Changes in Healthcare Spending Attributable to High Deductible Health Plan Offer Among Enrollees with Comorbid Substance Use Disorder and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The rise in prevalence of high deductible health plans (HDHPs) in the United States may raise concerns for high-need, high-utilization populations such as those with comorbid chronic conditions. In this study, we examine changes in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending attributable to HDHPs for enrollees with comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: We used de-identified administrative claims data from 2007 to 2017. SUD and CVD were defined using algorithms of ICD 9 and 10 codes and HEDIS guidelines. The main outcome measures of interest were spending measure for all non-SUD/CVD-related services, SUD-specific services, and CVD-specific services, for all services and medications specifically. We assessed both total and OOP spending. We used an intent-to-treat two-part model approach to model spending and computed the marginal effect of HDHP offer as both the dollar change and percent change in spending attributable to HDHP offer. RESULTS: Our sample included 33,684 enrollee-years and was predominantly white and male with a mean age of 53 years. The sample had high demonstrated substantial healthcare utilization with 94% using any non-SUD/CVD services, and 84% and 78% using SUD and CVD services, respectively. HDHP offer was associated with a 17.0% (95% CI = [0.07, 0.27] increase in OOP spending for all non-SUD/CVD services, a 21.1% (95% CI = [0.11, 0.31]) increase in OOP spending for all SUD-specific services, and a 13.1% (95% CI = [0.04, 0.23]) increase in OOP spending for all CVD-specific services. HDHP offer was also associated with a significant increase in OOP spending on non-SUD/CVD-specific medications and SUD-specific medications, but not CVD-specific medications. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while HDHPs do not change overall levels of annual spending among enrollees with comorbid CVD and SUD, they may increase the financial burden of healthcare services by raising OOP costs, which could negatively impact this high-need and high-utilization population.

Choice of high-deductible health plans among enrollees with a substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) expose enrollees to increased out-of-pocket costs for their medical care, which can exacerbate the undertreatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the factors that influence whether an enrollee with SUD chooses an HDHP are not well understood. In this study, we examine the factors associated with an individual with an SUD's decision to enroll in an HDHP. METHODS: Using de-identified administrative commercial claims and enrollment data from OptumLabs (2007-2017), we identified individuals at employers offering at least one HDHP and one non-HDHP plan. We modeled whether an enrollee chose an HDHP using linear regression on plan and enrollee demographic characteristics. Key plan characteristics included whether a plan had a health savings account (HSA) or a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). Key demographic variables included age, race/ethnicity, census block income range, census block highest educational attainment, and sex. We separately investigate new enrollment decisions (i.e., not previously enrolled in an HDHP) and re-enrollment decisions, as well as decisions among single enrollees and families of differing sizes. The study also adjusted models for additional plan characteristics, employer and year fixed effects, and census division. Robust standard errors were clustered at the employer level. RESULTS: The sample comprised 30,832 plans and 318,334 enrollees. Among enrollees with new enrollment decisions, 24.6 % chose an HDHP; 93.8 % of HDHP enrollees chose to re-enroll in an HDHP. The study found the presence of a plan HRA to be associated with a higher probability of new and re-enrollment in an HDHP. We found that older enrollees with SUD were less likely to newly enroll in an HDHP, while enrollees who were non-White, living in lower-income census blocks, and living in lower educational attainment census blocks were more likely to newly enroll in an HDHP. Higher levels of health care utilization in the prior year were associated with a lower probability of newly enrolling in an HDHP but associated with a higher probability of re-enrolling. CONCLUSION: Given the emerging evidence that HDHPs may discourage SUD treatment, greater HDHP enrollment could exacerbate health disparities.

High-Deductible Health Plans' Impact on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatments-Balancing Cost and Care.

This Viewpoint examines the effects of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on individuals with mental health and substance use disorders, which is crucial for informing policy and regulatory decisions.

