Survey Highlights Differences In Medicaid Coverage For Substance Use Treatment And Opioid Use Disorder Medications

The Affordable Care Act requires state Medicaid programs to cover substance use disorder treatment for their Medicaid expansion population but allows states to decide which individual services are reimbursable. To examine how states have defined substance use disorder benefit packages, we used data from 2013-14 that we collected as part of an ongoing nationwide survey of state Medicaid programs. Our findings highlight important state-level differences in coverage for substance use disorder treatment and opioid use disorder medications across the United States. Many states did not cover all levels of care required for effective substance use disorder treatment or medications required for effective opioid use disorder treatment as defined by American Society of Addiction Medicine criteria, which could result in lack of access to needed services for low-income populations.

Benefit requirements for substance use disorder treatment in state health insurance exchanges

BACKGROUND

Established in 2014, state health insurance exchanges have greatly expanded substance use disorder (SUD) treatment coverage in the United States as qualified health plans (QHPs) within the exchanges are required to conform to parity provisions laid out by the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Coverage improvements, however, have not been even as states have wide discretion over how they meet these regulations.

OBJECTIVE

How states regulate SUD treatment benefits offered by QHPs has implications for the accessibility and quality of care. In this study, we assessed the extent to which state insurance departments regulate the types of SUD services and medications plans must provide, as well as their use of utilization controls.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally-representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment. Data were obtained from state Departments of Insurance via a 15-minute internet-based survey.

RESULTS

States varied widely in regulations on QHPs' administration of SUD treatment benefits. Some states required plans to cover all 11 SUD treatment services and medications we assessed in the study, whereas others did not require plans to cover anything at all. Nearly all states allowed the plans to employ utilization controls, but reported little guidance regarding how they should be used.

CONCLUSION

Although some states have taken full advantage of the health insurance exchanges to increase access to SUD treatment, others seem to have done the bare minimum required by the ACA. By not requiring coverage for the entire SUD continuum of care, states are hindering client access to appropriate types of care necessary for recovery.

The Politics of Medicaid: Most Americans Are Connected to the Program, Support Its Expansion, and Do Not View It as Stigmatizing

Policy Points: More than half of Americans are connected to the Medicaid program-either through their own coverage or that of a family member or close friend-and are significantly more likely to view Medicaid as important and to support increases in spending, even among conservatives. This finding helps explain why Affordable Care Act repeal efforts faced (and will continue to face) strong public backlash. Policymakers should be aware that although renaming programs within Medicaid may have increased enrollment take-up, this destigmatization effort might have also increased program confusion and reduced support for Medicaid even among enrollees who say the program is important to them.

CONTEXT

Since the 1980s, Medicaid enrollment has expanded so dramatically that by 2015 two-thirds of Americans had some connection to the program in which either they themselves, a family member, or a close friend is currently or was previously enrolled.

METHODS

Utilizing a nationally representative survey-the Kaiser Family Foundation Poll: Medicare and Medicaid at 50 (n = 1,849)-and employing ordinal and logistic regression analyses, our study examines 3 questions: (1) are individuals with a connection to Medicaid more likely to view the program as important, (2) are they more likely to support an increase in Medicaid spending, and (3) are they more likely to support adoption of the Medicaid expansion offered under the Affordable Care Act? For each of these questions we examine whether partisanship and views of stigma also impact support for Medicaid and, if so, whether these factors overwhelm the impact of connection to the program.

FINDINGS

Controlling for the strong effect of partisanship, people with any connection to the Medicaid program are more likely to view the program as important than those with no connection. However, when it comes to increasing spending or expanding the program, the type of connection to the program matters. In particular, adults with current and previous Medicaid coverage and those with a family member or close friend with Medicaid coverage are more likely to support increases in spending and the Medicaid expansion; but, those connected to Medicaid only through coverage of a child are no more likely to support Medicaid than those with no connection.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should probe more deeply into whether people with different types of connection to Medicaid view the program differently, and, if so, how and why. Moreover, future research should also explore whether state-level attempts to destigmatize Medicaid by renaming the program also serves to reduce knowledge and support for Medicaid.

The Many Roads toward Achieving Health Equity

This special issue of the Journal is devoted to understanding the many roads that lead toward achieving health equity. The eleven articles in the issue portray an America that is struggling with the clash between its historical ideal of pursuing equality for all and its ambivalence toward achieving equity in all social domains, especially health. Organized in five sections, the issue contains articles that examine and analyze: the role of civil rights law and the courts in shaping health equity; the political discourse that has framed our understanding of health equity; health policies that affect health equity, such as the Medicaid program, as well as related strategies that might help to improve equity, such as the use of mobile technologies to empower individuals; immigration policies and practices that impact health equity in marginalized populations; and commentaries in the final section that explore how the Affordable Care Act has addressed health equity, how repeal of the law would jeopardize equity gains, and how the political discourse and culture of the Trump administration could adversely affect health equity.

How the ACA Addressed Health Equity and What Repeal Would Mean

This commentary reviews the many different ways the Affordable Care Act (ACA) explicitly and implicitly attempted to improve health equity, and then assesses how the Republican proposal to repeal and replace the ACA (the proposed American Health Care Act) would impact efforts to improve health equity. Although the American health care system still had a long way to go to achieve health equity, it may be argued that the ACA was a major step forward in creating new programs and regulations that had the potential to improve health equity. In stark contrast, Trumpcare makes no mention of health equity as a goal and-if passed-would result in an increase in health inequity. It would shamefully represent the first time in modern US history that a major federal health reform bill would actually move us further away from creating more equal access to health care coverage and toward reduced health equity.

