Health-care workforce implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

The Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, which revoked the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, has impacted the national medical workforce. Impacts vary across states, but providers in states with restrictive abortion laws now must contend with evolving legal and ethical challenges that have the potential to affect workforce safety, mental health, education, and training opportunities, in addition to having serious impacts on patient health and far-reaching societal consequences. Moreover, Dobbs has consequences on almost every facet of the medical workforce, including on physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and others who work within the health-care system. Comprehensive research is urgently needed to understand the wide-ranging implications of Dobbs on the medical workforce, including legal, ethical, clinical, and psychological dimensions, to inform evidence-based policies and standards of care in abortion-restrictive settings. Lessons from the USA might also have global relevance for countries facing similar restrictions on reproductive care.

Societal implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization marked the removal of the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, introducing a complex ethical and legal landscape for patients and providers. This shift has had immediate health and equity repercussions, but it is also crucial to examine the broader impacts on states, health-care systems, and society as a whole. Restrictions on abortion access extend beyond immediate reproductive care concerns, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the ruling's consequences across micro and macro levels. To mitigate potential harm, it is imperative to establish a research agenda that informs policy making and ensures effective long-term monitoring and reporting, addressing both immediate and future impacts.

The Spectrum of State Approaches to Medicaid Maternity Care Contracting.

Policy Points Maternal health is influenced by the quality and accessibility of care before, during, and after pregnancy. Nationwide, Medicaid covers nearly one in two births and uses managed care as a central means for carrying out these responsibilities. Thus, managed care plays a fundamental role in assuring timely, equitable, quality care and improving maternal health outcomes. A close review of managed care contracts makes evident that the absence of a national set of maternal health standards has caused challenges in setting expectations for managed care performance. State Medicaid agencies adopt a variety of approaches and underlying philosophies for contracting. CONTEXT: Managed care is how Medicaid agencies principally furnish maternity care. For this reason, the contracts that Medicaid agencies enter into with managed care organizations have attracted strong interest as a means of improving maternal health access, quality, and equity. However, limited research has documented the extent to which states use these agreements to set binding expectations across the maternal health continuum and how states approach the task of maternal health contracting. METHODS: To explore maternal health contracting within Medicaid Managed Care, this study took a three-phase, sequential approach: (1) an extensive literature review to identify clinical guidelines and expert recommendations regarding maternal health "best practices" for people with elevated health and social needs, (2) a review of the managed care contracts in use across 40 states and Washington, DC, to determine the extent to which they incorporate these best practices, and (3) interviews conducted with four state Medicaid agencies to better understand how states approach maternal health when developing their contracts. FINDINGS: The evidence on maternal health best practices reveals nearly 60 "best practices," although the literature review also underscored the extent to which these recommendations are fragmented across numerous professional bodies and government agencies and are thus difficult for Medicaid agencies to ascertain. The contracts themselves reflect an approach to the maternal health continuum in a fragmented and incomplete way. Thematic analysis of interviews with state Medicaid agencies revealed three key approaches to contracting for maternity care: an "organic" approach, an "intentional" approach, and an approach "grounded" in state strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of comprehensive, integrated guidelines reflecting the full maternal health continuum likely complicates the contracting task and contributes to incomplete, ambiguous contracts. A major step would be the development of a "best practices tool" that helps state Medicaid agencies translate evidence into comprehensive, clear contracting expectations.

How Does Medicaid Managed Care Address the Needs of Beneficiaries with Opioid Use Disorders? A Deep Dive into Contract Design.

Many people who experience opioid use disorder rely on Medicaid. The high penetration of managed care systems into Medicaid raises the importance of understanding states' expectations regarding coverage, access to care, and health system performance and effectively elevates agreements between states and plans into blueprints for coverage and care. Federal law broadly regulates these structured agreements while leaving a high degree of discretion to states and plans. In this study, researchers reviewed the provisions of 15 state Medicaid managed care contract related to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment to identify whether certain elements of SUD treatment were a stated expectation and the extent to which the details of those expectations varied across states in ways that ultimately could affect evaluation of performance and health outcomes. We found that while all states include SUD treatment as a stated contract expectation, discussions around coverage of specific services and nationally recognized guidelines varied. These variations reflect key state choices regarding how much deference to afford their plans in coverage design and plan administration and reveal important differences in purchasing expectations that could carry implications for efforts to examine similarities and differences in access, quality, and health outcomes within managed care across the states.

Venous Thromboembolism in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite this recognized risk, there are limited data and no anticoagulation guidelines for hospitalized pediatric IBD patients. The objectives of this study were to characterize pediatric IBD patients with VTE and determine risk factors. METHODS: This was a nested case-control study comparing hospitalized children with IBD diagnosed with VTE to those without VTE over a decade at a large referral center. Standard descriptive statistics were used to describe the VTE group. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to assess risk factors. RESULTS: Twenty-three cases were identified. Central venous catheter (CVC) presence (odds ratio [OR] 77.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.9--880.6; P < 0.001) and steroid use (OR 12.7; 95% CI: 1.3--126.4; P = 0.012) were independent risk factors. Median age at VTE was 17 years (interquartile range [IQR] 13.5--18.2), and in 48%, VTE was the indication for admission. Median duration of anticoagulation was 3.8 months (IQR 2.3--7.6), and there were no major bleeding events for patients on anticoagulation. There were no patients with known sequelae from VTE, though 22% had severe VTE that required interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients with IBD are at risk for VTE, although the absolute risk remains relatively low. The safety and efficacy of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis needs to be further evaluated in this population with attention to risk factors, such as steroid use and presence of CVC.

The Future of the Indispensable Insurer: The Biden Administration and Medicaid.

Medicaid presents both legislative and regulatory challenges and opportunities. As it moves a legislative agenda forward, the Biden administration also will confront a series of immediate regulatory matters, some of which have been made urgent because of pending judicial action. Chief among these pressing matters are ending Medicaid work requirements and block grant experiments, rescinding the public charge rule, ensuring optimal use of Medicaid's enrollment and renewal simplification tools, rescinding the Title X family planning rule (which has enormous implications for Medicaid beneficiaries), and, when the time comes, preparing states to wind down the "Families First" Medicaid maintenance of effort protection while avoiding erroneous beneficiary disenrollment. The administration could consider encouraging remaining nonexpansion states to pursue §1115 Medicaid expansion experiments; additionally, the administration could pursue Medicaid pandemic recovery demonstrations to support health system recovery during the long period that lies ahead. Thus, while certain advances must await legislation, the administration can move Medicaid forward through executive action.

How the Trump Administration's Pandemic Health Care Response Failed Racial Health Equity: Case Studies of Structural Racism and a Call for Equity Mindfulness in Federal Health Policy Making.

CONTEXT: The racial health equity implications of the Trump administration's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We focus on four key health care policy decisions made by the administration in response to the public health emergency: rejecting a special Marketplace enrollment period, failing to use its full powers to enhance state Medicaid emergency options, refusing to suspend the public charge rule, and failing to target provider relief funds to providers serving the uninsured. FINDINGS: In each case, the administration's policy choices intensified, rather than mitigated, racial health inequality. Its choices had a disproportionate adverse impact on minority populations and patients who are more likely to depend on public programs, be poor, experience pandemic-related job loss, lack insurance, rely on health care safety net providers, and be exposed to public charge sanctions. CONCLUSIONS: Ending structural racism in health care and promoting racial health care equity demands an equity-mindful approach to the pursuit of policies that enhance-rather than undermine-health care accessibility and effectiveness and resources for the poorest communities and the providers that serve them.

The Potential and Realized Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Health Equity.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed with multiple goals in mind, including a reduction in social disparities in health care and health status. This was to be accomplished through some novel provisions and a significant infusion of resources into long-standing public programs with an existing track record related to health equity. In this article, we discuss seven ACA provisions with regard to their intended and realized impact on social inequalities in health, focusing primarily on socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities. Arriving at its 10th anniversary, there is significant evidence that the ACA has reduced social disparities in key health care outcomes, including insurance coverage, health care access, and the use of primary care. In addition, the ACA has had a significant impact on the volume/range of services offered and the financial security of community health centers, and through section 1557, the ACA broadened the civil rights landscape in which the health care system operates. Less clear is how the ACA has contributed to improved health outcomes and health equity. Extant evidence suggests that the part of the ACA that has had the greatest impact on social disparities in health outcomes-including preterm births and mortality-is the Medicaid expansion.

Impact of ACA Medicaid Expansion on Hospitals' Financial Status.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's insurance reforms were expected to have significant and positive implications for hospital finances. In particular, state expansion of Medicaid programs held the promise of reducing hospitals' uncompensated care costs as a result of expanding health insurance to many previously uninsured individuals. Recent research indicates that in the early phases of Medicaid expansion, many hospitals did experience a substantial decline in uncompensated care costs. However, studies to date have not considered whether Medicaid expansion resulted in payment shortfalls that offset some of what hospitals saved from lower uncompensated care costs. We examined filings submitted by hospitals to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-one of the few publicly available sources of national data on both uncompensated care costs and Medicaid payment shortfalls. We also compared changes in uncompensated care costs and Medicaid payment shortfalls for hospitals in expansion states with those in nonexpansion states. Our findings indicate that state expansion of Medicaid led to substantial reductions in hospitals' uncompensated care costs, but the savings were offset somewhat by increased Medicaid payment shortfalls. Therefore, studies that focus only on reductions in uncompensated care costs can overstate the benefits of Medicaid expansion on hospitals finances.

"Pay for Success" Financing and Home-Based Multicomponent Childhood Asthma Interventions: Modeling Results From the Detroit Medicaid Population.

Policy Points: The Pay for Success (PFS) financing approach has potential for scaling the implementation of evidence-based prevention interventions in Medicaid populations, including a range of multicomponent interventions for childhood asthma that combine home environment risk mitigation with medical case management. Even though this type of intervention is efficacious and cost-saving among high-risk children with asthma, the main challenges for implementation in a PFS context include legal and regulatory barriers to capturing federal Medicaid savings and using them as a source of private investor repayment. Federal-level policy change and guidance are needed to support PFS financing of evidence-based interventions that would reduce expensive acute care among Medicaid enrollees. CONTEXT: Pay for Success has emerged as a potential financing mechanism for innovative and cost-effective prevention programs. In the PFS model, interventions that provide value to the public sector are implemented with financing from private investors who receive a payout from the government only if the metrics identified in a performance-based contract are met. In this nascent field, little has been written about the potential for and challenges of PFS initiatives that produce savings and/or value for Medicaid. METHODS: In order to elucidate the basic economics of a PFS intervention in a Medicaid population, we modeled the potential impact of an evidence-based multicomponent childhood asthma intervention among low-income children enrolled in Medicaid in Detroit. We modeled outcomes and a comparative benefit-cost analysis in 3 risk-based target groups: (1) all children with an asthma diagnosis; (2) children with an asthma-related emergency department visit in the past year; and (3) children with an asthma-related hospitalization in the past year. Modeling scenarios for each group produced estimates of potential state and federal Medicaid savings for different types or levels of investment, the time frames for savings, and some overarching challenges. FINDINGS: The PFS economics of a home-based asthma intervention are most viable if it targets children who have already experienced an expensive episode of asthma-related care. In a 7-year demonstration, the overall (undiscounted) modeled potential savings for Group 2 were $1.4 million for the federal Medicaid and $634,000 for the state Medicaid programs, respectively. Targeting children with at least 1 hospitalization in the past year (Group 3) produced estimated potential savings of $2.8 million to federal Medicaid and $1.3 million to state Medicaid. However, current Medicaid rules and regulations pose significant challenges for capturing federal Medicaid savings for PFS payouts. CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent intervention that provides home remediation and medical case management to high-risk children with asthma has significant potential for PFS financing in urban Medicaid populations. However, there are significant administrative and payment challenges, including the limited ability to capture federal Medicaid savings and to use them as a source of investor repayment. Without some policy reform and clear guidance from the federal government, the financing burden of PFS outcome payments will be on the state Medicaid program or some other state-level funding source.

Will Evaluations of Medicaid 1115 Demonstrations That Restrict Eligibility Tell Policymakers What They Need to Know?

Issue: With thousands in Arkansas losing their Medicaid benefits under the state's work-requirement demonstration, the importance of evaluating such experiments could not be clearer. In Stewart v. Azar, the court concluded that the purpose of Section 1115 demonstrations such as Arkansas's is to promote Medicaid's objective of insuring the poor; evaluations of these demonstrations, as required by law, inform policymakers whether this objective is being achieved. Goal: To examine the quality of evaluation designs for demonstrations that test Medicaid eligibility and coverage restrictions. Methods: Comparison of state evaluation designs against issues identified in Medicaid impact research. Key Findings and Conclusions: Evaluation designs for 1115 demonstrations that restrict Medicaid eligibility and coverage either are lacking or contain flaws that limit their policy utility. No federally approved evaluation designs for Medicaid work and community-engagement demonstrations are yet available, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not issued evaluation guidance to states. Evaluations thus lag well behind demonstration implementation, meaning important impact information is being lost. Eligibility restrictions attached to some approved Medicaid expansion demonstrations remain unevaluated. Moreover, evaluations are not sustained long enough to measure critical effects; systematic evaluation of communitywide impact is lacking; and comparisons to states with no Medicaid restrictions are missing. Without robust evaluation, the core purpose of Section 1115 is lost.

A series of unfortunate events: implications of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act For older adults.

This paper discusses Republican efforts to repeal the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) over President Trump's first year in office (2017) and their impact on near-elderly Americans (50-64 years old). We describe how the ACA's provisions for strengthening health care coverage were particularly advantageous for near-elderly Americans: The law shored up employer-sponsored health care, expanded Medicaid, and-most important-created conditions for a strong individual health insurance market. We then describe Republican efforts to undermine the ACA in the years immediately following its passage, followed by detailed discussion of Republican proposals to repeal and replace the ACA during 2017. We conclude by discussing factors informing the fate of Republican legislation in this area, the potential consequences of the legislation that ultimately passed, and the prospects for future attempts to repeal and replace the ACA through the legislative process.

Viewing Health Equity through a Legal Lens: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Enacted as part of the watershed Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI prohibits discrimination by federally assisted entities on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Indeed, the law is as broad as federal funding across the full range of programs and services that affect health. Over the years, governmental enforcement efforts have waxed and waned, and private litigants have confronted barriers to directly invoking its protections. But Title VI endures as the formal mechanism by which the nation rejects discrimination within federally funded programs and services. Enforcement efforts confront problems of proof, remedies whose effectiveness may be blunted by underlying residential segregation patterns, and a judiciary closed to legal challenges focusing on discriminatory impact rather than intentional discrimination. But Title VI enforcement has experienced a resurgence, with strategies that seek to use the law as a basic compliance tool across the range of federally assisted programs. This resurgence reflects an enduring commitment to more equitable outcomes in federally funded programs that bear directly on community health, and it stands as a testament to the vital importance of a legal framework designed to move the nation toward greater health equity.