Dataset Information

Association between state Medicaid expansion status and naloxone prescription dispensing.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To test whether Medicaid expansion is associated with (a) a greater number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed and (b) a higher proportion of naloxone prescriptions paid by Medicaid.

Data sources/study setting

We used the IQVIA National Prescription Audit to obtain data on per state per quarter naloxone prescription dispensing for the period 2011-16.

Study design

In this quasi-experimental design study, the impact of Medicaid expansion on naloxone prescription dispensing was examined using difference-in-difference estimation models. State-level covariates including pharmacy-based naloxone laws (standing/protocol orders and direct authority to dispense naloxone), third-party prescribing laws, opioid analgesic prescribing rates, opioid-involved overdose death rates, and population size were controlled for in the analysis.

Principal findings

Medicaid expansion was associated with 38 additional naloxone prescriptions dispensed per state per quarter compared to nonexpansion controls, on average (P = .030). Also, Medicaid expansion resulted in an average increase of 9.86 percent in the share of naloxone prescriptions paid by Medicaid per state per quarter (P < .001).

Conclusions

Our study found that Medicaid expansion increased naloxone availability. This finding suggests that it will be important to consider naloxone access when making federal- and state-level decisions affecting Medicaid coverage.

SUBMITTER: Sohn M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7080392 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTo mitigate the opioid overdose crisis, states have implemented a variety of legal interventions aimed at increasing access to the opioid antagonist naloxone. Recently, Virginia and Vermont mandated the coprescription of naloxone for potentially at-risk patients.ObjectiveTo assess the association between naloxone coprescription legal mandates and naloxone dispensing in retail pharmacies.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a population-based, state-level cohort study. The sample included all prescriptions dispensed for naloxone in the retail pharmacy setting contained in IQVIA's national prescription audit, which represents 90% of all retail pharmacies in the United States. The unit of observation was state-month and the study period was January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017.ExposuresState legal intervention mandating naloxone coprescription.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of naloxone prescriptions dispensed. State rates of naloxone prescriptions dispensed per month per 100 000 standard population were calculated.ResultsThe rate of naloxone dispensing increased after implementation of legal mandates for naloxone coprescription. An estimated 88 naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in Virginia and 111 prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in Vermont during the first full month the legal requirement was effective. In comparison, 16 naloxone prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in the 10 states (including the District of Columbia) with the highest opioid overdose death rates and 6 prescriptions per 100 000 were dispensed in the 39 remaining states. The number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed was associated with the legal mandate for naloxone coprescription (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 7.75; 95% CI, 1.22-49.35). Implementation of the naloxone coprescription mandate was associated with an estimated 214 additional naloxone prescriptions dispensed per month in the period following the mandates, holding all other variables constant. Among covariates, naloxone access laws (IRR, 1.37; 1.05-1.78), opioid overdose death rates (IRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08), the percentage of naloxone prescriptions paid by third-party payers (IRR 1.009; 1.008-1.010), and time (IRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.07) were significantly associated with naloxone prescription dispensing.Conclusions and relevanceThese study findings suggest that legally mandated naloxone prescription for those at risk for opioid overdose may be associated with substantial increases in naloxone dispensing and further reduction in opioid-related harm.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess post-COVID-19 changes in insurance coverage, health behaviors, and self-assessed health among low-income, non-elderly adults by state Medicaid expansion status.Data sourcesWe used nationally representative survey data from the 2016 through 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The sample was restricted to adults aged 19-64 with household income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (N = 179,135).Study designWe examined a broad set of outcomes related to coverage, health behaviors, and self-assessed health available in the BRFSS. We used a difference-in-differences model to compare changes in outcomes for individuals living in the 35 states and DC that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to those in the 15 non-expansion states before and after the COVID-19 pandemic commenced in March 2020.Data collection/extraction methodsN/A.Principal findingsWe found that the expansions provided some protection for low-income people during the pandemic. In 2020, relative to earlier years, people in expansion states were more likely to report very good or excellent health (4.9 percentage points, 95%CI = 0.022, 0.076; p < 0.01) and physical health (-0.393 days of poor physical health in the past month, 95%CI = -0.714, -0.072; p < 0.05), lower rates of smoking (-1.9 percentage points, 95%CI = -0.041, 0.004; p < 0.10) and heavy drinking (-1.4 percentage points, 95%CI = -0.025, -0.004; p < 0.01), and higher flu vaccination rates (2.8 percentage points, 95%CI = 0.005, 0.051; p < 0.05) than those in non-expansion states. These benefits were particularly salient for Black and Hispanic individuals. We found no significant differences in insurance coverage, exercise, obesity, and self-assessed mental health between expansion and non-expansion states for the overall low-income sample. However, the expansion was associated with greater insurance coverage for Hispanic adults during the pandemic.ConclusionsInvestments in public health through expanding Medicaid may shield low-income populations from some of the health ramifications of public health emergencies.