The Racial Divide in State Medicaid Expansions

This study considers five important questions related to the role of race in state-level public support for the Medicaid expansion: (1) whether public support for the Medicaid expansion varies across the American states; (2) whether public support is positively related to state adoption; (3) whether this support is racialized; (4) whether, if racialized, there is evidence of more state responsiveness to white support than to nonwhite (black and/or Latino) support; and (5) does the size of the nonwhite population matter more when white support is relatively low? Our findings suggest that while public support for the Medicaid expansion is high at the state level, especially in comparison to public support for the ACA, there are important variations across the states. Although overall public support is positively related to state adoption, we find that public support for the Medicaid expansion is racialized in two ways. First, there are large differences in support levels by race; and second, state adoption decisions are positively related to white opinion and do not respond to nonwhite support levels. Most importantly, there is evidence that when the size of the black population increases and white support levels are relatively low, the state is significantly less likely to expand the Medicaid program. Our discussion highlights the democratic deficits and racial bias at the state level around this important coverage policy.

Rhetoric and Reform in Waiver States

Seven states have used Section 1115 waivers to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While each state pursued a unique plan, there are similarities in the types of changes each state desired to make. Equally important to how a state modified their Medicaid programs is how a state talked about Medicaid and reform. We investigate whether the rhetoric that emerged in waiver states is unique, analyze whether the rhetoric is associated with particular waiver reforms, and consider the implications of our findings for the future of Medicaid policy making. We find that proponents in waiver states have convinced a conservative legislature that their reform is sufficiently innovative that they are not doing a Medicaid expansion, and not building on the traditional Medicaid program. Particularly striking is that none of these reforms are entirely new to the Medicaid program. While not new, the way in which waiver states have been allowed to implement many of the reforms is new and has become stricter. We find an emerging consensus utilized by conservative policy makers in framing the Medicaid expansion. Expansion efforts by conservative policy makers in other states have subsequently pushed this framing far to the right.

Lessons From Medicaid's Divergent Paths On Mental Health And Addiction Services

Over the past fifty years Medicaid has taken divergent paths in financing mental health and addiction treatment. In mental health, Medicaid became the dominant source of funding and had a profound impact on the organization and delivery of services. But it played a much more modest role in addiction treatment. This is poised to change, as the Affordable Care Act is expected to dramatically expand Medicaid's role in financing addiction services. In this article we consider the different paths these two treatment systems have taken since 1965 and identify strategic lessons that the addiction treatment system might take from mental health's experience under Medicaid. These lessons include leveraging optional coverage categories to tailor Medicaid to the unique needs of the addiction treatment system, providing incentives to addiction treatment programs to create and deliver high-quality alternatives to inpatient treatment, and using targeted Medicaid licensure standards to increase the quality of addiction services.

Encouraging Competition and Cooperation: The Affordable Care Act's Contradiction?

This introductory essay to JHPPL's special issue on accountable care organizations (ACOs) presents the broader themes addressed in the issue, including (1) a central tension between cooperation versus competition in health care markets with regard to how to bring about improved quality, lower costs, and better access; (2) US regulatory policy - whether it will be able to achieve the appropriate balance in health care markets under which ACOs could realize expected outcomes; and (3) ACO realities - whether ACOs will be able to overcome or further embed existing inequities in US health care markets.

Despite Resources From The ACA, Most States Do Little To Help Addiction Treatment Programs Implement Health Care Reform

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) dramatically expands health insurance for addiction treatment and provides unprecedented opportunities for service growth and delivery model reform. Yet most addiction treatment programs lack the staffing and technological capabilities to respond successfully to ACA-driven system change. In light of these challenges, we conducted a national survey to examine how Single State Agencies for addiction treatment--the state governmental organizations charged with overseeing addiction treatment programs--are helping programs respond to new requirements under the ACA. We found that most Single State Agencies provide little assistance to addiction treatment programs. Most agencies are helping programs develop collaborations with other health service programs. However, fewer than half reported providing help in modernizing systems to support insurance participation, and only one in three provided assistance with enrollment outreach. In the absence of technical assistance, it is unlikely that addiction treatment programs will fully realize the ACA's promise to improve access to and quality of addiction treatment.

The Role of the Private Sphere in US Healthcare Entitlements: Increased Spending, Weakened Public Mobilization, and Reduced Equity

The private sphere has always been an important component in US healthcare entitlements. Since the ACA further embeds the role of private actors, how private actors make claims on the state, and how the state reacts to these claims, becomes even more important, because such claims significantly shape US healthcare entitlements. The extent and increase of private benefits and contracting with private health plans is explicated for each healthcare entitlement program. The politics of how private inclusion shapes healthcare entitlements is examined with three main implications: it (1) creates a dominant discourse of health care deficits and spending crises; (2) submerges the role of government and may diminish mobilization for claiming entitlements; and (3) reduces equity in the distribution of costs and benefits. I conclude by highlighting that there are simple policy designs to address these problems, but the political dynamics of private inclusion will likely work against such policy logics.