The effect of insurance type on trauma patient access to psychiatric care under the Affordable Care Act

Access to Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Care at Private Equity-Owned Otolaryngology Clinics

OBJECTIVE

Characterizing access to sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) care at private practice otolaryngology clinics of varying ownership models.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional prospective review.

SETTING

Private practice otolaryngology clinics.

METHODS

We employed a Secret Shopper study design with private equity (PE) owned and non-PE-owned clinics within 15 miles of one another. Using a standardized script, researchers randomly called 50% of each clinic type between October 2021 and January 2022 requesting an appointment on behalf of a family member enrolled in either Medicaid or private insurance (PI) experiencing SSNHL. Access to timely care was assessed between clinic ownership and insurance type.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight total PE-owned otolaryngology clinics were identified across the United States. Only 40 non-PE clinics could be matched to the PE clinics; 39 PE and 28 non-PE clinics were called as Medicaid patients; 39 PE and 25 non-PE clinics were called as PI patients; 48.7% of PE and 28.6% of non-PE clinics accepted Medicaid. The mean wait time to new appointment ranged between 9.55 and 13.21 days for all insurance and ownership types but did not vary significantly (P > .480). Telehealth was significantly more likely to be offered for new Medicaid patients at non-PE clinics compared to PE clinics (31.8% vs 0.0%, P = .001). The mean cost for an appointment was significantly greater at PE clinics than at non-PE clinics ($291.18 vs $203.75, P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seeking SSNHL care at PE-owned otolaryngology clinics are likely to face long wait times prior to obtaining an initial appointment and reduced telehealth options.

Budget Neutrality and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Reimbursement Trends for Radiologists, 2005 to 2021

PURPOSE

The Medicare program, by law, must remain budget neutral. Increases in volume or relative value units (RVUs) for individual services necessitate declines in either the conversion factor or assigned RVUs for other services for budget neutrality. This study aimed to assess the contribution of budget neutrality on reimbursement trends per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary for services provided by radiologists.

METHODS

The study used aggregated 100% of Medicare Part B claims from 2005 to 2021. We computed the percentage change in reimbursement per beneficiary, actual and inflation adjusted, to radiologists. These trends were then adjusted by separately holding constant RVUs per beneficiary and the conversion factor to demonstrate the impact of budget neutrality.

RESULTS

Unadjusted reimbursement to radiologists per beneficiary increased 4.2% between 2005 and 2021, but when adjusted for inflation, it declined 24.9%. Over this period, the conversion factor declined 7.9%. Without this decline, the reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 9 percentage points higher in 2021 compared with actual. RVUs per beneficiary performed by radiologists increased 13.1%. Keeping RVUs per beneficiary at 2005 levels, reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 12.1 percentage points lower than observed in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Given budget neutrality, a substantial decline has occurred in inflation-adjusted reimbursement to radiologists per Medicare beneficiary. Decreases due to both inflation and the decline in conversion factor are only partially offset by increased RVUs per beneficiary, meaning more services per patient with less overall pay, an equation likely to heighten access challenges for Medicare beneficiaries and shortages of radiologists.

Low availability, long wait times, and high geographic disparity of psychiatric outpatient care in the US

OBJECTIVE

To identify potential barriers to care, this study examined the general psychiatry outpatient new appointment availability in the US, including in-person and telepsychiatry appointments, comparing results between insurance types (Medicaid vs. private insurance), states, and urbanization levels.

METHOD

This mystery shopper study investigated 5 US states selected according to Mental Health America Adult Ranking and geography to represent the US mental health care system. Clinics across five selected states were stratified sampled by county urbanization levels. Calls were made during 05/2022-07/2022. Collected data included contact information accuracy, appointment availability, wait time (days), and related information.

RESULTS

Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled in New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming. Overall contact information accuracy averaged 85.3%. Altogether, 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients with a significantly longer wait time for in-person than telepsychiatry appointments (median = 67.0 days vs median = 43.0 days, p < 0.01). The most frequent reason for unavailability was provider not taking new patients (53.9%). Mental health resources were unevenly distributed, favoring urban areas.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatric care has been severely restricted in the US with low accessibility and long wait times. Transitioning to telepsychiatry represents a potential solution for rural disparities in access.

Insurance Acceptance, Appointment Wait Time, and Dermatologist Access Across Practice Types in the US

Importance

In the 15 years since dermatology access was last investigated on a national scale, the practice landscape has changed with the rise of private equity (PE) investment and increased use of nonphysician clinicians (NPCs).

