Medicaid professional fees for treatment of opioid use disorder varied widely across states and were substantially below fees paid by medicare in 2021.

BACKGROUND: As Medicaid is the largest payer for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment services in the United States, information about Medicaid provider reimbursement is critical, and Medicaid payment policies influence the structure of OUD treatment services for everyone with OUD treatment needs. METHODS: We collected Medicaid professional fees for OUD treatment and related services for the District of Columbia and fifty state Medicaid programs and the Medicare program in 2021. We create three fee indexes related to OUD treatment, with an emphasis on services related to first-line medication treatments in outpatient settings. We then create Medicaid fee indexes and Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes. RESULTS: Weekly Medicaid fee bundles for methadone treatment at OTPs in 2021 varied widely, more than 4-fold across states. The Medicaid-to-Medicare fee index shows that the national average Medicaid fee bundle was 56 percent of Medicare fees for regular methadone treatment at OTPs in 2021. For services related to OUD treatment, Medicaid fees varied up to 5-fold and larger across the components of each of the four services, and Medicaid fees were low relative to Medicare for almost all state services examined. The Medicaid-to-Medicare fee index was 64 percent of Medicare fees in 2021, ranging from 52 percent for evaluation & management to 76 percent for toxicology testing. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be little justification for such large variation in Medicaid fees across states. In addition, the generally low fees in Medicaid persist despite recent efforts to increase access to opioid use disorder treatment for Medicaid enrollees, and have important implications for access to life-saving treatment during the current opioid overdose crisis.

Medicaid Physician Fees Remained Substantially Below Fees Paid By Medicare In 2019.

In 2019, as in prior years, Medicaid physician fees remained well below Medicare and private insurance fees despite growth in Medicaid enrollment. Low Medicaid physician fees have important implications in terms of access to care for Medicaid enrollees and the effects of proposals to expand coverage through a Medicaid buy-in program or a Medicaid-like public option.

Association of Cost Sharing With Delayed and Complicated Presentation of Acute Appendicitis or Diverticulitis.

Importance: Treatment delays are associated with increased morbidity and cost of disease, although the extent to which cost sharing influences timely presentation and management of acute surgical disease remains unknown. Given recent policy changes using cost sharing to modify health care behavior, this study examines the association of cost sharing with the health of the patient at presentation and with receipt of optimal or minimally invasive surgery. Objective: To assess whether cost sharing is associated with the likelihood of early, uncomplicated patient presentation or with surgical management of 2 representative emergency general surgery diagnoses: acute appendicitis and acute diverticulitis. Design Setting and Participants: This cohort study used Health Care Cost Institute claims from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017, to analyze data of commercially insured individuals hospitalized for acute appendicitis or diverticulitis. In total, 151 852 patients in the data set aged 18 to 64 years and presenting with acute appendicitis or diverticulitis were included as identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Data were analyzed from January 2020 through February 2021. Exposures: The primary exposure was patient total cost sharing incurred for the index hospitalization, defined as their summed deductible, copayments, and coinsurance. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was early, uncomplicated disease presentation. Secondary outcomes were receipt of optimal surgical care and minimally invasive surgery if undergoing an operation. Analyses were conducted with multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient characteristics and community-level socioeconomic and geographic factors. High cost sharing was defined as quartile 4 (>$3082), and low cost sharing as quartile 1 ($0-$502). Results: Among 151 852 patients, 52.4% were men, and the total cost-sharing median was $1725 (interquartile range, $503-$3082). Higher cost sharing was associated with lower odds of early, uncomplicated disease presentation (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65). Patients with higher cost sharing were less likely to receive optimal surgical care (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) or minimally invasive surgery (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that, as policymakers debate the degree of cost sharing in public and private insurance plans, attention should be given to the clinical and financial implications associated with care delays.

Home Health Use In Medicare Advantage Compared To Use In Traditional Medicare.

Medicare covers home health benefits for homebound beneficiaries who need intermittent skilled care. While home health care can help prevent costlier institutional care, some studies have suggested that traditional Medicare beneficiaries may overuse home health care. This study compared home health use in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, as well as within Medicare Advantage by beneficiary cost sharing, prior authorization requirement, and plan type. In 2016 Medicare Advantage enrollees were less likely to use home health care than traditional Medicare enrollees were, had 7.1 fewer days per home health spell, and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital during their spell. Among Medicare Advantage plans, those that imposed beneficiary cost sharing or prior authorization requirements had lower rates of home health use. Qualitative interviews suggested that Medicare Advantage payment and contracting approaches influenced home health care use. Therefore, changes in traditional Medicare home health payment policies implemented in 2020 may reduce these disparities in home health use and spell length.

Home Health And Postacute Care Use In Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare.

This article compares patterns of postacute care-including care provided by skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies-under Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Overall, Medicare Advantage enrollees received less postacute care, both institutional and home health, than traditional Medicare enrollees did for three common conditions.

New evidence of state variation in Medicaid payment policies for dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: To develop the first longitudinal database of state Medicaid policies for paying the cost sharing in Medicare Part B for services provided to dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees ("duals") and an index summarizing the impact of these policies on payments for physician office services. DATA SOURCES: Medicaid policy data collected from electronic sources and inquiries with states. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed a national database of Medicaid payment policies for the period 2004-2018, consolidating information from online Medicaid policy documents, state laws, and policy data reported to us by state Medicaid programs. Using this database and state Medicaid fee schedules, we constructed a Medicaid payment index for duals. This index represented the proportion of the Medicare allowed amount that physicians would expect to be paid from Medicare and Medicaid for a subset of physician office services (evaluation and management services) based on annual state payment policies and Medicaid fee schedules. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 2018, 42 states had policies to limit Medicaid payments of Medicare cost sharing when Medicaid's fee schedule was lower than Medicare's-an increase from 36 such states in 2004. In the preponderance of states with these policies, combined Medicare and Medicaid payments for evaluation and management services provided to duals averaged 78 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services, reflecting relatively low Medicaid fee schedules in these states. In 2013 and 2014, physicians who qualified for the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid "fee bump" were paid 100 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid programs vary across states and over time in their payments of cost sharing for physician office services provided to duals. Our database and index can facilitate monitoring of these policies and research on the consequences of policy changes for duals.

Did Medicare Advantage payment cuts affect beneficiary access and affordability?

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s Medicare Advantage (MA) payment cuts were associated with changes in enrollees' access to and affordability of healthcare relative to traditional Medicare (TM). STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analyses of changes in access and affordability in MA relative to TM between 2009 and 2017 and between 2011 and 2017. METHODS: Respondents who reported Medicare coverage on the National Health Interview Survey were divided into MA and TM enrollees. Using multivariate regression to adjust for demographic, economic, and health status changes over time, we compared changes in healthcare access and affordability for the 2 groups between 2009 and 2017, as the ACA payment cuts were implemented. For some measures, the analysis covers 2011 to 2017. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, MA respondents did not report statistically significant changes in healthcare access or affordability after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health status changes in the MA population. There were no statistically significant differences between changes in access and affordability for beneficiaries in MA relative to those in TM over this period. CONCLUSIONS: Although MA payment cuts were expected to reduce the attractiveness of the MA program to both plans and enrollees, the program's enrollment grew steadily from 2009 to 2017. Over this period, plans reduced their costs for providing Part A and Part B benefits to their enrollees, thereby preserving room for rebates. Our findings show that plans made such cost reductions without significantly affecting enrollees' access to or affordability of care compared with TM beneficiaries.