Dataset Information

The impact of expanded Medicaid eligibility on access to naloxone.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Federal, state and local US governments have sought interventions to reduce deaths due to opioid overdoses by increasing the availability of naloxone. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income, childless adults, potentially giving this group financial access to naloxone. The aims of this paper are: (1) to describe the changes in the amount of Medicaid-covered naloxone used between 2009 and 2016 and (2) to quantify the differential change in the amount of dispensed naloxone between states that expanded their Medicaid programs and states that did not. DESIGN:A quasi-experimental approach based on states' ongoing choice to expand their Medicaid program to all adults with incomes between 100 and 138% of the federal poverty line (FPL), starting in 2014. As of 2018, 37 states had expanded and 14 states had not. Estimation of the policy impact relies on a difference-in-difference method. SETTING:US state Medicaid programs. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS:Data are from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and include all dispensed prescriptions of naloxone through the Medicaid program. State/quarters with fewer than 10 prescriptions are suppressed; n = 1632. FINDINGS:Prior to Medicaid expansion, the number of Medicaid-covered naloxone prescriptions was very similar in expansion and non-expansion states. On average, states that expanded Medicaid had 78.2 (95% confidence interval = 16.0-140.3, P = 0.02) more prescriptions per year for naloxone compared with states that did not expand Medicaid coverage, a nearly 10 increase over the pre-expansion years. Medicaid expansion contributed to this growth in Medicaid-covered naloxone more than other state-level naloxone policies. CONCLUSIONS:Medicaid accounts for approximately a quarter of naloxone sales. Medicaid expansion generated 8.3% of the growth in naloxone units from 2009 to 2016, holding other factors constant.

SUBMITTER: Frank RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7029817 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of expanded Medicaid eligibility on access to naloxone.

Frank Richard G RG Fry Carrie E CE

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20190414 9

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Federal, state and local US governments have sought interventions to reduce deaths due to opioid overdoses by increasing the availability of naloxone. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income, childless adults, potentially giving this group financial access to naloxone. The aims of this paper are: (1) to describe the changes in the amount of Medicaid-covered naloxone used between 2009 and 2016 and (2) to quantify the differential change i ...[more]

PMID: 30983009

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePolicy makers are considering insurance expansions to improve maternal health. The tradeoffs between expanding Medicaid or subsidized private insurance for maternal coverage and care are unknown.ObjectiveTo compare maternal coverage and care by Medicaid vs marketplace eligibility.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study using a difference-in-difference research design was conducted from March 14, 2020, to April 22, 2021. Maternal coverage and care use were compared among women with family incomes 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) residing in 10 Medicaid expansion sites (exposure group) who gained Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act and in 5 nonexpansion sites (comparison group) who gained marketplace eligibility before (2011-2013) and after (2015-2018) insurance expansion implementation. Participants included women aged 18 years or older from the 2011-2018 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey.ExposuresEligibility for Medicaid or marketplace coverage under the Affordable Care Act.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included coverage in the preconception and postpartum periods, early and adequate prenatal care, and postpartum checkups and effective contraceptive use.ResultsThe study population included 11 432 women age 18 years and older (32% age 18-24 years, 33% age 25-29 years, 35% age ≥30 years) with incomes 100% to 138% FPL: 7586 in a Medicaid state (exposure group) and 3846 in a nonexpansion marketplace state (comparison group). Women in marketplace states were younger, had higher educational level and marriage rates, and had less racial and ethnic diversity. Medicaid relative to marketplace eligibility was associated with increased Medicaid coverage (20.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 12.8 to 30.0 percentage points), decreased private insurance coverage (-10.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -13.3 to -7.5 percentage points), and decreased uninsurance (-8.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -20.1 to -0.1 percentage points) in the preconception period, increased postpartum Medicaid (17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.7 to 34.3 percentage points) and increased adequate prenatal care (4.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 11.0 percentage points) in difference-in-difference models. No evidence of significant differences in early prenatal care, postpartum check-ups, or postpartum contraception was identified.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, eligibility for Medicaid was associated with increased Medicaid, lower preconception uninsurance, and increased adequate prenatal care use. The lower rates of preconception uninsurance among Medicaid-eligible women suggest that women with low incomes were facing barriers to marketplace enrollment, underscoring the potential importance of reducing financial barriers for the population with low incomes.

