Dataset Information

Association of State Access Standards With Accessibility to Specialists for Medicaid Managed Care Enrollees.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Medicaid recipients have consistently reported less timely access to specialists than patients with other types of coverage. By 2018, state Medicaid agencies will be required by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to enact time and distance standards for managed care organizations to ensure an adequate supply of specialist physicians for enrollees; however, there have been no published studies of whether these policies have significant effects on access to specialty care.

Objective

To compare ratings of access to specialists for adult Medicaid and commercial enrollees before and after the implementation of specialty access standards.

Design, setting, and participants

We used Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey data to conduct a quasiexperimental difference-in-differences (DID) analysis of 20 163 nonelderly adult Medicaid managed care (MMC) enrollees and 54 465 commercially insured enrollees in 5 states adopting access standards, and 37 290 MMC enrollees in 5 matched states that previously adopted access standards.

Main outcomes and measures

Reported access to specialty care in the previous 6 months.

Results

Seven thousand six hundred ninety-eight (69%) Medicaid enrollees and 28 423 (75%) commercial enrollees reported that it was always or usually easy to get an appointment with a specialist before the policy implementation (or at baseline) compared with 11 889 (67%) of Medicaid enrollees in states that had previously implemented access standards. Overall, there was no significant improvement in timely access to specialty services for MMC enrollees in the period following implementation of standard(s) (adjusted difference-in-differences, -1.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.7 to 0.1), nor was there any impact of access standards on insurance-based disparities in access (0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.3 to 5.4). There was heterogeneity across states, with 1 state that implemented both time and distance standards demonstrating significant improvements in access and reductions in disparities.

Conclusions and relevance

Specialty access standards did not lead to widespread improvements in access to specialist physicians. Meaningful improvements in access to specialty care for Medicaid recipients may require additional interventions.

SUBMITTER: Ndumele CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710214 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Medicaid enrollees typically report worse access to care than other insured populations. Expansions in Medicaid through less restrictive income eligibility requirements and the resulting influx of new enrollees may further erode access to care for those already enrolled in Medicaid.To assess the effect of previous Medicaid expansions on self-reported access to care and the use of emergency department services by Medicaid enrollees.Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design among 1714 adult Medicaid enrollees in 10 states that expanded Medicaid between June 1, 2000, and October 1, 2009, and 5097 Medicaid enrollees in 14 bordering control states that did not expand Medicaid.Self-reported access to care and annualized emergency department use.Among states expanding their Medicaid program for adults, the mean income eligibility level increased from 82.6% to 144.2% of the federal poverty level. Income eligibility in matched control states remained constant at 77.1% of the federal poverty level. The proportion of adults reporting being enrolled in Medicaid increased from 7.2% to 8.8% in expansion states and from 6.1% to 6.4% in matched control states. In Medicaid program expansion states, the proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting poor access to care declined from 8.5% before the expansion to 7.3% after the expansion. In matched control states, the proportion of Medicaid enrollees reporting poor access to care remained constant at 5.3%. The proportion of enrollees reporting any emergency department use decreased from 41.2% to 40.1% in expansion states and from 37.3% to 36.1% in matched control states. In the period following expansions, newly eligible enrollees reported poorer access to care than previously enrolled beneficiaries, although the overall difference between groups did not reach statistical significance.We found no evidence that expanding the number of individuals eligible for Medicaid coverage eroded perceived access to care or increased the use of emergency services among adult Medicaid enrollees.

Project description:ImportanceTo date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid programs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is vital to understand whether expanded health insurance coverage of low-income individuals improves access to family planning services as a first step toward improving reproductive health outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of Medicaid expansion coverage with access to birth control and family planning services among women of reproductive age enrolled in the Michigan expansion plan.Design, setting, and participantsIn a survey study, from January 13 through December 15, 2016, telephone surveys of a stratified sample of enrollees in Michigan's Section 1115 Medicaid Expansion waiver program, the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), were conducted. Interviewers completed surveys for 4090 sampled enrollees, of whom 1166 were women aged 19 to 44 years. Surveys were conducted with a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system in English, Arabic, and Spanish. The sample was weighted to 113 565 women. Dates of data analysis were from January 27 through September 18, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported change in access to birth control and family planning services through HMP (better, worse, about the same, or don't know/doesn't apply), compared with before enrollment.ResultsAmong the 1166 survey respondents aged 19 to 44 years (mean [SD] age, 31.0 [0.3] years) and the weighted sample of 113?565, 74.7% (95% CI, 72.2%-76.9%) lived in very-low-income households (<100% federal poverty level), 64.0% (95% CI, 60.5%-67.3%) reported at least 1 chronic medical condition, 23.5% (95% CI, 20.6%-26.6%) reported fair or poor health, and 17.7% (95% CI, 15.7%-19.9%) lived in rural settings. Overall, 35.5% (95% CI, 32.2%-39.0%) reported increased access to family planning services. After adjusting, those most likely to report increased access were women without health insurance coverage in the year preceding HMP enrollment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.41-2.89) compared with women with health insurance for the full 12 months preceding enrollment; younger women (aOR for 19-24 years, 2.80 [95% CI, 1.75-4.50]; aOR for 25-34 years, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.60-3.45]) compared with women aged 35 to 44 years; and women with a recent visit to a primary care clinician (aOR 1.69; 95% CI, 1.03-2.76) compared with women without a primary care visit in the preceding 12 months.Conclusions and relevanceOne in 3 women of reproductive age reported better ability to access birth control and family planning services through HMP compared with before enrollment. This finding suggests that Medicaid expansion is associated with improved access to family planning services, which may enable low-income women to maintain optimal reproductive health.

