Medicaid physician fees and the use of primary care services: evidence from before and after the ACA fee bump

We examine whether fees paid by Medicaid for primary care affects the use of health care services among adults with Medicaid coverage who have a high school or less than high school degree. The analysis spans the large changes in Medicaid fees that occurred before and after the ACA-mandated fee increase for primary care services in 2013-2014. We use data from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System and a difference-in-differences approach to estimate the association between Medicaid fees and whether a person has a personal doctor; a routine check-up or flu shot in the past year; whether a woman had a pap test or a mammogram in the past year; whether a person has ever been diagnosed with asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, COPD, arthritis, depression, or kidney diseases; and, whether a person reports good-to-excellent health. Estimates indicate that Medicaid fee increases were associated with small increases in the likelihood of having a personal doctor, or receiving a flu shot, although only having a personal doctor remained significant when accounting for multiple hypothesis testing. We conclude that Medicaid fees did not have a major impact on the use of primary care or on the consequences of that care.

Medicaid reimbursement rates for primary care services and behavioral health outcomes

We study the effects of changing Medicaid reimbursement rates for primary care services on behavioral health outcomes-defined here as mental illness and substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees are at elevated risk for these, and other, chronic conditions and are likely to have unmet treatment needs. We apply two-way fixed-effects regressions to survey data specifically designed to measure behavioral health outcomes over the period 2010-2016. We find that higher primary care reimbursement rates reduce mental illness and substance use disorders among non-elderly adult Medicaid enrollees, although we interpret findings for substance use disorders with some caution as they may be vulnerable to differential pre-trends. Overall, our findings suggest positive spillovers from a policy designed to target primary care services to behavioral health outcomes.

Avoiding Medicaid: Characteristics Of Primary Care Practices With No Medicaid Revenue

Primary care access for Medicaid patients is an ongoing area of concern. Most studies of providers' participation in Medicaid have focused on factors associated with the Medicaid program, such as reimbursement rates. Few studies have examined the characteristics of primary care practices associated with Medicaid participation. We used a nationally representative survey of primary care practices to compare practices with no, low, and high Medicaid revenue. Seventeen percent of practices received no Medicaid revenue; 38 percent and 45 percent were categorized as receiving low and high Medicaid revenue, respectively. Practices with no Medicaid revenue were more often small, independent, and located in urban areas with higher household income. These practices also have lower population health capabilities.

State Medicaid fees and access to primary care physicians

Medicaid and uninsured patients are disadvantaged in access to care and are disproportionately Black and Hispanic. Using a national audit of primary care physicians, we examine the relationship between state Medicaid fees for primary care services and access for Medicaid, Medicare, uninsured, and privately insured patients who differ by race/ethnicity and sex. We found that states with higher Medicaid fees had higher probabilities of appointment offers and shorter wait times for Medicaid patients, and lower probabilities of appointment offers and longer wait times for uninsured patients. Appointment offers and wait times for Medicare and privately insured patients were unaffected by Medicaid fees. At mean state Medicaid fees, our analysis predicts a 27-percentage-point disadvantage for Medicaid versus Medicare in appointment offers. This decreases to 6 percentage points when Medicaid and Medicare fees are equal, suggesting that permanent fee parity with Medicare could eliminate most of the disparity in appointment offers for Medicaid patients. The predicted decrease in the disparity is smaller for Black and Hispanic patients than for White patients. Our research highlights the importance of considering the effects of policy on nontarget patient groups, and the consequences of seemingly race-neutral policies on racial/ethnic and sex-based disparities.

Expanding Medicaid Access without Expanding Medicaid: Why Did Some Nonexpansion States Continue the Primary Care Fee Bump?

Six states that have rejected the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Medicaid expansion nonetheless extended the primary care "fee bump," by which the federal government increased Medicaid fees for primary care services up to 100 percent of Medicare fees during 2013-14. We conducted semistructured interviews with leaders in five of these states, as well as in three comparison states, to examine why they would continue a provision of the ACA that moderately expands access at significant state expense while rejecting the expansion and its large federal match, focusing on relevant economic, political, and procedural factors. We found that fee bump extension proposals were more successful where they were dissociated from major national policy debates, actionable with the input of relatively few stakeholder entities, and well aligned with preexisting policy-making structures and decision trends. Republican proposals to cap or reduce federal funding for Medicaid, if enacted, would compel states to contain program costs. In this context, states' established decision-making processes for updating Medicaid fee schedules, which we elucidate in this study, may shape the future of the Medicaid program.

Measuring Medicaid Physician Participation Rates and Implications for Policy

Policy makers continue to debate Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, and concerns remain about low provider participation in the program. However, there has been little research on how various measures of physician participation may reflect different elements of capacity for care within the Medicaid program and how these distinct measures correlate with one another across states. Our objectives were to describe several alternative measures of provider participation in Medicaid using recently publicly available data, to compare state rankings across these different metrics, and to discuss potential advantages and disadvantages of each measure for research and policy purposes. Overall, we find that Medicaid participation as measured by raw percentages of physicians taking new Medicaid patients is only weakly correlated with population-based measures that account for both participation rates and the numbers of physicians per capita or physicians per Medicaid beneficiary. Participation rates for all physicians versus primary care physicians also offer different information about state-level provider capacity. Policy makers should consider multiple dimensions of provider access in assessing policy options in Medicaid, and further research is needed to evaluate the linkages between these provider-based measures and beneficiaries' perceptions of access to care in the program.

To extend or not to extend the primary care "fee bump" in Medicaid?

Policy makers and researchers are eager to learn the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) and its many provisions, but to date, they have been frustrated by the dearth of robust evidence on the ACA's true impacts on important health care and patient outcomes (e.g., access to primary care services). The present limitations of evidence, often a consequence of delays and inconsistencies in the law's implementation, have begun to affect policy making in the ACA's wake. In this article, we consider the debates among state and federal policy makers about whether to extend the ACA's so-called fee bump provision, whereby Medicaid fees for primary care services were increased to 100 percent of Medicare levels during 2013 and 2014. We describe the difficulties state Medicaid programs have experienced in implementing the fee bump, as well as how the resulting evidence gap and the broader political context have shaped the deliberations. To conclude, we identify policy alternatives and other factors policy makers should consider when deciding whether to extend or reinstitute the fee bump in the coming years.