Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to expand Medicaid to all adults with incomes less than 138% of the federal poverty level. However, because Medicaid is a partnership between states and the federal government, some states sued in response to this unilateral federal change. A 2012 Supreme Court decision 1 allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and many did so. For the states that did expand, the federal government pays 90% of the $155 billion required to cover the expansion population, which totaled 19 million people in fiscal year 2022. 2,3 What are the effects of all that money flowing into the health care system?In 2021, KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) summarized 601 expansion studies published over 8 years. 4 These studies have followed the money (and the care it finances) as it flowed to health care organizations and patients. The evidence is clearest on the most proximal outcome: expanded eligibility led more people to enroll in Medicaid. Research also finds that expansion provided financial protection against catastrophic health spending, increased access to care, and ultimately reduced mortality. Expansion also improved the financial outcomes of health care providers: hospitals and community health centers treated fewer uninsured patients and some hospitals saw improved profit margins.In this issue of JAMA, Matta and coauthors 5 ask whether those newly enriched provider organizations pass the financial benefits along to their workers. The authors compare wages, benefits, hours, and public program participation of health care workers in expansion and nonexpansion states. Thanks to detailed data from the American Community Survey, the authors can separately estimate the effects among high-and low-income workers. They found that high-income workers' income rose while low-income workers saw lower employer-sponsored health insurance, greater Medicaid coverage, and more Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation. I consider these findings using both methodological and policy lenses.To estimate the effects of expansion, one would like to know what would have happened in the expansion states if, contrary to fact, they had not expanded. But because one cannot observe that alternative reality, one must proxy for it by observing outcomes in a comparison group. The nonexpansion states provide the necessary comparison group. Matta and colleagues use a popular quasi-experimental design called difference-in-differences to compare changes in outcomes before and after Medicaid expansion for people in expansion states with changes in outcomes over the same period for people in nonexpansion states.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to expand Medicaid to all adults with incomes less than 138% of the federal poverty level. However, because Medicaid is a partnership between states and the federal government, some states sued in response to this unilateral federal change. A 2012 Supreme Court decision 1 allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and many did so. For the states that did expand, the federal government pays 90% of the $155 billion required to cover the expansion population, which totaled 19 million people in fiscal year 2022. 2,3 What are the effects of all that money flowing into the health care system?In 2021, KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) summarized 601 expansion studies published over 8 years. 4 These studies have followed the money (and the care it finances) as it flowed to health care organizations and patients. The evidence is clearest on the most proximal outcome: expanded eligibility led more people to enroll in Medicaid. Research also finds that expansion provided financial protection against catastrophic health spending, increased access to care, and ultimately reduced mortality. Expansion also improved the financial outcomes of health care providers: hospitals and community health centers treated fewer uninsured patients and some hospitals saw improved profit margins.In this issue of JAMA, Matta and coauthors 5 ask whether those newly enriched provider organizations pass the financial benefits along to their workers. The authors compare wages, benefits, hours, and public program participation of health care workers in expansion and nonexpansion states. Thanks to detailed data from the American Community Survey, the authors can separately estimate the effects among high-and low-income workers. They found that high-income workers' income rose while low-income workers saw lower employer-sponsored health insurance, greater Medicaid coverage, and more Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation. I consider these findings using both methodological and policy lenses.To estimate the effects of expansion, one would like to know what would have happened in the expansion states if, contrary to fact, they had not expanded. But because one cannot observe that alternative reality, one must proxy for it by observing outcomes in a comparison group. The nonexpansion states provide the necessary comparison group. Matta and colleagues use a popular quasi-experimental design called difference-in-differences to compare changes in outcomes before and after Medicaid expansion for people in expansion states with changes in outcomes over the same period for people in nonexpansion states.
Background Despite the rising representation of women in the physician workforce, gender-based income disparities persist. In this study, we explore the role of representation of women in the work environment in physicians’ income from Medicare Part B fee-for-service payments and the income gender gap. Methods Our main analytic sample is a balanced panel of 371,472 physicians over 9 years, obtained from the Medicare Part B fee-for-service (FFS) Provider Utilization and Payment Data (2012–2020) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We use panel regressions with physician and year fixed effects to quantify how total Medicare Part B FFS payments to physicians patient volume, and per-patient payments respond to gender composition changes at the specialty and practice level, controlling for other practice characteristics. We allow the gender composition to have differential impacts on women and men by interacting it with the physician’s gender. In addition, we examined the subsample of physicians who have not switched specialties or practices and explored differences in the effects by practice size. Results Increasing women’s representation in physician work environments impacts men’s and women’s Medicare Part B FFS payments received differently. We find that for women physicians, a 1% increase in the share of women in the same specialty leads to 1.634% higher annual payment, 1.147% more patients, and 0.297% more per-patient payment. Conversely, these effects are reversed for men. Changes in women’s share at the practice level have qualitatively similar effects. Among physicians who have not switched specialties or practices, we still find positive effects for women but no negative effects for men. Furthermore, these effects are stronger in solo or small practices than in large practices. Conclusions Increasing women’s representation in the work environment helps increase the amount of Medicare Part B FFS payments received for women physicians but may reduce payments received for men physicians. Our findings support the efforts in increasing women’s representation in the physician workforce to mitigate gender income disparities and demonstrate the nuanced differences in its impact by gender and the size of the practice to refine policy recommendations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.