Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Milbank Q ; 2024 Jun 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38865249

ABSTRACT

Policy Points Maternal health is influenced by the quality and accessibility of care before, during, and after pregnancy. Nationwide, Medicaid covers nearly one in two births and uses managed care as a central means for carrying out these responsibilities. Thus, managed care plays a fundamental role in assuring timely, equitable, quality care and improving maternal health outcomes. A close review of managed care contracts makes evident that the absence of a national set of maternal health standards has caused challenges in setting expectations for managed care performance. State Medicaid agencies adopt a variety of approaches and underlying philosophies for contracting. CONTEXT: Managed care is how Medicaid agencies principally furnish maternity care. For this reason, the contracts that Medicaid agencies enter into with managed care organizations have attracted strong interest as a means of improving maternal health access, quality, and equity. However, limited research has documented the extent to which states use these agreements to set binding expectations across the maternal health continuum and how states approach the task of maternal health contracting. METHODS: To explore maternal health contracting within Medicaid Managed Care, this study took a three-phase, sequential approach: (1) an extensive literature review to identify clinical guidelines and expert recommendations regarding maternal health "best practices" for people with elevated health and social needs, (2) a review of the managed care contracts in use across 40 states and Washington, DC, to determine the extent to which they incorporate these best practices, and (3) interviews conducted with four state Medicaid agencies to better understand how states approach maternal health when developing their contracts. FINDINGS: The evidence on maternal health best practices reveals nearly 60 "best practices," although the literature review also underscored the extent to which these recommendations are fragmented across numerous professional bodies and government agencies and are thus difficult for Medicaid agencies to ascertain. The contracts themselves reflect an approach to the maternal health continuum in a fragmented and incomplete way. Thematic analysis of interviews with state Medicaid agencies revealed three key approaches to contracting for maternity care: an "organic" approach, an "intentional" approach, and an approach "grounded" in state strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of comprehensive, integrated guidelines reflecting the full maternal health continuum likely complicates the contracting task and contributes to incomplete, ambiguous contracts. A major step would be the development of a "best practices tool" that helps state Medicaid agencies translate evidence into comprehensive, clear contracting expectations.

3.
Womens Health Issues ; 30(4): 248-259, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32505430

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The United States has a relatively high preterm birth rate compared with other developed nations. Before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, many women at risk of a preterm birth were not able to access affordable health insurance or a wide array of preventive and maternity care services needed before, during, and after pregnancy. The various health insurance market reforms and coverage expansions contained in the Affordable Care Act sought in part to address these problems. This analysis aims to describe changes in the patterns of payer mix of preterm births in the context of a post-Affordable Care Act insurance market, explore possible factors for the observed changes, and discuss some of the implications for the Medicaid program. METHODS: We applied a repeated cross-sectional study design to explore payment mix patterns of all births and preterm births between 2011 and 2016, using publicly available National Vital Statistics Birth Data. We included an equal number of years with payment source available in the dataset before and after January 1, 2014, when the coverage expansions became effective. RESULTS: We found a small relative change in payment mix during the study period. Private health insurance (PHI) paid for a higher percentage of all births and this rate increased steadily between 2011 and 2016. Preterm births paid by PHI increased by 1.4 percentage points between 2011 and 2016 and self-pay/uninsured preterm births decreased by 0.3 percentage points over the same time period. Medicaid had the highest, and a relatively stable, preterm birth coverage percentage (48.9% in 2011, 49.2% in 2014, and 48.9% in 2016). Medicaid was also more likely to pay for preterm births than PHI, but this likelihood decreased by more than one-half after 2014 (8.2% in 2013 vs. 3.8% in 2014). CONCLUSIONS: After the 2010 reforms, Medicaid remained a constant source of coverage for the most vulnerable women in society when faced with the high cost of a preterm birth. Nationwide, of the 64 million women ages 15 to 44, 4% gained PHI (directly purchased or employer sponsored) and another 4% Medicaid, with a concomitant 8% decrease in uninsured women of reproductive age between 2013 and 2017. More research is needed to conclude with certainty that the reforms worked as intended, but the important role of Medicaid as a financial safety net is undeniable.


