Peter J. Cunningham

High medical cost burden is defined as spending more than 10 percent of family income on health care. Despite decreased family income and rising unemployment caused by the recession of 2007–09, the percentage of people under age sixty-five with high medical cost burdens remained largely unchanged between 2006 and 2009, at approximately 19 percent. That unexpected result, based on data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, contrasts with an increase from 14.4 percent to 19.2 percent in the share of people with high medical cost burdens between 2001 and 2006. The percentage did not change during the recent recession because decreased family income was offset by decreased out-of-pocket health spending. Virtually all of this decreased spending was because of lower spending on prescription drugs as people shifted from brand-name medications to less expensive generics.

Safety-net organizations, which provide health services to uninsured and low-income people, increasingly are looking for ways to coordinate services among providers to improve access to and quality of care and to reduce costs. In this analysis, a part of the Community Tracking Study, we examined trends in safety-net coordination activities from 2000 to 2010 within twelve communities in the United States and found a notable increase in such activities. Six of the twelve communities had made formal efforts to link uninsured people to medical homes and coordinate care with specialists in 2010, compared to only two communities in 2000. We also identified key attributes of safety-net coordinated care systems, such as reliance on a medical home for meeting patients’ primary care needs, and lingering challenges to safety-net integration, such as competition among hospitals and community health centers for Medicaid patients.

There is a growing consensus that activating consumers to become better managers of their health is an essential component of US health care reform. We measured how activated blacks, whites, and Hispanics are—that is, how confident, skillful, and knowledgeable they are about taking an active role in improving their health and health care. We found that patient activation among blacks and Hispanics was low, relative to that of whites. For example, 24.8 percent of Hispanics were at the highest level of patient activation, compared to 39.5 percent of blacks and 45.3 percent of whites. Among Hispanic immigrants, low acculturation and lack of familiarity with the US health care system contribute to low activation. The findings indicate that increasing activation levels among Hispanic immigrants may be as important as expanding insurance coverage in reducing disparities in unmet medical need.

This study examines whether affordability thresholds for medical care as defined by families change over time. The results from two nationally representative surveys show that while financial stress from medical bills—defined as the percent with problems paying medical bills—increased between 2003 and 2007, greater out-of-pocket spending accounted for this increase only for higher-income persons with employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Increased spending did not account for an increase in medical bill problems among lower-income persons. Moreover, the increase in medical bill problems among low-income persons occurred at relatively low levels of out-of-pocket spending rather than at higher levels. The results suggest that “affordability thresholds” for medical care as defined by individuals and families are not stable over time, especially for lower-income persons, which has implications for setting affordability standards in health reform.

The financial burden of health care—the ratio of total out-of-pocket spending for health care services and premiums to total family income—continues to increase nationally. As a result of this trend, more people have been exposed to high costs and lack essential services. This study examines trends nationally and among selected states between 2001 and 2006. The results show considerable state-to-state variation associated mainly with differences in family income and, to a lesser extent, out-of-pocket spending for insurance premiums. Nationally, middle- and higher-income people with private insurance experienced the largest increases in financial burden. Moreover, almost 30 percent of the U.S. population either had a high financial burden of health costs or were uninsured. These facts underscore that escalating health care costs affect all socioeconomic strata, not just the poor.

While the recession increased demands on the health care safety net as Americans lost jobs and health insurance, the impact on safety net providers has been mixed and less severe--at least initially--than expected in some cases, according to a new study of five metropolitan communities by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Even before the recession, many safety net providers reported treating more uninsured patients and facing tighter state and local funding. Federal expansion grants for community health centers during the past decade, however, have increased capacity at many health centers. And, programs to help direct people to primary care providers may have helped stem the expected surge in emergency department use by the uninsured during the downturn. Federal stimulus funding--the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--has assisted hospitals and health centers in weathering the economic storm, helping to offset reductions in state, local and private funding. And, the economic downturn has generated some potential benefits, including lower rents and broader employee applicant pools. While safety net providers have adopted strategies to stay financially viable, many believe they have not yet felt the full impact of the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Although suburban poverty has increased in the past decade, the availability of health care services for low-income and uninsured people in the suburbs has not kept pace. According to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) of five communities--Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Miami and Seattle--low-income people living in suburban areas face significant challenges accessing care because of inadequate transportation, language barriers and lack of awareness of health care options. Low-income people often rely on suburban hospital emergency departments (EDs) and urban safety net hospitals and health centers. Some urban providers are feeling the strain of caring for increasing numbers of patients from both the city and the suburbs. Both urban and suburban providers are attempting to redirect patients to more appropriate care near where they live by expanding primary care capacity, improving access to specialists, reducing transportation challenges, and generating revenues to support safety net services. Efforts to improve safety net services in suburban areas are hampered by greater geographic dispersion of the suburban poor and jurisdictional issues in funding safety net services. To improve the suburban safety net, policy makers may want to consider flexible and targeted approaches to providing care, regional collaboration to share resources, and geographic pockets of need when allocating resources for community health centers and other safety net services and facilities.

Using data from the 2001-2005 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, this study shows that nearly 40 percent of nonelderly adults with three or more chronic conditions had out-of-pocket expenses and premiums exceeding 5 percent of income for two consecutive years, compared with 20 percent of people who had a single chronic condition and 14 percent who had no chronic conditions. Prescription drug spending accounts for over half of the out-of-pocket spending by individuals who have multiple chronic conditions and who have had persistently high financial burdens that last two years or more. The prevalence of persons with persistently high financial burdens is likely to increase in the future, because of expected increases in prescription drug costs as well as chronic disease prevalence.

About two-thirds of primary care physicians (PCPs) reported in 2004–05 that they could not get outpatient mental health services for patients—a rate that was at least twice as high as that for other services. Shortages of mental health care providers, health plan barriers, and lack of coverage or inadequate coverage were all cited by PCPs as important barriers to mental health care access. The probability of having mental health access problems for patients varied by physician practice, health system, and policy factors. The results suggest that implementing mental health parity nationally will reduce some but not all of the barriers to mental health care.