Dataset Information

Estimating the impact of neonatal abstinence system interventions on Medicaid: an incremental cost analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) incidence has significantly increased in the US in recent years. It is therefore important to develop effective intervention protocols that mitigate the long-term consequences of this condition for the mother, her child, and the community.

Methods

We used Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the impact of four interventions for NAS and their combinations on pregnant women with opioid use disorder. The key outputs were changes in incremental costs from baseline from the Medicaid perspective and from a total systems perspective and effect size changes. Simulation parameters and costs were based on the literature and baseline model validation was performed using Medicaid claims for Indiana.

Results

Compared to baseline, the resulting simulation estimates showed that three interventions significantly decreased Medicaid incremental costs by 8% (mandatory opioid testing (MOT)), 4% (patient navigators), and 3% (peer recovery coaches). The combination of the three interventions reduced Medicaid direct costs by 26%. Reductions were similar for total system incremental costs (ranging from 2 to 24%), though MOT was found to increase costs of overdose death based on productivity loss. NAS case reductions ranged from 1% (capacity change) to 13% (MOT).

Conclusions

Using systems-based modeling, we showed that costs associated with NAS can be significantly reduced. However, effective implementation would require the involvement and coordination of several stakeholders. In addition, careful protocols for MOT should be considered to ensure pregnant women don't forgo prenatal care for fear of punitive consequences.

SUBMITTER: Lopez-Soto D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8691068 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTo estimate the association between punitive policies for women with substance use during pregnancy and odds of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) diagnosis among Medicaid-insured infants, and to estimate this association controlling for the presence of four other policies related to substance use in pregnancy.Design, setting and participantsAnalysis of live births in Medicaid claims data from 39 US states in varying years between 2006 and 2014 using weighted generalized linear models with clustered standard errors and state and year fixed-effects.MeasurementsNAS rates in states without punitive policies were compared with rates in states with policies before and after policy enactment using logistic regression models adjusted for individual and county-level factors and including state and year fixed-effects. We estimated odds of NAS controlling for the presence of a potentially treatment-deterring policy requiring reporting of suspected prenatal substance use, and three treatment-supportive policies that create targeted programs for pregnant and postpartum women, prioritize pregnant women's access to substance use disorder treatment programs and prohibit discrimination towards pregnant women in treatment programs.FindingsAmong 9 714 798 weighted live births (1 896 082 unweighted), 49 670 (0.51%) had an NAS diagnosis. The findings were inconclusive as to whether or not punitive policies were associated with odds of NAS either in the short or long term. Odds of NAS among infants born in states with reporting policies were lower than those born in states without such policies [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.61-0.98].ConclusionsIn the United States, punitive policies for women with substance use during pregnancy do not appear to be associated with lower odds of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Reporting policies, which are heterogenous in their components and implementation, appear to be associated with lower odds of NAS when controlling for other relevant policies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs. METHODS:We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI ?25 kg/m2 and HbA1c ? 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose ? 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective. RESULTS:In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal. CONCLUSIONS:In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.