Perceptions of North Carolina's Medicaid Transformation: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, North Carolina switched 1.6 million beneficiaries from a fee-for-service Medicaid model to a managed care system. The state prepared beneficiaries with logistical planning and a communications plan. However, the rollout occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, creating significant challenges. Little is known about how Medicaid Transformation impacted the experience of Medicaid enrollees. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups (N = 22) with Medicaid beneficiaries from January to March 2022 to gain insight into their experience with Medicaid Transformation. A convenience sample was recruited. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and verified. A codebook was developed using inductive and deductive codes. Two study team members independently coded the transcripts; discrepancies were resolved among the research team. Themes were derived by their prevalence and salience within the data. RESULTS: We identified four major themes: 1) Participants expressed confusion about the signup process; 2) Participants had a limited understanding of their new plans; 3) Participants expressed difficulty accessing services through their plans; and 4) Participants primarily noted negative changes to their care. These findings suggest that Medicaid enrollees felt unsupported during the enrollment process and had difficulty accessing assistance to gain a better understanding of their plans and new services. LIMITATIONS: Participants were recruited from a single institution in the Southeastern United States; results may not be transferable to other institutions. Participants were likely not representative of all Medicaid Transformation beneficiaries; only English-speaking participants were included. CONCLUSION: As the transition process continues, the North Carolina Medicaid program can benefit from integrating recommendations identified by member input to guide strategies for addressing whole-person care.

Effects of Resistance Training With and Without Caloric Restriction on Arterial Stiffness in Overweight and Obese Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Arterial stiffness is an important marker of vascular aging that is increased in sedentary, obese older adults. Weight loss induced by caloric restriction (CR) can improve arterial stiffness in this population; however, the effects of resistance training (RT) are not clear. This pilot study determined the effects of RT with and without CR on arterial stiffness in overweight and obese older adults. METHODS: Participants (mean age = 68±3 years, mean body mass index = 31.1±2.7 kg/m(2), 56% female, 13% Black) were randomly assigned to 3 days/week of supervised moderate-intensity RT (n = 16) or RT+CR (n = 16) for 5 months. Three indices of arterial stiffness were measured: brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity, large artery elasticity, and small artery elasticity. RESULTS: Body mass was significantly reduced in the RT+CR group compared to the RT group (-6.2±4.8 vs. 0.2±1.2 kg, P = 0.0006). Within-group analyses showed that none of the arterial stiffness measures changed with RT or RT+CR. There were also no significant between-group differences, though median changes in large artery elasticity were slightly greater with RT+CR: 0.7 (-2.5, 5.1) vs. 0.3 (-2.6, 0.9) ml/mm Hg × 10, P = 0.07. Changes in large artery elasticity were negatively correlated with changes in waist circumference (r = -0.36, P < 0.05), systolic blood pressure (r = -0.38, P = 0.03), and diastolic blood pressure (r = -0.41, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of RT and CR, leading to a modest amount of weight loss (7%), tended to increase large artery elasticity more than RT alone. Our data suggest that reductions in waist circumference and blood pressure may promote improvements in elasticity. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial Number NCT01049698.

Heterogeneity of physical function responses to exercise training in older adults.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the interindividual variability in physical function responses to supervised resistance and aerobic exercise training interventions in older adults. DESIGN: Data analysis of two randomized, controlled exercise trials. SETTING: Community-based research centers. PARTICIPANTS: Overweight and obese (body mass index (BMI)≥27.0 kg/m2) sedentary men and women aged 65 to 79 (N=95). INTERVENTION: Five months of 4 d/wk of aerobic training (AT, n=40) or 3 d/wk of resistance training (RT, n=55). MEASUREMENTS: Physical function assessments: global measure of lower extremity function (Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)), 400-m walk, peak aerobic capacity (VO2 peak), and knee extensor strength. RESULTS: On average, both exercise interventions significantly improved physical function. For AT, there was a 7.9% increase in VO2 peak; individual absolute increases varied from 0.4 to 4.3 mL/kg per minute, and four participants (13%) showed no change or a decrease in VO2 peak. For RT, knee extensor strength improved an average of 8.1%; individual increases varied from 1.2 to 63.7 Nm, and 16 participants (30%) showed no change or a decrease in strength. Usual gait speed, 400-m walk time, chair rise time, and SPPB improved for the majority of AT participants and usual gait speed, chair rise time, and SPPB improved for the majority of RT participants, but there was wide variation in the magnitude of improvement. Only change in 400-m walk time with RT was related to exercise adherence (correlation coefficient=-0.31, P=.004). CONCLUSION: Despite sufficient levels of adherence to both exercise interventions, some participants did not improve function, and the magnitude of improvement varied widely. Additional research is needed to identify factors that optimize responsiveness to exercise to maximize its functional benefits in older adults.