Health Policy Center Authors
Publications by Matthew Buettgens for Health Policy Center
Back to Browse by Author
More about Matthew Buettgens's areas of expertise can be found on this Urban Institute expert's page.
CHIPRA Mandated Evaluation of the Children's Health Insurance Program: Final Findings (Research Report)
Genevieve M. Kenney, Lisa Clemans-Cope, Ian Hill, Stacey McMorrow, Jennifer M. Haley, Timothy Waidmann, Sarah Benatar, Matthew Buettgens, Victoria Lynch, Nathaniel Anderson, Additional Authors
This report presents findings from an evaluation of CHIP mandated by CHIPRA and patterned after an earlier evaluation. Some of the evaluation findings are at the national level, while others focus on the 10 states selected for more intensive study: Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. The evaluation included a large survey conducted in 2012 of CHIP enrollees and disenrollees in the 10 states, and Medicaid enrollees and disenrollees in three of these states. It also included case studies conducted in each of the 10 survey states in 2012 and a national telephone survey of CHIP administrators conducted in early 2013.
Monitoring the Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Employers (Research Report)
Fredric Blavin, Bowen Garrett, Linda J. Blumberg, Matthew Buettgens, Sarah Gadsden, Shanna Rifkin
In this report, we analyze recent trends in the employer health insurance market and the anticipated effects of the Affordable Care Act on employers, with a particular focus on small firms with fewer than 50 workers. We first present a detailed picture of the employer market by identifying preexisting trends in key outcomes that could be incorrectly attributed to the Affordable Care Act. We also analyze the literature to identify economic factors that are important in current employer and employee decisions regarding health coverage.
In States That Don't Expand Medicaid, Who Gets New Coverage Assistance Under the ACA and Who Doesn't? (Policy Briefs/Timely Analysis of Health Policy Issues)
Stan Dorn, Matthew Buettgens, Jay Dev
This research provides more evidence that state officials' decisions against expansion adversely affect already disadvantaged residents. While 5.9 million adults with moderate incomes in nonexpanding states qualify for financial assistance to purchase insurance through the new marketplaces, nearly 6.3 million uninsured residents with lower incomes remain ineligible for help because the state's Medicaid program was not expanded. The median income of those ineligible for coverage assistance is less than $800 a month, compared to more than $2,000 a month for those eligible to receive subsidies.
Halbig v Burwell: Potential Implications for ACA Coverage and Subsidies (Policy Briefs/Health Policy Briefs)
Linda J. Blumberg, John Holahan, Matthew Buettgens
A ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Halbig v. Burwell is imminent. The plaintiff claims a phrase in the ACA prohibits residents of states where the federal government is administering the health insurance Marketplace from receiving subsidies for purchasing insurance. With 34 states having chosen to leave administration of their Marketplaces to the federal government, a decision for the plaintiff could have broad implications. In 2016, 7.3 million people in these states are estimated to receive federal subsidies totaling $36.1 billion, ranging up to $4.8 billion in Florida and $5.6 billion in Texas.
The ACA and America's Cities: Fewer Uninsured and More Federal Dollars (Policy Briefs/Timely Analysis of Health Policy Issues)
Matthew Buettgens, Jay Dev
This report estimated the effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on 14 large and diverse cities: Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Columbus, Charlotte, Detroit, Memphis, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, and Miami. For each city we estimated changes in health coverage under the ACA, particularly the resulting decline in the uninsured. We also estimated the additional federal spending on health care that would flow into these cities. For cities in states that have not expanded Medicaid eligibility, we provide estimates both with and without expansion.
Measuring Medicaid/CHIP Enrollment Progress Under the Affordable Care Act (Research Report)
Lisa Dubay, Genevieve M. Kenney, Matthew Buettgens, Jay Dev, Erik Wengle, Nathaniel Anderson
Since the beginning of the first open enrollment period under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on October 2013 and April 2014, Medicaid/CHIP enrollment increased by 6.0 million. This accounts for almost half of enrollment increase projected by the Urban Institute's Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model to occur by the end of 2016 when the full ACA coverage effects are expected. Progress is greater in states that expanded Medicaid but there is variation even among these states. This variation is likely due in part to differences in outreach and application assistance efforts by states and whether they used fast-track enrollment strategies.
Eligibility for Assistance and Projected Changes in Coverage Under the ACA: Variation Across States (Policy Briefs/Timely Analysis of Health Policy Issues)
Matthew Buettgens, Genevieve M. Kenney, Hannah Recht
The authors estimate that in 2014, 56 percent of the uninsured became eligible for financial assistance with health insurance coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, or subsidized marketplace coverage. In states that expanded Medicaid eligibility, 68 percent of the uninsured became eligible for assistance, compared with only 44 percent in states that did not. Because of this difference in eligibility, the ACA is projected to reduce the number of uninsured people by 56 percent in states that expanded Medicaid, compared with only 34 percent in states that did not. The authors also provide estimates of what would happen if states that have not yet expanded Medicaid were to do so.
Why Not Just Eliminate the Employer Mandate? (Policy Briefs/Timely Analysis of Health Policy Issues)
Linda J. Blumberg, John Holahan, Matthew Buettgens
Employers of 50 or more workers are required to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. This requirement has been delayed until 2015 for employers with 100 and more workers and until 2016 for those with 50-99 workers. But there are reports of changes in employer labor practices, such as reducing the hours of part-time workers and concerns about increasing workforce above 50 workers. In this brief we argue that the employer mandate should simply be eliminated. We show that it would not reduce insurance coverage significantly, but it would eliminate the labor market distortions that have troubled employer groups and that could have negative effects on some workers. The penalties on employers do bring in some new revenues that would have to be replaced.
Measuring Marketplace Enrollment Relative to Enrollment Projections: Update (Policy Briefs/Health Policy Briefs)
Linda J. Blumberg, John Holahan, Genevieve M. Kenney, Matthew Buettgens, Nathaniel Anderson, Hannah Recht, Stephen Zuckerman
This brief compares Affordable Care Act Marketplace enrollment as of April 19, 2014 (the most recent state-specific data) to projected enrollment for 2014 and 2016 and estimates of the number of people eligible for subsidies. Nationally, by April 19, the Marketplaces had enrolled 115 percent of projected 2014 enrollment. Collectively, both State-Based Marketplaces (SBMs) and Federally Facilitated Marketplaces (FFMs) exceeded projected enrollment. However, there is considerable variation across the states within each group.
Measuring Marketplace Enrollment Relative to Enrollment Projections (Research Report)
Linda J. Blumberg, Genevieve M. Kenney, Matthew Buettgens, John Holahan, Nathaniel Anderson, Hannah Recht, Stephen Zuckerman
This brief compares Affordable Care Act Marketplace enrollment as of March 1, 2014 (the most recent state-specific data) to projected enrollment for 2014 and 2016 and estimates of the number of people eligible for subsidies. Nationally, by March 1, the Marketplaces had enrolled 61 percent of projected 2014 enrollment of subsidized and unsubsidized individuals. They had enrolled 63 percent of the subsidized population expected to enroll in 2014. Collectively, State-Based Marketplaces (SBMs) have been more successful in reaching projected enrollment than the Federally Facilitated Marketplaces (FFMs), with SBMs overall also having significantly higher rates of subsidized enrollment than FFMs.