Subject(s)
Insurance Coverage/economics , Insurance, Health/economics , Maternal Health Services/organization & administration , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Premature Birth/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Costs and Cost Analysis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Insurance Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Medically Uninsured , Parturition , Pregnancy , Premature Birth/epidemiology , United States , Young Adult
5.
Milbank Q ; 97(4): 1015-1061, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31621128

ABSTRACT

Policy Points Recent federal proposals to use block grants or per capita caps to fund Medicaid would likely lead to cuts in Medicaid funding for health centers, which are an important source of care for Medicaid enrollees. Recent Medicaid §1115 waivers are seeking to change state-level enrollment and eligibility requirements in ways that are expected to adversely affect health center revenues. Proposed Medicaid funding cuts are expected to lead to reductions in service capacity across all health centers over the long term. State policymakers should understand the likely impacts of proposed Medicaid program changes on health centers in their states and allocate funding to help offset lost federal financing. CONTEXT: In 2017, Congress considered implementing block grants or per capita caps to significantly reduce federal financing of the Medicaid program. Medicaid plays a key role in supporting health centers in their provision of care to patients with Medicaid coverage. Consequently, changes to the program could have serious implications for health centers and their ability to fulfill their mission. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach to (a) test a model simulating the effect of block grants and per capita caps on health centers' total revenues and general service capacity, and (b) augment model assumptions by using information collected from official Medicaid documents and interviews with health center leadership staff. Data came from the Uniform Data Systems (UDS), state- and county-level population projections, structured analyses of waiver documents, and interviews with health center leaders in seven states with approved or pending Medicaid §1115 waivers. FINDINGS: By 2024, in states where Medicaid coverage was expanded under the Affordable Care Act, block grant funding for Medicaid would decrease total health center revenues for the expansion population by 92%, and by 58% for traditional enrollees. In nonexpansion states, block grants would decrease health center revenues for traditional Medicaid enrollees by 38%. In expansion states, a per capita cap would, by 2024, decrease health center revenues for the expansion population by 78%, and for traditional Medicaid enrollees by 3%. The per capita cap would reduce health center revenues for traditional Medicaid enrollees in nonexpansion states by 2%. Eliminating the Medicaid expansion population would not fully compensate for health center revenue deficits in expansion states. Health center executives in all sample states expressed significant uncertainty around federal plans to reduce Medicaid funding as well as the financial implications of §1115 waiver requirements. Many interviewees anticipate cutting back on services and/or staff as a result. CONCLUSIONS: Both block grants and per capita caps would have a detrimental effect on health centers. Although health center leaders anticipate a reduction in services and/or staff, the uncertainty around federal and state proposals hinders health centers from making concrete strategic plans. States should prioritize communicating changes to health centers in a timely manner and be prepared to set aside dedicated funding to address anticipated shortfalls.

6.
J Ambul Care Manage ; 41(3): 213-224, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29847408

ABSTRACT

We present an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of an evidence-based childhood asthma intervention (Community Healthcare for Asthma Management and Prevention of Symptoms [CHAMPS]) to usual management of childhood asthma in community health centers. Data used in the analysis include household surveys, Medicaid insurance claims, and community health center expenditure reports. We combined our incremental cost-effectiveness analysis with a difference-in-differences multivariate regression framework. We found that CHAMPS reduced symptom days by 29.75 days per child-year and was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $28.76 per symptom-free days). Most of the benefits were due to reductions in direct medical costs. Indirect benefits from increased household productivity were relatively small.


Subject(s)
Asthma/therapy , Community Health Services/economics , Primary Health Care/economics , Arizona , Child , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Evidence-Based Medicine , Health Services Research , Humans , Michigan , Puerto Rico
8.
Matern Child Health J ; 20(6): 1178-92, 2016 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26676977

ABSTRACT

Background Maternity leave is integral to postpartum maternal and child health, providing necessary time to heal and bond following birth. However, the relationship between maternity leave and health outcomes has not been formally and comprehensively assessed to guide public health research and policy in this area. This review aims to address this gap by investigating both the correlates of maternity leave utilization in the US and the related health benefits for mother and child. Methods We searched the peer-reviewed scholarly literature using six databases for the years 1990 to early 2015 and identified 37 studies to be included in the review. We extracted key data for each of the included studies and assessed study quality using the "Weight of the Evidence" approach. Results The literature generally confirms a positive, though limited correlation between maternity leave coverage and utilization. Likewise, longer maternity leaves are associated with improved breastfeeding intentions and rates of initiation, duration and predominance as well as improved maternal mental health and early childhood outcomes. However, the literature points to important disparities in access to maternity leave that carry over into health outcomes, such as breastfeeding. Synthesis We present a conceptual framework synthesizing what is known to date related to maternity leave access and health outcomes.


