Preserving Access to CMS Data for Early-Career Researchers.

This Viewpoint describes the potential consequences of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS') proposed data access policy change for graduate students and early-career researchers.

The impact of Medicaid expansion on state expenditures through the COVID-19 era.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of Medicaid expansion on state expenditures through the end of 2022. DATA SOURCES: We used data from the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO)'s State Expenditure Report, Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)'s Medicaid expansion tracker, US Bureau of Labor Statistics data (BLS), US Bureau of Economic Analysis data (BEA), and Pandemic Response Accountability Committee Oversight (PRAC). STUDY DESIGN: We investigated spending per capita (by state population) across seven budget categories, including Medicaid spending, and four spending sources. We performed a difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis that compared within-state changes in spending over time in expansion and nonexpansion states to estimate the effect of Medicaid expansion on state budgets. We adjusted for annual state unemployment rate, annual state per capita personal income, and state spending of Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) from 2020 to 2022 and included state and year fixed effects. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We linked annual state-level data on state-reported fiscal year expenditures from NASBO with state-level characteristics from BLS and BEA data and with CRF state spending from PRAC. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Medicaid expansion was associated with an average increase of 21% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%-25%) in per capita Medicaid spending after Medicaid expansion among states that expanded prior to 2020. After inclusion of an interaction term to separate between the coronavirus disease (COVID) era (2020-2022) and the prior period following expansion (2015-2019), we found that although Medicaid expansion led to an average increase of 33% (95% CI: 21%-45%) in federal funding of state expenditures in the post-COVID years, it was not significantly associated with increased state spending. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of crowding out of other state expenditure categories or a substantial impact on total state spending, even in the COVID-19 era. Increased federal expenditures may have shielded states from substantial budgetary impacts.

Association Between Drug Characteristics and Manufacturer Spending on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising.

Importance: Some drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising. Objective: To identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics. Exposures: Drug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data). Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug. Results: The 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales. Conclusions and Relevance: Among top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

Midwifery and Birth Centers Under State Medicaid Programs: Current Limits to Beneficiary Access to a High-Value Model of Care.

Policy Points Birth center services must be covered under Medicaid per federal mandate, but reimbursement and other policy barriers prevent birth centers from serving more Medicaid patients. Midwifery care provided through birth centers improves maternal and infant outcomes and lowers costs for Medicaid beneficiaries. Birth centers offer an array of birth options and have resources to care for patients with medical and psychosocial risks. Addressing the barriers identified in this study would promote birth centers' participation in Medicaid, leading to better outcomes for Medicaid-covered mothers and newborns and significant savings for the Medicaid program. CONTEXT: Midwifery care, particularly when offered through birth centers, has shown promise in both improving pregnancy outcomes and containing costs. The national evaluation of Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns II, an initiative that tested enhanced prenatal care models for Medicaid beneficiaries, found that women receiving prenatal care at Strong Start birth centers experienced superior birth outcomes compared to matched and adjusted counterparts in typical Medicaid care. We use qualitative evaluation data to investigate birth centers' experiences participating in Medicaid, and identify policies that influence Medicaid beneficiaries' access to midwives and birth centers. METHODS: We analyzed data from more than 200 key informant interviews and 40 focus groups conducted during four case study rounds; a phone-based survey of Medicaid officials in Strong Start states; and an Internet-based survey of birth center sites. We identified themes related to access to midwives and birth centers, focusing on influential Medicaid policies. FINDINGS: Medicaid beneficiaries chose birth center care because they preferred midwife providers, wanted a more natural birth experience, or in some cases sought certain pain relief methods or birth procedures not available at hospitals. However, Medicaid enrollees currently have less access to birth centers than privately insured women. Many birth centers have difficulty contracting with managed care organizations and participating in Medicaid value-based delivery system reforms, and birth center reimbursement rates are sometimes too low to cover the actual cost of care. Some birth centers significantly limit Medicaid business because of low reimbursement rates and threats to facility sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid beneficiaries do not have the same access to maternity care providers and birth settings as their privately insured counterparts. Medicaid policy barriers prevent some birth centers from serving more Medicaid patients, or threaten the financial sustainability of centers. By addressing these barriers, more Medicaid beneficiaries could access care that is associated with positive birth outcomes for mothers and newborns, and the Medicaid program could reap significant savings.

Facilitators and Barriers to Healthy Pregnancy Spacing among Medicaid Beneficiaries: Findings from the National Strong Start Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Closely spaced, unintended pregnancies are common among Medicaid beneficiaries and create avoidable risks for women and infants, including preterm birth. The Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, a program of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, intended to prevent preterm birth through psychosocially based enhanced prenatal care in maternity care homes, group prenatal care, and birth centers. Comprehensive care offers the opportunity for education and family planning to promote healthy pregnancy spacing. METHODS: As of March 30, 2016, there were 42,138 women enrolled in Strong Start and 23,377 women had given birth. Individual-level data were collected through three participant survey instruments and a medical chart review, and approximately one-half of women who had delivered (n = 10,374) had nonmissing responses on a postpartum survey that asked about postpartum family planning. Qualitative case studies were conducted annually for the first 3 years of the program and included 629 interviews with staff and 122 focus groups with 887 Strong Start participants. RESULTS: Most programs tried to promote healthy pregnancy spacing through family planning education and provision with some success. Group care sites in particular established protocols for patient-centered family planning education and decision making. Despite program efforts, however, barriers to uptake remained. These included state and institutional policies, provider knowledge and bias, lack of protocols for timing and content of education, and participant issues such as transportation or cultural preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The Strong Start initiative introduced a number of successful strategies for increasing women's knowledge regarding healthy pregnancy spacing and access to family planning. Multiple barriers can impact postpartum Medicaid participants' capacity to plan and space pregnancies, and addressing such issues holistically is an important strategy for facilitating healthy interpregnancy intervals.