High-deductible Health Plans and Nonfatal Opioid Overdose.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid-related overdose is a public health emergency in the United States. Meanwhile, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have become more prevalent in the United States over the last 2 decades, raising concern about their potential for discouraging high-need populations, like those with opioid use disorder (OUD), from engaging in care that may mitigate the probability of overdose. This study assesses the impact of an employer offering an HDHP on nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured individuals with OUD in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used deidentified insurance claims data from 2007 to 2017 with 97,788 person-years. We used an intent-to-treat, difference-in-differences regression framework to estimate the change in the probability of a nonfatal opioid overdose among enrollees with OUD whose employers began offering an HDHP insurance option during the study period compared with the change among those whose employer never offered an HDHP. We also used an event-study model to account for dynamic time-varying treatment effects. RESULTS: Across both comparison and treatment groups, 2% of the sample experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose during the study period. Our primary model and robustness checks revealed no impact of HDHP offer on the probability of a nonfatal overdose. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that HDHP offer was not associated with an observed increase in the probability of nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured person-years with OUD. However, given the strong evidence that medications for OUD (MOUD) can reduce the risk of overdose, research should explore which facets of insurance design may impact MOUD use.

Do High-Deductible Health Plans Incentivize Changing the Timing of Substance Use Disorder Treatment?

A high-deductible health plan (HDHP) may incentivize enrollees to limit health care use at the beginning of a plan year, when they are responsible for 100% of costs, or to increase the use of care at the end of the year, when enrollees may have less cost exposure. We investigated both the impact of the deductible reset that occurs at the beginning of a plan year and the option to enroll in an HDHP on the use of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services over the course of a health plan year. We found decreases in SUD treatment use following the increase in cost exposure related to a deductible reset. There was no variation in this behavior between HDHP offer enrollees and comparison enrollees who were not offered an HDHP. These findings reinforce that cost-sharing poses a barrier to SUD care and continuity of care, which can increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on U.S. Adults With Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain affects an estimated 20% of U.S. adults. Because high-deductible health plans have captured a growing share of the commercial insurance market, it is unknown how high-deductible health plans impact care for chronic pain. METHODS: Using 2007-2017 claims data from a large national commercial insurer, statistical analyses conducted in 2022-2023 estimated changes in enrollee outcomes before and after their firm began offering a high-deductible health plan compared with changes in outcomes in a comparison group of enrollees at firms never offering a high-deductible health plan. The sample included 757,530 commercially insured adults aged 18-64 years with headache, low back pain, arthritis, neuropathic pain, or fibromyalgia. Outcomes, measured at the enrollee year level, included the probability of receiving any chronic pain treatment, nonpharmacologic pain treatment, and opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; the number of nonpharmacologic pain treatment days; number and days' supply of opioid and nonopioid prescriptions; and total annual spending and out-of-pocket spending. RESULTS: High-deductible health plan offer was associated with a 1.2 percentage point reduction (95% CI= -1.8, -0.5) in the probability of any chronic pain treatment and an $11 increase (95% CI=$6, $15) in annual out-of-pocket spending on chronic pain treatments among those with any use, representing a 16% increase in average annual out-of-pocket spending over the pre-high deductible health plan offer annual average. Results were driven by changes in nonpharmacologic treatment use. CONCLUSIONS: By reducing the use of nonpharmacologic chronic pain treatments and marginally increasing out-of-pocket costs among those using these services, high-deductible health plans may discourage more holistic, integrated approaches to caring for patients with chronic pain conditions.