Objective

To determine appointment success and wait times for patients with various insurance types at clinics with and without PE ownership.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this study, PE-owned US clinics were randomly selected and matched with 2 geographically proximate clinics without PE ownership. Researchers called each clinic 3 times over a 5-day period to assess appointment/clinician availability for a fictitious patient with a new and changing mole. The 3 calls differed by insurance type specified, which were Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) preferred provider organization, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Appointment success and wait times among insurance types and between PE-owned clinics and control clinics. Secondary outcomes were the provision of accurate referrals to other clinics when appointments were denied and clinician and next-day appointment availability.

Results

A total of 1833 calls were made to 204 PE-owned and 407 control clinics without PE ownership across 28 states. Overall appointment success rates for BCBS, Medicare, and Medicaid were 96%, 94%, and 17%, respectively. Acceptance of BCBS (98.5%; 95% CI, 96%-99%; P = .03) and Medicare (97.5%; 95% CI, 94%-99%; P = .02) were slightly higher at PE-owned clinics (compared with 94.6% [95% CI, 92%-96%] and 92.8% [95% CI, 90%-95%], respectively, at control clinics). Wait times (median days, interquartile range [IQR]) were similar for patients with BCBS (7 days; IQR, 2-22 days) and Medicare (7 days; IQR, 2-25 days; P > .99), whereas Medicaid patients waited significantly longer (13 days; IQR, 4-33 days; P = .002). Clinic ownership did not significantly affect wait times. Private equity-owned clinics were more likely than controls to offer a new patient appointment with an NPC (80% vs 63%; P = .001) and to not have an opening with a dermatologist (16% vs 6%; P < .001). Next-day appointment availability was greater at PE-owned clinics than controls (30% vs 21%; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients with Medicaid had significantly lower success in obtaining appointments and significantly longer wait times regardless of clinic ownership. Although the use of dermatologists and NPCs was similar regardless of clinic ownership, PE-owned clinics were more likely than controls to offer new patient appointments with NPCs.

The impact of Medicaid expansion on trauma-related emergency department utilization: A national evaluation of policy implications

BACKGROUND

The impact of the 2014 Affordable Care Act (ACA) upon national trauma-related emergency department (ED) utilization is unknown. We assessed ACA-related changes in ED use and payer mix, hypothesizing that post-ACA ED visits would decline and Medicaid coverage would increase disproportionately in regions of widespread policy adoption.

METHODS

We queried the National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) for those with a primary trauma diagnosis, aged 18 to 64. Comparing pre-ACA (2012) to post-ACA (10/2014 to 09/2015), primary outcomes were change in ED visits and payer status; secondary outcomes were change in costs, discharge disposition and inpatient length of stay. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed, including difference-in-differences analyses. We compared changes in ED trauma visits by payer in the West (91% in a Medicaid expansion state) versus the South (12%).

RESULTS

Among 21.2 million trauma-related ED visits, there was a 13.3% decrease post-ACA. Overall, there was a 7.2% decrease in uninsured ED visits (25.5% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001) and a 6.6% increase in Medicaid coverage (17.6% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001). Trauma patients had 40% increased odds of having Medicaid post-ACA (vs. pre-ACA: aOR 1.40, p < 0.001). Patients in the West had 31% greater odds of having Medicaid (vs. South: aOR 1.31, p < 0.001). The post-ACA increase in Medicaid was greater in the West (vs. South: aOR 1.60, p < 0.001). Post-ACA, inpatients were more likely to have Medicaid (vs. ED discharge: aOR 1.20, p < 0.001) and there was a 25% increase in inpatient discharge to rehabilitation (aOR 1.24, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Post-ACA, there was a significant increase in insured trauma patients and a decrease in injury-related ED visits, possibly resulting from access to other outpatient services. Ensuring sustainability of expanded coverage will benefit injured patients and trauma systems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic, level III.

Changes in Medicaid Acceptance by Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities After Implementation of Federal Parity

BACKGROUND

Adequate access for mental illness and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, particularly for Medicaid enrollees, is challenging. Policy efforts, including the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), have targeted expanded access to care. With MHPAEA, more Medicaid plans were required to increase their coverage of SUD treatment, which may impact provider acceptance of Medicaid.

OBJECTIVES

To identify changes in Medicaid acceptance by SUD treatment facilities after the implementation of MHPAEA (parity).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Observational study using an interrupted time series design.

SUBJECTS

2002-2013 data from the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) for all SUD treatment facilities was combined with state-level characteristics.

MEASURES

Primary outcome is whether a SUD treatment facility reported accepting Medicaid insurance.

RESULTS

Implementation of MHPAEA was associated with a 4.6 percentage point increase in the probability of an SUD treatment facility accepting Medicaid (P<0.001), independent of facility and state characteristics, time trends, and key characteristics of state Medicaid programs.

