-level changes over time in a stable cohort of primary care practices that participated in Medicaid to assess whether willingness to provide appointments for new Medicaid enrollees was related to the size of increases in Medicaid reimbursements in each state. RESULTS: The availability of primary care appointments in the Medicaid group increased by 7.7 percentage points, from 58.7% to 66.4%, between the two time periods. The states with the largest increases in availability tended to be those with the largest increases in reimbursements, with an estimated increase of 1.25 percentage points in availability per 10% increase in Medicaid reimbursements (P=0.03). No such association was observed in the private-insurance group. During the same periods, waiting times to a scheduled new-patient appointment remained stable over time in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides early evidence that increased Medicaid reimbursement to primary care providers, as mandated in the ACA, was associated with improved appointment availability for Medicaid enrollees among participating providers without generating longer waiting times. (Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.).

The health reform monitoring survey: addressing data gaps to provide timely insights into the affordable care act.

The Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS) was launched in 2013 as a mechanism to obtain timely information on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) during the period before federal government survey data for 2013 and 2014 will be available. Based on a nationally representative, probability-based Internet panel, the HRMS provides quarterly data for approximately 7,400 nonelderly adults and 2,400 children on insurance coverage, access to health care, and health care affordability, along with special topics of relevance to current policy and program issues in each quarter. For example, HRMS data from summer 2013 show that more than 60 percent of those targeted by the health insurance exchanges struggle with understanding key health insurance concepts. This raises concerns about some people's ability to evaluate trade-offs when choosing health insurance plans. Assisting people as they attempt to enroll in health coverage will require targeted education efforts and staff to support those with low health insurance literacy.

Expanding federal funding to community health centers slows decline in access for low-income adults.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the impact of the Health Center Growth Initiative on access to care for low-income adults. DATA SOURCES: Data on federal funding for health centers are from the Bureau of Primary Health Care's Uniform Data System (2000-2007), and individual-level measures of access and use are derived from the National Health Interview Survey (2001-2008). STUDY DESIGN: We estimate person-level models of access and use as a function of individual- and market-level characteristics. By using market-level fixed effects, we identify the effects of health center funding on access using changes within markets over time. We explore effects on low-income adults and further examine how those effects vary by insurance coverage. DATA COLLECTION: We calculate health center funding per poor person in a health care market and attach this information to individual observations on the National Health Interview Survey. Health care markets are defined as hospital referral regions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Low-income adults in markets with larger funding increases were more likely to have an office visit and to have a general doctor visit. These results were stronger for uninsured and publicly insured adults. CONCLUSIONS: Expansions in federal health center funding had some mitigating effects on the access declines that were generally experienced by low-income adults over this time period.

A decade of health care access declines for adults holds implications for changes in the Affordable Care Act.

The pending Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act and the fall presidential election raise concerns about what would happen if the insurance expansion promised by the landmark health reform law were to be curtailed. This paper's analysis of national survey estimates found that access to health care and use of health services for adults ages 19-64--the primary targets of the Affordable Care Act--deteriorated between 2000 and 2010, particularly among those who were uninsured. More than half of uninsured US adults did not see a doctor in 2010, and only slightly more than a quarter of these adults were seen by a dentist. We also found that children--many of whom qualify for public coverage through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program--generally maintained or improved their access to care during the same period. This provides a reason for optimism about the ability of the coverage expansion in the Affordable Care Act to improve access for adults, but it suggests that eliminating the law or curtailing the coverage expansion could result in continued erosion of adults' access to care.