Project description:ImportanceState decisions not to expand Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could reduce emergency access to acute care hospitals.ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between state Medicaid expansion and emergency access to acute care hospitals in the United States.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study linked hospital-level data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2007 to 2017 to US Census data for all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Geospatial analyses and difference-in-differences regression models were used to compare temporal changes in the size of the population without 30-minute access to acute care hospitals between 32 states that expanded Medicaid with the population without access in 19 that did not, before and after expansion. Analyses focused on the total population and those with low incomes; secondary analyses examined emergency access to safety-net hospitals.ExposuresState-level Medicaid expansion.Main outcomes and measuresPopulation without emergency access to an acute care hospital, defined as living outside a 30-minute drive of any hospital.ResultsStates that did not expand Medicaid experienced an increase in the population without access to hospitals overall (without expansion: 6.76% to 6.79% [0.03%]; vs with expansion: 5.65% to 5.35% [-0.30%]; difference-in-differences, 0.33%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.34%; P < .001) and for low-income persons (without expansion: 7.43% to 7.39% [-0.04%]; vs with expansion: 6.25% to 6.15% [-0.10%]; difference-in-differences, 0.06%; 95% CI, 0.05%-0.07%; P < .001). If access changes in nonexpansion states were the same as expansion states, an estimated 421 000 more persons overall and 48 000 more low-income persons would have retained access. States that did not expand Medicaid experienced an increase in the population without access to safety-net hospitals overall (46.91% to 47.70% [0.79%] vs 33.94% to 33.07% [-0.87%]; difference-in-differences, 1.66%; 95% CI, 1.64%-1.66%; P < .001) and for low-income persons (45.28% to 46.14% [0.86%] vs 33.00% to 32.23% [-0.77%]; difference-in-differences, 1.63%; 95% CI, 1.63%-1.67%; P < .001). If access changes in nonexpansion states were the same as expansion states, an estimated 2 242 000 more persons overall and 364 000 more low-income persons would have retained access.Conclusions and relevanceStates that did not expand Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were associated with worse emergency access to acute care hospitals compared with states that expanded Medicaid.

Project description:ImportanceState Medicaid programs have increasingly contracted with insurers to provide medical care services for enrollees (Medicaid managed care plans). Insurers that provide these plans can exit Medicaid programs each year, with unclear effects on quality of care and health care experiences.ObjectiveTo determine the frequency and interstate variation of health plan exit from Medicaid managed care and evaluate the relationship between health plan exit and market-level quality.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort of all comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans (N?=?390) during the interval 2006-2014.ExposuresPlan exit, defined as the withdrawal of a managed care plan from a state's Medicaid program.Main outcomes and measuresEight measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set were used to construct 3 composite indicators of quality (preventive care, chronic disease care management, and maternity care). Four measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems were combined into a composite indicator of patient experience, reflecting the proportion of beneficiaries rating experiences as 8 or above on a 0-to-10-point scale. Outcome data were available for 248 plans (68% of plans operating prior to 2014, representing 78% of beneficiaries).ResultsOf the 366 comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans operating prior to 2014, 106 exited Medicaid. These exiting plans enrolled 4?848?310 Medicaid beneficiaries, with a mean of 606?039 beneficiaries affected by plan exits annually. Six states had a mean of greater than 10% of Medicaid managed care recipients enrolled in plans that exited, whereas 10 states experienced no plan exits. Plans that exited from a state's Medicaid market performed significantly worse prior to exiting than those that remained in terms of preventive care (57.5% vs 60.4%; difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.3% to 5.5%]), maternity care (69.7% vs 73.6%; difference, 3.8% [95% CI, 1.7% to 6.0%]), and patient experience (73.5% vs 74.8%; difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.6% to 1.9%]). There was no significant difference between exiting and nonexiting plans for the quality of chronic disease care management (76.2% vs 77.1%; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -2.1% to 4.0%]). There was also no significant change in overall market performance before and after the exit of a plan: 0.7-percentage point improvement in preventive care quality (95% CI, -4.9 to 6.3); 0.2-percentage point improvement in chronic disease care management quality (95% CI, -5.8 to 6.2); 0.7-percentage point decrease in maternity care quality (95% CI, -6.4 to 5.0]); and a 0.6-percentage point improvement in patient experience ratings (95% CI, -3.9 to 5.1). Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in exiting plans had access to coverage for a higher-quality plan, with 78% of plans in the same county having higher quality for preventive care, 71.1% for chronic disease management, 65.5% for maternity care, and 80.8% for patient experience.Conclusions and relevanceBetween 2006 and 2014, health plan exit from the US Medicaid program was frequent. Plans that exited generally had lower quality ratings than those that remained, and the exits were not associated with significant overall changes in quality or patient experience in the plans in the Medicaid market.