Project description:ImportanceIn the US, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death and a serious mental health emergency. National programs that address suicide list access to mental health care as key in prevention, and more large-scale policies are needed to improve access to mental health care and address this crisis. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid Expansion Program was implemented in several states with the goal of increasing access to the health care system.ObjectiveTo compare changes in suicide rates in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA vs states that did not.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, state-level mortality rates were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics for US individuals aged 20 to 64 years from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 18, 2021, to April 15, 2022.ExposuresChanges in suicide mortality rates among nonelderly adults before and after Medicaid expansion in expansion and nonexpansion states were compared using adjusted difference-in-differences analyses via hierarchical bayesian linear regression.Main outcomes and measuresSuicide rates using death by suicide as the primary measure.ResultsOf the total population at risk for suicide, 50.4% were female, 13.3% were Black, 79.5% were White, and 7.2% were of other races. The analytic data set contained suicide mortality data for 2907 state-age-year units covering the general US population. A total of 553 912 deaths by suicide occurred during the study period, with most occurring in White (496 219 [89.6%]) and male (429 580 [77.6%]) individuals. There were smaller increases in the suicide rate after 2014 in Medicaid expansion (2.56 per 100 000 increase) compared with nonexpansion states (3.10 per 100 000 increase). In adjusted difference-in-differences analysis, a significant decrease of -0.40 (95% credible interval, -0.66 to -0.14) suicides per 100 000 individuals was found, translating to 1818 suicides that were averted in 2015 to 2018.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, although suicide rates increased in both groups, blunting of these rates occurred among nonelderly adults in the Medicaid expansion states compared with nonexpansion states. Because this difference may be linked to increased access to mental health care, policy makers should consider suicide prevention as a benefit of expanding access to health care.

Project description:ImportanceLow birth weight and preterm birth are associated with adverse consequences including increased risk of infant mortality and chronic health conditions. Black infants are more likely than white infants to be born prematurely, which has been associated with disparities in infant mortality and other chronic conditions.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether Medicaid expansion was associated with changes in rates of low birth weight and preterm birth outcomes, both overall and by race/ethnicity.Design, setting, and participantsUsing US population-based data from the National Center for Health Statistics Birth Data Files (2011-2016), difference-in-differences (DID) and difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) models were estimated using multivariable linear probability regressions to compare birth outcomes among infants in Medicaid expansion states relative to non-Medicaid expansion states and changes in relative disparities among racial/ethnic minorities for singleton live births to women aged 19 years and older.ExposuresState Medicaid expansion status and racial/ethnic category.Main outcomes and measuresPreterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation), very preterm birth (<32 weeks' gestation), low birth weight (<2500 g), and very low birth weight (<1500 g).ResultsThe final sample of 15 631 174 births (white infants: 8 244 924, black infants: 2 201 658, and Hispanic infants: 3 944 665) came from the District of Columbia and 18 states that expanded Medicaid (n = 8 530 751) and 17 states that did not (n = 7 100 423). In the DID analyses, there were no significant changes in preterm birth in expansion relative to nonexpansion states (preexpansion to postexpansion period, 6.80% to 6.67% [difference: -0.12] vs 7.86% to 7.78% [difference: -0.08]; adjusted DID: 0.00 percentage points [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.15], P = .98), very preterm birth (0.87% to 0.83% [difference: -0.04] vs 1.02% to 1.03% [difference: 0.01]; adjusted DID: -0.02 percentage points [95% CI, -0.05 to 0.02], P = .37), low birth weight (5.41% to 5.36% [difference: -0.05] vs 6.06% to 6.18% [difference: 0.11]; adjusted DID: -0.08 percentage points [95% CI, -0.20 to 0.04], P = .20), or very low birth weight (0.76% to 0.72% [difference: -0.03] vs 0.88% to 0.90% [difference: 0.02]; adjusted DID: -0.03 percentage points [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.01], P = .14). Disparities for black infants relative to white infants in Medicaid expansion states compared with nonexpansion states declined for all 4 outcomes, indicated by a negative DDD coefficient for preterm birth (-0.43 percentage points [95% CI, -0.84 to -0.02], P = .05), very preterm birth (-0.14 percentage points [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.02], P = .03), low birth weight (-0.53 percentage points [95% CI, -0.96 to -0.10], P = .02), and very low birth weight (-0.13 percentage points [95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01], P = .04). There were no changes in relative disparities for Hispanic infants.Conclusions and relevanceBased on data from 2011-2016, state Medicaid expansion was not significantly associated with differences in rates of low birth weight or preterm birth outcomes overall, although there were significant improvements in relative disparities for black infants compared with white infants in states that expanded Medicaid vs those that did not.

Project description:BackgroundA large proportion of individuals who use heroin report initiating opioid use with prescription opioids. However, patterns of prescription opioid use preceding heroin-related overdose have not been described.ObjectiveTo describe prescription opioid use in the year preceding heroin overdose.DesignCase-control study comparing prescription opioid use with a heroin-involved overdose, non-heroin-involved opioid overdose, and non-overdose controls from 2015 to 2017.ParticipantsOregon Medicaid beneficiaries with linked administrative claims, vital statistics, and prescription drug monitoring program data.Main measuresOpioid, benzodiazepine, and other central nervous system depressant prescriptions preceding overdose; among individuals with one or more opioid prescription, we assessed morphine milligram equivalents per day, overlapping prescriptions, prescriptions from multiple prescribers, long-term use, and discontinuation of long-term use.Key resultsWe identified 1458 heroin-involved overdoses (191 fatal) and 2050 non-heroin-involved opioid overdoses (266 fatal). In the 365 days prior to their overdose, 45% of individuals with a heroin-involved overdose received at least one prescribed opioid compared with 78% of individuals who experienced a non-heroin-involved opioid overdose (p < 0.001). For both heroin- and non-heroin-involved overdose cases, the likelihood of receiving an opioid increased with age. Among heroin overdose cases with an opioid dispensed, the rate of multiple pharmacy use was the only high-risk opioid pattern that was greater than non-overdose controls (adjusted odds ratio 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 6.95). Discontinuation of long-term opioid use was not common prior to heroin overdose and not higher than discontinuation rates among non-overdose controls.ConclusionsAlthough individuals with a heroin-involved overdose were less likely to receive prescribed opioids in the year preceding their overdose relative to non-heroin opioid overdose cases, prescription opioid use was relatively common and increased with age. Discontinuation of long-term prescription opioid use was not associated with heroin-involved overdose.

Project description:BackgroundIncidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy is increasing in the United States. Early detection is important to prevent adverse maternal and offspring outcomes. This ecological study evaluated changes in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy among states that expanded Medicaid compared with states that did not expand Medicaid.MethodsA quasi-experimental analysis using difference-in-differences models compared changes in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in Medicaid expansion states relative to non-Medicaid expansion states from 2012 to 2019. Maternal data from singleton first live births to individuals aged 20 to 39 years were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. Outcomes of interest included age-adjusted rates of de novo hypertension in pregnancy (gestational hypertension or preeclampsia) and prepregnancy hypertension.ResultsData from 7 764 965 individuals with a singleton first live birth were analyzed from 17 states and Washington, DC that expanded Medicaid and 15 states that did not. Rates of de novo hypertension in pregnancy increased over the study period in both expansion (54.34 [95% CI, 48.25-60.43] to 74.87 [95% CI, 71.20-78.55] per 1000 births) and nonexpansion states (68.32 [95% CI, 61.02-75.62] to 84.79 [95% CI, 80.67-88.91] per 1000 births). In adjusted difference-in-differences analyses, expansion status was associated with a greater increase in rates of de novo hypertension in pregnancy (difference-in-differences coefficient, +8.18 [95% CI, 4.00-12.36] per 1000 live births) but a decline in rates of de novo hypertension in pregnancy complicated by low birth weight (-7.20 [95% CI, -13.71 to -0.70] per 1000 births with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy). In adjusted difference-in-differences analyses, there were no significant changes in rates of prepregnancy hypertension in expansion relative to nonexpansion states (+1.13 [95% CI, -0.09 to +2.35] per 1000 live births).ConclusionsBetween 2012 and 2019, states that expanded Medicaid had a significantly greater increase in rates of de novo hypertension, with some evidence of better outcomes among those with de novo hypertension diagnosed in pregnancy.

Project description:Importance:Medicaid expansion was widely expected to alleviate the financial stresses faced by hospitals by providing additional revenue in the form of Medicaid reimbursements from patients previously receiving uncompensated care. Among nonprofit hospitals, which receive tax-exempt status in part because of their provision of uncompensated care, Medicaid expansion could have released hospital funds toward other community benefit activities. Objective:To examine changes in nonprofit hospital spending on community benefit activities after Medicaid expansion. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used difference-in-differences analysis of 1666 US nonprofit hospitals that filed Internal Revenue Service Form 990 Schedule H detailing their community benefit expenditures between 2011 and 2017. The analysis was conducted from February to September 2019. Exposures:State Medicaid expansion between 2011 and 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Percentage of hospital operating expenditures attributable to charity care and subsidized care, bad debt (ie, unreimbursed spending for care of patients who did not apply for charity care), unreimbursed Medicaid spending, noncare direct community spending, and total community benefit spending. Results:Of 1478 hospitals in the sample in 2011, nearly half (653 [44.2%]) were small hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, and nearly 70% of hospitals (1023 [69.2%]) were in urban areas. Among the 1666 nonprofit hospitals, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in spending on charity care and subsidized care (-0.68 [95% CI, -0.99 to -0.37] percentage points from a baseline mean [SD] of 3.6% [4.0%] of total hospital expenditures; P?<?.001) and in bad debt (-0.17 [95% CI, -0.32 to -0.01] percentage points). There was an increase in unreimbursed spending attributable to caring for Medicaid patients (0.85 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.10] percentage points; P?=?.04), which canceled out uncompensated care savings from the expansion. Noncare direct community expenditures decreased overall (-0.24 [95% CI, -0.48 to 0.00] percentage points; P?=?.049). Direct community expenditures remained more stable in small hospitals (-0.07 [95% CI, -0.20 to 0.05] percentage points; P?=.26) compared with large hospitals (-0.37 [95% CI, -0.86 to 0.12] percentage points; P?=?.14) and in nonurban hospitals (0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.14] percentage points; P?=?.70) compared with urban hospitals (-0.36 [95% CI, -0.73 to 0.01] percentage points; P?=?.06). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in nonprofit hospitals' burden of providing uncompensated care, but this financial relief was not redirected toward spending on other community benefits.

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.