Subject(s)
Mothers/psychology , Parental Leave , Postpartum Period , Women, Working , Breast Feeding/psychology , Employment , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Time Factors
9.
Pediatrics ; 134(3): 516-22, 2014 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25113298

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement calling for pediatricians to be informed about the need for specific pediatric medical necessity language because children deserve "the intent embedded in Medicaid." This study aims to explore the definitions and determinations of medical necessity in Medicaid Managed Care (MMC), document the relevant language used throughout Medicaid, and investigate whether the federal standard of medical necessity for children is replicated in related state documents. METHODS: We conducted a desk review of state statutes, model MMC contracts, and 2 provider manuals per state, for 33 states with a full-risk MMC model. RESULTS: The federal "to correct and ameliorate" standard was replicated in 100% of state regulations, 72% of MMC model contracts (n = 13 of 18 MMC model contracts available online), and 54% of provider manuals (n = 30 of 56 available and sampled online). Only 9 states had an explicit "preventive" pediatric medical necessity standard in their state regulations that exemplified "the intent imbedded in Medicaid." CONCLUSIONS: The federal medical necessity standard for children is not replicated consistently within MMC programs from the state, to health plans, to network providers. Although the majority of the documents reviewed included the standard, the presence of the standard decreased by almost half between state-level and network-provider-level regulations. Having a single, explicitly defined pediatric medical necessity definition replicated at all levels of the health system would reduce confusion and increase the ability of pediatricians to apply the standard more uniformly.


Subject(s)
Health Services Needs and Demand/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Pediatrics/legislation & jurisprudence , Child , Health Services Needs and Demand/trends , Humans , Medicaid/trends , Pediatrics/trends , United States
10.
Womens Health Issues ; 23(5): e273-80, 2013.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23993475

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Medicaid is a major source of public health care financing for pregnant women and deliveries in the United States. Starting in 2014, some states will extend Medicaid to thousands of previously uninsured, low-income women. Given this changing landscape, it is important to have a baseline of current levels of Medicaid financing for births in each state. This article aims to 1) provide up-to-date, multiyear data for all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and 2) summarize issues of data comparability in view of increased interest in program performance and impact assessment. METHODS: We collected 2008-2010 data on Medicaid births from individual state contacts during the winter of 2012-2013, systematically documenting sources and challenges. FINDINGS: In 2010, Medicaid financed 45% of all births, an increase of 4% [corrected] in the proportion of all births covered by Medicaid in 2008. Percentages varied among states. Numerous data challenges were found. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY: Consistent adoption of the 2003 birth certificate in all states would allow the National Center for Health Statistics Natality Detail dataset to serve as a nationally representative source of data for the financing of births in the United States. As states expand coverage to low-income women, women of childbearing age will be able to obtain coverage before and between pregnancies, allowing for access to services that could improve their overall and reproductive health, as well as birth outcomes. Improved birth outcomes could translate into substantial cost savings, because the costs associated with preterm births are estimated to be 10 times greater than those for full-term births.


Subject(s)
Delivery, Obstetric/economics , Delivery, Obstetric/statistics & numerical data , Health Care Reform/economics , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Poverty , Birth Rate , District of Columbia , Female , Health Care Surveys , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Medicaid/economics , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Pregnancy , Puerto Rico , United States
14.
Womens Health Issues ; 20(1 Suppl): S18-49, 2010.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20123180

ABSTRACT

Childbirth Connection hosted a 90th Anniversary national policy symposium, Transforming Maternity Care: A High Value Proposition, on April 3, 2009, in Washington, DC. Over 100 leaders from across the range of stakeholder perspectives were actively engaged in the symposium work to improve the quality and value of U.S. maternity care through broad system improvement. A multi-disciplinary symposium steering committee guided the strategy from its inception and contributed to every phase of the project. The "Blueprint for Action: Steps Toward a High Quality, High Value Maternity Care System", issued by the Transforming Maternity Care Symposium Steering Committee, answers the fundamental question, "Who needs to do what, to, for, and with whom to improve the quality of maternity care over the next five years?" Five stakeholder workgroups collaborated to propose actionable strategies in 11 critical focus areas for moving expeditiously toward the realization of the long term "2020 Vision for a High Quality, High Value Maternity Care System", also published in this issue. Following the symposium these workgroup reports and recommendations were synthesized into the current blueprint. For each critical focus area, the "Blueprint for Action" presents a brief problem statement, a set of system goals for improvement in that area, and major recommendations with proposed action steps to achieve them. This process created a clear sightline to action that if enacted could improve the structure, process, experiences of care, and outcomes of the maternity care system in ways that when anchored in the culture can indeed transform maternity care.


Subject(s)
Benchmarking/standards , Maternal Health Services/standards , Medical Informatics/standards , Obstetrics/standards , Benchmarking/methods , Data Collection/standards , Electronic Health Records/standards , Female , Goals , Health Care Reform , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Maternal Health Services/organization & administration , Pregnancy , United States
15.
Womens Health Issues ; 20(1 Suppl): S67-78, 2010.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20123184

ABSTRACT

One of the most challenging aspects of health care improvement and reform is ensuring that individuals, particularly those who are vulnerable and low income, have access to care. Just as challenging is the imperative to ensure that the care accessed is of the highest quality possible. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, Crossing the Quality Chasm, identified the primary goal of any high-quality heath care system: The ability to furnish the right care, in the right setting, at the right time. This aim must also be the primary goal of Medicaid in regard to providing access to high-quality care for women throughout the reproductive cycle. Nationwide, Medicaid is a large purchaser of maternity care; in 2006, the program paid for 43% of all births and maternity costs represented 29% of all hospital charges to Medicaid. Under current federal law, state Medicaid agencies have to fulfill several obligations related to assessing, ensuring, and improving the quality of care, particularly for enrollees who receive services through managed care arrangements. The main purpose of this article is to analyze and describe the role of Medicaid in facilitating access to care for pregnant women and ensuring high-quality maternity care that is affordable. It first summarizes the federal Medicaid requirements regarding eligibility, coverage of benefits, financing, and service delivery, with a special emphasis on existing quality provisions. Then, it discusses current issues and recommends several Medicaid reforms, particularly in the area of quality assessment and improvement. All reforms, including Medicaid reforms, should seek to support the IOM-identified aims. Much of the emphasis in Medicaid policy development has been focused on access to care and great need for reform remains in the area of quality assurance and improvement, and disparity reduction because the program can play a significant role in this regard as well. More broadly, health care reform may provide an opportunity to revisit key issues around access to and quality of maternity care, including the benefit package, the content of services covered in the package, the frequency with which these services should be furnished, and the development of meaningful measures to capture whether women of childbearing age, including pregnant women, regardless of insurance status, indeed receive efficient, timely, effective, safe, accessible, and woman-centered maternity care.


Subject(s)
Health Care Reform , Health Services Accessibility , Maternal Health Services/economics , Medicaid , Eligibility Determination , Female , Humans , Insurance Coverage , Maternal Health Services/standards , Obstetrics/economics , Pregnancy , Quality of Health Care , United States
16.
Manag Care Interface ; 18(6): 24-30, 2005 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16018296

ABSTRACT

State Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) agencies play pivotal roles in ensuring that participating health plans provide quality care. In 2003, researchers interviewed SCHIP officials with oversight responsibilities in nine states and found that all agencies had formal monitoring procedures and that all of them regularly collected data that measured health plans' compliance with quantifiable standards. Several states designed a graduated incentive and penalty system, which they believed favored compliance. Many agencies also stressed the need for collaboration with participating plans, because of underlying systemic barriers. None of the surveyed states considered their contractual agreements with health plans as all-encompassing on quality improvement, which underscores the importance of additional, noncontractual strategies to improve the quality of care. The survey found a disparity between state expectations for health plan performance and the realities of the delivery system, including the priorities of health plans and providers. The sample states were good monitors who enforced general contractual standards of pediatric quality of care; however, one shortcoming was found. Few of the surveyed states focused on oral disease or lead poisoning as part of their overall quality improvement efforts.


Subject(s)
Child Health Services/standards , Insurance Coverage , Managed Care Programs/standards , Medicaid , Quality of Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , State Government , Child , Child Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Managed Care Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...