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:BACKGROUND:Although state Medicaid programs cover cancer screening, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to be screened for cancer and are more likely to present with tumors of an advanced stage than are those with other insurance. The current study was performed to determine whether state Medicaid eligibility and reimbursement policies affect the receipt of breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS:Cross-sectional regression analyses of 2007 Medicaid data from 46 states and the District of Columbia were performed to examine associations between state-specific Medicaid reimbursement/eligibility policies and receipt of cancer screening. The study sample included individuals aged 21 years to 64 years who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid for at least 4 months. Subsamples eligible for each screening test were: Papanicolaou test among 2,136,511 patients, mammography among 792,470 patients, colonoscopy among 769,729 patients, and fecal occult blood test among 753,868 patients. State-specific Medicaid variables included median screening test reimbursement, income/financial asset eligibility requirements, physician copayments, and frequency of eligibility renewal. RESULTS:Increases in screening test reimbursement demonstrated mixed associations (positive and negative) with the likelihood of receiving screening tests among Medicaid beneficiaries. In contrast, increased reimbursements for office visits were found to be positively associated with the odds of receiving all screening tests examined, including colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06-1.08), fecal occult blood test (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10), Papanicolaou test (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), and mammography (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03). Effects of other state-specific Medicaid policies varied across the screening tests examined. CONCLUSIONS:Increased reimbursement for office visits was consistently associated with an increased likelihood of being screened for cancer, and may be an important policy tool for increasing screening among this vulnerable population.

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is beginning to consider adjusting for social risk factors, such as dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, when evaluating hospital performance under value-based purchasing programs. It is unknown whether dual eligibility represents a unique domain of social risk or instead represents clinical risk unmeasured by variables available in traditional Medicare claims.ObjectiveTo assess how dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid is associated with risk-adjusted readmission rates after surgery.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was conducted of 55 651 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general, vascular, and gynecologic surgery at 62 hospitals in Michigan between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2016. Representative cohorts were derived from traditional Medicare claims (n?=?29?710) and the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) clinical registry (n?=?25?941), which includes additional measures of clinical risk. Statistical analysis was conducted between April 10 and July 15, 2019. The association between dual eligibility and risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates after surgery was compared between models inclusive and exclusive of additional measurements of clinical risk. The study also examined how dual eligibility is associated with hospital profiling using risk-adjusted readmission rates.ExposuresDual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted all-cause 30-day readmission after surgery.ResultsThere were a total of 3986 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the Medicare claims cohort (2554 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.9] years) and 1608 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the MSQC cohort (990 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.8] years). In both data sets, higher proportions of dual-eligible beneficiaries were younger, female, and nonwhite than Medicare-only beneficiaries (Medicare claims cohort: female, 2554 of 3986 [64.1%] vs 12?879 of 25?724 [50.1%]; nonwhite, 1225 of 3986 [30.7%] vs 2783 of 25?724 [10.8%]; MSQC cohort: female, 990 of 1608 [61.6%] vs 12?578 of 24?333 [51.7%]; nonwhite, 416 of 1608 [25.9%] vs 2176 of 24?333 [8.9%]). In the Medicare claims cohort, dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to be readmitted (15.5% [95% CI, 13.7%-17.3%]) than Medicare-only beneficiaries (13.3% [95% CI, 12.7%-13.9%]; difference, 2.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.4-3.9 percentage points]). In the MSQC cohort, after adjustment for more granular measures of clinical risk, dual eligibility was not significantly associated with readmission (difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.0 to 2.2 percentage points]). In both the Medicare claims and MSQC cohorts, adding dual eligibility to risk-adjustment models had little association with hospital ranking using risk-adjusted readmission rates.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may reflect unmeasured clinical risk of readmission in claims data. Policy makers should consider incorporating more robust measures of social risk into risk-adjustment models used by value-based purchasing programs.

Dataset Information

The impact of expanded Medicaid eligibility on access to naloxone.

Publications

The impact of expanded Medicaid eligibility on access to naloxone.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure