Changes in Emergency Department Utilization After Early Medicaid Expansion in California
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansions aim to improve access to primary care, which could reduce nonemergent (NE) use of the emergency department (ED). In contrast, Medicaid enrollees use the ED more than other groups, including the uninsured. Thus, the expected impact of Medicaid expansion on ED use is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To estimate changes in total and NE ED visits as a result of California's early Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. In addition to overall changes in the number of visits, changes by payer and safety net hospital status are examined. METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental approach to examine changes in ED utilization, comparing California expansion counties to comparison counties from California and 2 other states in the same region that did not implement Medicaid expansion during the study period. RESULTS: Regression estimates show no significant change in total number of ED visits following expansion. Medicaid visits increased by 145 visits per hospital-quarter in the first year following expansion and 242 visits subsequent to the first year, whereas visits among uninsured patients decreased by 129 visits per hospital-quarter in the first year and 175 visits in subsequent years, driven by changes at safety net hospitals. We also observe an increase in NE visits per hospital-quarter paid for by Medicaid, and a significant decrease in uninsured NE visits. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansions in California were associated with increases in ED visits paid for by Medicaid and declines in uninsured visits. Expansion was also associated with changes in NE visits among Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".