CONCLUSIONS

After parity, more SUD treatment facilities accepted Medicaid payments, which may ultimately increase access to care for individuals with SUD. The findings underscore how parity laws are critical policy tools for creating contexts that enable historically vulnerable and underserved populations with SUD to access needed health care.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on trauma and emergency general surgery: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) patients who are uninsured have worse outcomes as compared with insured patients. Partially modeled after the 2006 Massachusetts Healthcare Reform (MHR), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 with the goal of expanding health insurance coverage, primarily through state-based Medicaid expansion (ME). We evaluated the impact of ME and MHR on outcomes for trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems.

METHODS

This study was approved by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, we defined three populations of interest (trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems) and identified the critical outcomes (mortality, access to care, change in insurance status, reimbursement, funding). We performed a systematic review of the literature. Random effect meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were calculated for outcomes with sufficient data.

RESULTS

From 4,593 citations, we found 18 studies addressing all seven predefined outcomes of interest for trauma patients, three studies addressing six of seven outcomes for EGS patients, and three studies addressing three of eight outcomes for trauma systems. On meta-analysis, trauma patients were less likely to be uninsured after ME or MHR (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.66). These coverage expansion policies were not associated with a change in the odds of inpatient mortality for trauma (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.05). Emergency general surgery patients also experienced a significant insurance coverage gains and no change in inpatient mortality. Insurance expansion was often associated with increased access to postacute care at discharge. The evidence for trauma systems was heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

Given the evidence quality, we conditionally recommend ME/MHR to improve insurance coverage and access to postacute care for trauma and EGS patients. We have no specific recommendation with respect to the impact of ME/MHR on trauma systems. Additional research into these questions is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Review, Economic/Decision, level III.

Access to Primary, Mental Health, and Specialty Care: a Comparison of Medicaid and Commercially Insured Populations in Oregon

OBJECTIVE

To describe how access to primary and specialty care differs for Medicaid patients relative to commercially insured patients, and how these differences vary across rural and urban counties, using comprehensive claims data from Oregon.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of risk-adjusted access rates for two types of primary care providers (physicians; nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs)); four types of mental health providers (psychiatrists, psychologists, advanced practice NPs or PAs specializing in mental health care, behavioral specialists); and four physician specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, general surgery, gastroenterology, dermatology).

PARTICIPANTS

420,947 Medicaid and 638,980 commercially insured adults in Oregon, October 2014-September 2015.

OUTCOME

Presence of any visit with each provider type, risk-adjusted for sex, age, and health conditions.

RESULTS

Relative to commercially insured individuals, Medicaid enrollees had lower rates of access to primary care physicians (- 11.82%; CI - 12.01 to - 11.63%) and to some specialists (e.g., obstetrics and gynecology, dermatology), but had equivalent or higher rates of access to NPs and PAs providing primary care (4.33%; CI 4.15 to 4.52%) and a variety of mental health providers (including psychiatrists, NPs and PAs, and other behavioral specialists). Across all providers, the largest gaps in Medicaid-commercial access rates were observed in rural counties. The Medicaid-commercial patient mix was evenly distributed across primary care physicians, suggesting that access for Medicaid patients was not limited to a small subset of primary care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

This cross-sectional study found lower rates of access to primary care physicians for Medicaid enrollees, but Medicaid-commercial differences in access rates were not present across all provider types and displayed substantial variability across counties. Policies that address rural-urban differences as well as Medicaid-commercial differences-such as expansions of telemedicine or changes in the workforce mix-may have the largest impact on improving access to care across a wide range of populations.

Two-State Comparison of Total Joint Arthroplasty Utilization Following Medicaid Expansion

BACKGROUND

Although Medicaid expansion has improved access to primary care services, its impact on surgical specialty utilization remains unclear. The aim of this study is to determine whether Medicaid expansion is associated with increased utilization rates of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Illinois (which expanded Medicaid) relative to Missouri (which did not expand Medicaid).

METHODS

Using administrative data sources, we analyzed 374,877 total hospitalizations (236,333 in Illinois and 138,544 in Missouri) for THA/TKA from 2011 to 2016 (Illinois' Medicaid expansion date: January 1, 2014).

RESULTS

The percentage of THA/TKA funded by Medicaid in Illinois was 2.4% in 2013 and 3.9% in 2016 (Missouri 2013: 2.7%; 2016: 2.6%). A difference-in-difference analysis (adjusted for patient age and gender, county-level Area Deprivation Index, and number of orthopedic surgeons) demonstrated a statistically significant increase in Medicaid-funded THA/TKA in Illinois in 2016 compared to 2013 (P = .012).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that Medicaid expansion in Illinois was associated with increased utilization of THA and TKA. Further study is needed to understand the impact of Medicaid expansion in other states and for other procedures.