Medicaid Expansion and Racial-Ethnic Health Care Coverage Disparities Among Low-Income Adults With Substance Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: In light of historical racial-ethnic disparities in health care coverage, the authors assessed changes in coverage in nationally representative samples of Black, White, and Hispanic low-income adults with substance use disorders after the 2014 Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. METHODS: Data from 12 years of the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2008-2019) identified low-income adults ages 18-64 years with alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, or heroin use disorder (N=749,033). Trends in coverage focused on non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic individuals. Age- and sex-adjusted difference-in-differences analysis assessed effects of expansion state residence on insurance coverage for the three groups. RESULTS: Before Medicaid expansion (2008-2013), 38.5% of Black, 37.6% of White, and 51.2% of Hispanic low-income adults with substance use disorders were uninsured. After expansion (2014-2019), these proportions significantly declined for Black (24.2%), White (22.0%), and Hispanic (34.5%) groups. Decreases in rates of individuals without insurance and increases in Medicaid coverage tended to be more pronounced for those in expansion states than for those in nonexpansion states. In nonexpansion states, the proportions of those without insurance significantly decreased among Black and White individuals but not among Hispanic individuals. Proportions receiving past-year substance use treatment did not significantly change and remained low postexpansion: Black, 10.7%; White, 14.6%; and Hispanic, 9.0%. CONCLUSIONS: After Medicaid expansion, coverage increased for low-income Black, White, and Hispanic adults with substance use disorders. For all three groups, Medicaid coverage disproportionately increased among those living in expansion states. However, coverage remained far from universal, especially for Hispanic adults with substance use disorders.

Enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: State Insurance Commissioners' Statutory Capacity.

OBJECTIVE: State insurance departments enforce the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) for fully insured employer-sponsored health plans and plans on the individual marketplace. Variable enforcement among states may drive patients' difficulties in accessing behavioral health treatment. This study explored insurance commissioners' statutory capacity for enforcing the MHPAEA. METHODS: Legal mapping of insurance office powers and responsibilities was conducted for MHPAEA-enforcing states. Relevant state laws and regulations were gathered from the Westlaw database. Sections were coded in the categories commissioner selection, frequency of examinations, fines, licenses, subpoenas, investigations and hearings, rehabilitation or liquidation of insurers, and initiation of legal actions. RESULTS: The sample included 450 sections of states' codes and regulations. The 46 states that enforced the MHPAEA showed only small differences in the powers and responsibilities of insurance commissioners. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities across states in statutory capacity of commissioners suggest that it is not a primary source of variation in MHPAEA enforcement.

Factors Affecting State-Level Enforcement of the Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: A Cross-Case Analysis of Four States.

CONTEXT: The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires coverage for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits to be no more restrictive than for medical/surgical benefits in commercial health plans. State insurance departments oversee enforcement for certain plans. Insufficient enforcement is one potential source of continued MH/SUD treatment gaps among commercial insurance enrollees. This study explored state-level factors that may drive enforcement variation. METHODS: The authors conducted a four-state multiple-case study to explore factors influencing state insurance offices' enforcement of MHPAEA. They interviewed 21 individuals who represented state government offices, advocacy organizations, professional organizations, and a national insurer. Their analysis included a within-case content analysis and a cross-case framework analysis. FINDINGS: Common themes included insurance office relationships with other stakeholders, policy complexity, and political priority. Relationships between insurance offices and other stakeholders varied between states. MHPAEA complexity posed challenges for interpretation and application. Policy champions influenced enforcement via priorities of insurance commissioners, governors, and legislatures. Where enforcement of MHPAEA was not prioritized by any actors, there was minimal state enforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Within a state, enforcement of MHPAEA is influenced by insurance office relationships, legal interpretation, and political priorities. These unique state factors present significant challenges to uniform enforcement.

Economic precarity, loneliness, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The US population faced stressors associated with suicide brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between stressors and suicidal ideation in the context of the pandemic may inform policies and programs to prevent suicidality and suicide. We compared suicidal ideation between two cross-sectional, nationally representative surveys of adults in the United States: the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the 2020 COVID-19 and Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-being (CLIMB) study (conducted March 31 to April 13). We estimated the association between stressors and suicidal ideation in bivariable and multivariable Poisson regression models with robust variance to generate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR and aPR). Suicidal ideation increased from 3.4% in the 2017-2018 NHANES to 16.3% in the 2020 CLIMB survey, and from 5.8% to 26.4% among participants in low-income households. In the multivariable model, difficulty paying rent (aPR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2-2.1) and feeling alone (aPR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.5-2.4) were associated with suicidal ideation but job loss was not (aPR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.2). Suicidal ideation increased by 12.9 percentage points and was almost 4.8 times higher during the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicidal ideation was more prevalent among people facing difficulty paying rent (31.5%), job loss (24.1%), and loneliness (25.1%), with each stressor associated with suicidal ideation in bivariable models. Difficulty paying rent and loneliness were most associated with suicidal ideation. Policies and programs to support people experiencing economic precarity and loneliness may contribute to suicide prevention.

High deductible health plans and spending among families with a substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The United States faces an ongoing drug crisis, worsened by the undertreatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Family enrollment in high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and the resulting increased cost exposure could exacerbate the undertreatment of SUD. This study characterized the distribution of health care spending within families where a member has a SUD and estimated the association between HDHPs and family health care spending. METHODS: Using commercial claims and enrollment data from OptumLabs (2007-2017), we identified a treatment group of enrollees whose employers began offering an HDHP and comparison group whose employers never offered an HDHP. We used a difference-in-differences analysis that compared health care spending in families at firms that did vs. did not offer an HDHP before and after the HDHP offer. All models were adjusted for employer and year fixed effects, as well as family demographics, size, and chronic conditions. RESULTS: Our sample was comprised of 317,353 family-years. Family members with a SUD, on average, contributed an outsized proportion of total family health care expenditures (56.9% in a family of three). Offering a family HDHP was associated with a 6.1% reduction (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7-2.6%) in the probability of families having any SUD-related expenditures. The HDHP offer was associated with a $1546 reduction in family total expenditures and a $1185 reduction for the individual with SUD (95% CI: -2272 to -821 and -1845 to -525, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of family enrollment in HDHPs may further the existing issue of undertreatment of SUDs.

The impact of HDHPs on service use and spending for substance use disorders.

OBJECTIVES: Although high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) reduce health care spending, higher deductibles may lead to forgone care. Our goal was to determine the effects of HDHPs on the use of and spending on substance use disorder (SUD) services. STUDY DESIGN: We used difference-in-differences models to compare service use and spending for treating SUD among enrollees who were newly offered an HDHP relative to enrollees offered only traditional plan options throughout the study period. METHODS: We used deidentified commercial claims data from OptumLabs (2007-2017) to identify a sample of 28,717,236 person-years (2.2% with a diagnosed SUD). The main independent measure was an indicator for being offered an HDHP. The main dependent measures were the probability of (and spending associated with) using SUD services and specific treatment types. RESULTS: Enrollees were 6.6% (P < .001) less likely to use SUD services after being offered an HDHP relative to the comparison group. Reductions were concentrated in inpatient, intermediate, and ambulatory care, as well as medication use. Being offered an HDHP was associated with a decrease of 21% (P < .001) on health plan spending and an increase of 14% (P < .01) on out-of-pocket spending. CONCLUSIONS: Offering an HDHP was associated with a reduction in SUD service use and a shift in spending from the plan to the enrollee. In the context of the US drug epidemic, these study findings highlight a concern that the movement toward HDHPs may be exacerbating undertreatment of SUD.

Trends In The Use Of Treatment For Substance Use Disorders, 2010-19.

Rapidly rising drug overdose rates in the United States during the past decade underscore the need to increase access to treatment among people with substance use disorders (SUDs). We analyzed trends in the use of treatment services among people with SUDs during the period 2010-19, using data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Compared with 2013, outpatient visits for general health in the prior year increased 3.6 percentage points by the 2017-19 period. Use of any SUD treatment in the prior year remained unchanged, but treatment use among people involved in the criminal legal system increased by about 6.2 percentage points by the end of the study period. Among those receiving SUD treatment, there was a 14.9-percentage-point increase in having treatment paid for by Medicaid between 2010-13 and 2017-19. Although access to general medical care and insurance coverage have improved for people with SUD, our study findings underscore the importance of renewed efforts to increase the use of SUD treatment.

Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions. DESIGN: Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes. SETTING: United States, 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: 7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month. RESULTS: Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Healthcare coverage and service access for low-income adults with substance use disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Although health coverage facilitates service access to adults in the general population, uncertainty exists over the extent to which this relationship extends to low-income adults with substance use disorders. METHODS: The health status and service use patterns of low-income adults with substance use disorders who had continuous, discontinuous, and no past year health coverage were compared using data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The NSDUH is a nationally representative survey of the civilian non-institutionalized population. RESULTS: In the weighted sample (unweighted n = 9243), approximately 65.66% of low-income adults with substance use disorders had continuous coverage, 17.03% had discontinuous coverage, and 17.31% had no insurance coverage during the past year. Although few group differences were observed in self-reported health status, the uninsured group compared to the discontinously and continuously covered groups, respectively, was less likely to report a past year substance use treatment visit (11.03% vs. 14.83% vs. 15.61%), an outpatient care visit (53.39% vs. 71.27% vs. 79.04%), an emergency department visit (33.33% vs. 45.76% vs. 45.57%), or an inpatient admission (9.24% vs. 15.11% vs. 15.58%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cross sectional design limits causal inferences, the correlations between lacking health insurance and low rates of substance use treatment and healthcare use raise the possibility that increasing healthcare coverage might increase access to substance use treatment and other needed healthcare services for low-income adults with substance use disorders.

A bridge too far? Distance to waivered physicians and utilization of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder in West Virginia Medicaid.

Background: Travel distance to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is a challenge for many patients, but little is known about how distance is associated with medication treatment utilization. This study examines the association between distance to the nearest physician waivered to prescribe buprenorphine and patient-level buprenorphine treatment among West Virginia Medicaid expansion enrollees with diagnosed OUD. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional spatial analysis with 2016 Medicaid claims data, separately examining individuals living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. We calculated the driving distance from the centroid of patients' residential ZIP codes to the street address of the nearest waivered physician derived from the 2015 Drug Enforcement Administration listing. Regression models examined the association between distance and initiation and duration of buprenorphine (among those initiating). Results: We focused on 8,008 individuals with OUD in 2016. The nearest waivered prescriber in metropolitan areas was an average of 7.13 miles away from patients' residential ZIP codes and 14.54 miles in non-metropolitan areas. The providers they actually visited were a mean of 33.63 miles away in metro areas and 46.36 in non-metropolitan areas. In multivariable analyses, compared to those living <10 miles from a waivered physician, living >20 miles from a waivered physician was associated with -32.13 fewer days of treatment (95% CI: -57.86, -6.40) in metro areas and -16.70 fewer days in non-metro areas (95% CI: -32.32, -1.08). Conclusions: Longer travel distance to buprenorphine treatment is associated with a shorter duration of care that is likely to be clinically meaningful.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on Continuous Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Long-term, continuous treatment with medication like buprenorphine is the gold standard for opioid use disorder (OUD). As high deductible health plans (HDHPs) become more prevalent in the commercial insurance market, they may pose financial barriers to people with OUD. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of HDHPs on continuity of buprenorphine treatment, concurrent visits for counseling/psychotherapy and OUD-related evaluation and management, and out-of-pocket spending. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences analysis comparing trends in outcomes among enrollees whose employers offer an HDHP (treatment group) to enrollees whose employers never offer an HDHP (comparison group). PARTICIPANTS: Enrollees with OUD from a national sample of commercial health insurance plans during 2007-2017 who initiate buprenorphine treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment; probabilities of continuous buprenorphine treatment ≥30, ≥90, ≥180, and ≥365 days; probability of concurrent (i.e., within the same month) behavioral therapy (i.e., counseling or psychotherapy); probability of concurrent OUD-related evaluation and management visits; proportions of buprenorphine treatment episodes with counseling/psychotherapy and evaluation and management visits; and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on buprenorphine, behavioral therapy, and evaluation and management visits. KEY RESULTS: HDHPs were associated with an average increase of $98 (95% CI: $48, $150) on OOP spending on buprenorphine per treatment episode but no change in the number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment or concurrent use of related services. CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs do not reduce continuity of buprenorphine treatment among commercially insured enrollees with OUD but may increase financial burden for this population.

Effects of High-Deductible Health Plans on Enrollees With Mental Health Conditions With and Without Substance Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasingly common in the U.S. health insurance market and are intended to reduce the use of low-value services, but evidence suggests that HDHP enrollees also reduce the use of high-value services. This study examined the effects of HDHPs on enrollees with mental health conditions, a population with high levels of unmet treatment need, often because of financial barriers. Enrollees with a co-occurring substance use disorder have greater treatment needs and unique barriers to care, perhaps changing their response to an HDHP. METHODS: Commercial health insurance claims data in a difference-in-differences design was used to evaluate the effect of an employer's offer of an HDHP on 6,627,128 enrollee-years among enrollees with mental health conditions, stratified by having a co-occurring substance use disorder or not. RESULTS: Among enrollees without a co-occurring substance use disorder, an HDHP offer was associated with a 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.4%-7.2%) reduction in overall spending on mental health care, despite an 11.3% (95% CI=1.0%-21.6%) increase in spending on mental health-related emergency department visits. Among enrollees with a co-occurring substance use disorder, no significant changes attributable to an HDHP offer were found in most categories of spending on combined mental health and substance use disorder care, apart from a 4.5% (95% CI=1.9%-7.2%) reduction in spending on psychotropic medications. CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs may reduce use of necessary care among enrollees with mental health conditions, which could exacerbate undertreatment in this population and result in adverse health outcomes.

Effects of the ACA on Health Care Coverage for Adults With Substance Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed changes in health care coverage in nationally representative samples of low- and middle-income adults with and without substance use disorders following the 2014 Affordable Care Act marketplace launch and Medicaid expansion. METHODS: Data from the 2012-2018 (N=407,985) National Survey on Drug Use and Health identified low- and middle-income nonelderly adults with alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or heroin use disorders. A sociodemographically adjusted difference-in-differences analysis assessed the trends in Medicaid and individually purchased private insurance between adults with and without substance use disorders. RESULTS: Between 2012-2013 and 2015-2016, the percentages without health insurance significantly declined for adults with substance use disorders (from 27.8% to 18.7%) and for those without these disorders (from 22.6% to 14.6%). These trends were related to gains in Medicaid and in individually purchased private insurance but not to gains in employer-based private insurance coverage. Between 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, however, the percentages without health insurance among adults with substance use disorders (18.7% to 18.4%) and without these disorders (14.7% to 14.7%) was little changed. CONCLUSIONS: With insurance gains having stalled and the downturn of the U.S. economy, there is renewed urgency to extend health care coverage to middle- and low-income adults with substance use disorders that meets their substance use and general health needs.

Medicaid Expansion and Low-Income Adults with Substance Use Disorders.

Problems accessing affordable treatment are common among low-income adults with substance use disorders. A difference-in-differences analysis was performed to assess changes in insurance and treatment of low-income adults with common substance use disorders following the 2014 ACA Medicaid expansion, using data from the 2008-2017 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. Lack of insurance among low-income adults with substance use disorders in expansion states declined from 34.8% (2012-2013) to 20.0% (2014-2015) to 13.5% (2016-2017) while Medicaid coverage increased from 24.8% (2012-2013) to 48.0% (2016-2017). In nonexpansion states, lack of insurance declined from 44.8% (2012-2013) to 34.2% (2016-2017) and Medicaid coverage increased from 14.3% (2012-2013) to 23.4% (2016-2017). Treatment rates remained low and little changed. Medicaid expansion contributed to insurance coverage gains for low-income adults with substance use disorders, although persistent treatment gaps underscore clinical and policy challenges of engaging these newly insured adults in treatment.