The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
June 2022 (Volume 100)
Quarterly Article
Shiyin Jiao
R. Tamara Konetzka
Harold A. Pollack
Elbert S. Huang
Oct 30, 2024
Oct 23, 2024
Oct 4, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: The Health Resources and Services Administration’s Health Center Program (HCP) plays a critical role as the national ambulatory safety net, delivering services to patients in medically underserved areas, regardless of their ability to pay. As the program has grown, health policy initiatives may have altered access to care for the underserved population. Understanding how federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have been affected by past policies is important for anticipating the effects of future policies.
Methods: By analyzing a national data set from the Uniform Data System, we examined, using two sets of random effects regressions, the potential impact of alternative policy actions affecting FQHCs. Our primary equation models the number of full-time equivalent staff, of patients served, and of visits provided in the subsequent year as a function of Medicaid revenues, Section 330 grants, and other revenues. Our secondary equation is a difference-in-differences analysis that models Medicaid revenues as a function of the states’ status of Medicaid expansion.
Findings: The expansion of Medicaid in nonexpansion states could have increased Medicaid revenues by 138%, staffing by 25%, and patients’ visits by 24% in 2017. Compared to the impact of a “repeal” of Medicaid expansion, the percentage of reductions in staffing would be similar to those predicted by a 50% cut in Medicaid revenues or in Section 330 grants. On a dollar-for-dollar basis, the effects of one dollar of Section 330 grants were more than double that of one dollar of Medicaid revenue.
Conclusions: Both Medicaid eligibility and Section 330 funding support are important to the HCP, and Section 330 grants are particularly closely related to staffing and the provision of services. States’ decisions not to participate in or to repeal Medicaid expansion, to reduce Medicaid payment rates, and federal funding cuts all could have a negative impact on FQHCs, resulting in thousands of low-income patients losing access to primary care.
Keywords: community health centers, health services utilization, Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion, health reform, insurance.
READ ON WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY
