Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41027709›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2025

Insurance coverage and employment after Medicaid expansion with work requirements: quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study.

Daniel Y Johnson, Stephen A Mein, Lucas X Marinacci, Michael Liu, Rishi K Wadhera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel Y JohnsonSection of Health Policy, Richard A and Susan F Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0089-5276
Stephen A MeinSection of Health Policy, Richard A and Susan F Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6567-1564
Lucas X MarinacciSection of Health Policy, Richard A and Susan F Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Michael LiuSection of Health Policy, Richard A and Susan F Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Rishi K WadheraSection of Health Policy, Richard A and Susan F Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1089-3896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand how health insurance coverage and employment changed among working age adults with low incomes in Georgia, the first state to implement Medicaid expansion with work requirements under the Pathways to Coverage program.

designQuasi-experimental difference-in-differences study.

settingGeorgia, which expanded Medicaid with work requirements on 1 July 2023; Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which neighbor Georgia and did not expand Medicaid; and South Dakota, which simultaneously expanded Medicaid without work requirements.

participantsAdults aged 19-64 years with low incomes defined as ≤100% of the federal poverty level who completed the US Census Bureau's household pulse survey between 2021 and 2024.

main outcome measuresMedicaid coverage, uninsured rate, and employment.

resultsThe study population consisted of 3303 adults in Georgia (intervention state) and 14 148 in neighboring states that did not expand Medicaid (controls). After the implementation of Pathways to Coverage, Medicaid coverage did not change in Georgia (35.5% to 32.4%) or in neighboring control states (39.6% to 39.3%), resulting in no differential change in Medicaid coverage between these states (adjusted difference-in-differences -3.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval -7.6 to 1.6). These patterns were similar for the uninsured rate (-2.3 percentage points, -6.9 to 2.3). Additionally, employment did not increase in Georgia compared with control states (-1.6 percentage points, -8.7 to 5.4). In a secondary analysis that aimed to isolate the effects of work requirements, Medicaid coverage did not change in Georgia (35.5% to 32.4%) but increased in South Dakota (36.6% to 44.6%)-a state that expanded Medicaid without work requirements-resulting in a differential decrease in coverage in Georgia relative to South Dakota (-11.7 percentage points, -19.5 to -3.9). There was no differential change in employment (-0.1 percentage points, -9.8 to 9.6) between these states.

conclusionsThe implementation of work requirements with Medicaid expansion in Georgia did not increase health insurance coverage or employment during the first 15 months of the program. These findings have important implications as US policy makers recently enacted legislation that will mandate work requirements in Medicaid programs across all US states beginning in 2026.

Indexed as

EmploymentInsurance CoverageMedicaidMedically UninsuredAdultFemaleGeorgiaHumansMaleMiddle AgedPovertyUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41027709
PMCPMC12477780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.