Medicaid expansion and the Medicaid undercount in the American Community Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To measure discordance between aggregate estimates of means-tested coverage from the American Community Survey (ACS) and administrative counts and examine the association of discordance with ACA Medicaid expansion. DATA SOURCES: 2010-2016 ACS and counts of Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program enrollment from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. STUDY
DESIGN: State-by-year counts of means-tested coverage from the ACS were compared to administrative counts using percentage differences. Discordance was compared for states that did and did not adopt expansion using difference-in-differences. We then contrasted the effect of expansion on means-tested coverage estimated from the ACS with results from administrative data. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION: Survey and administrative data. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: One year before expansion there was a 0.8 and 4 percent overcount in expansion and nonexpansion states, respectively. By 2016, there was a 10.64 percent undercount in expansion states vs a 0.02 percent undercount in nonexpansion states. The ACS suggests that expansion increased means-tested coverage in the full population by three percentage points, relative to five percentage points suggested by administrative records.
CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between the ACS and administrative records has increased over time. The ACS underestimates the impact of Medicaid expansion, relative to administrative counts. © Health Research and Educational Trust.