Medicaid Patients Have Greater Difficulty Scheduling Health Care Appointments Compared With Private Insurance Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Medicaid patients are known to have reduced access to care compared with privately insured patients; however, quantifying this disparity with large controlled studies remains a challenge. This meta-analysis evaluates the disparity in health services accessibility of appointments between Medicaid and privately insured patients through audit studies of health care appointments and schedules. Audit studies evaluating different types of outpatient physician practices were selected. Studies were categorized based on the characteristics of the simulated patient scenario. The relative risk of appointment availability was calculated for all different types of audit scenario characteristics. As a secondary analysis, appointment availability was compared pre- versus post-Medicaid expansion. Overall, 34 audit studies were identified, which demonstrated that Medicaid insurance is associated with a 1.6-fold lower likelihood in successfully scheduling a primary care appointment and a 3.3-fold lower likelihood in successfully scheduling a specialty appointment when compared with private insurance. In this first meta-analysis comparing appointment availability between Medicaid and privately insured patients, we demonstrate Medicaid patients have greater difficulty obtaining appointments compared with privately insured patients across a variety of medical scenarios.

Insurance Type and Access to Health Care Providers and Appointments Under the Affordable Care Act

BACKGROUND

Millions of adults have gained insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, disparities in access to care persist.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined differences in access to primary and specialty care among patients insured by private individual market insurance plans (both on-exchange and off-exchange) and Medicaid compared with those with employer-sponsored insurance.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Using data from the 2014 and 2015 California Health Interview Survey, logistic regression analyses were used to calculate the odds of being unable to access primary care providers, access specialty care providers and receive a needed doctor's appointment in a timely manner, with insurance type serving as the independent variable. Interaction terms examined if the expiration of the ACA's optional Medicaid primary care fee increase in 2014 modified any of these associations.

RESULTS

Findings showed poorer access to providers among those insured through Medicaid and the individual market (whether purchased through the state's health insurance exchange or off-exchange) relative to employer-based insurance. Poor access to primary care providers was seen among private coverage purchased via exchanges, relative to private coverage purchased on the individual market. In addition, findings showed that reduction of Medicaid fees coincided with reduced ability to see primary care providers. However, a similar trend was seen among those with employer-based coverage, which suggests that this change may not be attributable to reductions in Medicaid fees.

CONCLUSION

Despite ACA-related gains in insurance coverage, those with on-exchange and off-exchange individual private insurance plans and Medicaid encounter more barriers to care than those with employer-based insurance.

Comparison of Access to Eye Care Appointments Between Patients With Medicaid and Those With Private Health Care Insurance

Importance

Although low-income populations have more eye problems, whether they face greater difficulty obtaining eye care appointments is unknown.

Objective

To compare rates of obtaining eye care appointments and appointment wait times for those with Medicaid vs those with private insurance.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prospective, cohort study conducted from January 1, 2017, to July 1, 2017, researchers made telephone calls to a randomly selected sample of vision care professionals in Michigan and Maryland stratified by neighborhood (urban vs rural) and professional type (ophthalmologist vs optometrist) to request the first available appointment. Appointments were sought for an adult needing a diabetic eye examination and a child requesting a routine eye examination for a failed vision screening. Researchers called each practice twice, once requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid and the other time for a patient with Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) insurance, and asked whether the insurance was accepted and, if so, when the earliest available appointment could be scheduled.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rate of successfully made appointments and mean wait time for the first available appointment.

Results

A total of 603 telephone calls were made to 330 eye care professionals (414 calls [68.7%] to male and 189 calls [31.3%] to female eye care professionals). The sample consisted of ophthalmologists (303 [50.2%]) and optometrists (300 [49.8%]) located in Maryland (322 [53.4%]) and Michigan (281 [46.6%]). The rates of successfully obtaining appointments among callers were 61.5% (95% CI, 56.0%-67.0%) for adults with Medicaid and 79.3% (95% CI, 74.7%-83.9%) for adults with BCBS (P < .001) and 45.4% (95% CI, 39.8%-51.0%) for children with Medicaid and 62.5% (95% CI, 57.1%-68.0%) for children with BCBS (P < .001). Mean wait time did not vary significantly between the BCBS and Medicaid groups for both adults and children. Adults with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.59; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.49-3.87; P < .001) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.31-2.79; P < .001). Children with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73; P = .03) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 8.00; 95% CI, 5.37-11.90; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Callers were less successful in trying to obtain eye care appointments with Medicaid than with BCBS, suggesting a disparity in access to eye care based on insurance status, although confounding factors may have contributed to this finding. Improving access to eye care professionals for those with Medicaid may improve health outcomes and decrease health care spending in the long term.