Association of Medicaid Reimbursement Policies with Provision of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception in the Postpartum Period, 2012-2018.

Background: To address reimbursement challenges associated with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in the postpartum period, state Medicaid programs have provided additional payments ("carve-outs"). Implementation has been heterogeneous, with states providing separate payments for the device only, procedure only, or both the device and procedure. Methods: Claims data were drawn from 210,994 deliveries in the United States between 2012 and 2018. Using generalized estimating equations, we assess the relationship between Medicaid carve-out policies and the likelihood of LARC placement at (1) 3 days postpartum, (2) 60 days postpartum, and (3) 1 year postpartum, in Medicaid and commercially insured populations. Results: Among Medicaid beneficiaries, the likelihood of receiving LARC was higher in states with any carve-out, compared with states without carve-outs, at 3 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.33-1.67], p < 0.001), 60 days (aOR: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.35-1.46], p < 0.001), and 1 year postpartum (aOR: 1.15 [95% CI: 1.11-1.20], p < 0.001). Adjustments were made for geographic region, seasonality, and patient age. Heterogeneity was observed by carve-out type; device carve-outs were consistently associated with greater likelihood of postpartum LARC placement, compared with states with no carve-outs. Similar trends were observed among commercially insured patients. Conclusion: Findings support the effectiveness of Medicaid carve-outs on postpartum LARC provision, particularly for device carve-outs, which were associated with increased postpartum LARC placement at 3 days, 60 days, and 1 year postpartum. This outcome suggests that policies to address cost-related barriers associated with LARC devices may prove most useful in overcoming barriers to immediate postpartum LARC placement, with the overarching aim of promoting reproductive autonomy.

Costs of Coordinated Specialty Care for First-Episode Psychosis: A Microcosting Analysis.

In this study, the authors measured and described the costs of coordinated specialty care (CSC) for first-episode psychosis in Ohio. A microcosting tool was used to estimate personnel and nonpersonnel costs of service delivery at seven CSC programs. Average annual cost per participant (N=511 participants) was estimated as $17,810 (95% CI=$9,141-$26,479). On average, 61% (95% CI=53%-69%) of annual program costs were nonbillable. Key cost drivers included facility costs, administrative tasks, and social services. Novel financing models may redress reimbursement gaps incurred by CSC programs.

Policy Complexities in Financing First Episode Psychosis Services: Implementation Realities from a Home Rule State.

Over the past decade, significant investments have been made in coordinated specialty care (CSC) models for first episode psychosis (FEP), with the goal of promoting recovery and preventing disability. CSC programs have proliferated as a result, but financing challenges imperil their growth and sustainability. In this commentary, the authors discuss (1) entrenched and emergent challenges in behavioral health policy of consequence for CSC financing; (2) implementation realities in the home rule context of Ohio, where significant variability exists across counties; and (3) recommendations to improve both care quality and access for individuals with FEP. The authors aim to provoke careful thought about policy interventions to bridge science-to-service gaps, and in this way, advance behavioral health equity.

Evaluation of the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign ¡Ándale! ¿Qué Esperas? in Latinx Communities in California, June 2021-May 2022.

OBJECTIVES: The 12-month vaccination campaign ¡Ándale! ¿Qué Esperas? was launched to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates in Latinx populations in California by expanding community outreach. The objectives of this evaluation were to (1) determine predictors of vaccination rates and (2) identify barriers to vaccination and potential solutions. METHODS: Five community partners in California serving Latinx populations with high social vulnerability participated in the ¡Ándale! ¿Qué Esperas? campaign. Community health workers were hired to deliver outreach (virtual, one-on-one, group based, and information dissemination), vaccinations, and supportive services. We collected data on outreach strategy used (method and location), number of vaccinations provided and reasons for delay, and number of times that supportive services were provided. We used regression models to assess significant predictors of vaccinations and supportive services. RESULTS: Community health workers (N = 146) hired from June 1, 2021, through May 31, 2022, performed outreach engagements (n = 6297) and supportive services (n = 313 796), resulting in 130 413 vaccinations and 28 660 vaccine appointments. The number of vaccinations administered was significantly higher at events in which supportive services were provided versus not provided (coefficient = 34.02; 95% CI, 3.34-64.68; P = .03). The odds ratio of supportive services was 3.67 (95% CI, 1.76-7.55) during virtual outreach and 2.95 (95% CI, 2.37-3.69) during one-on-one outreach (P < .001 for both) as compared with information dissemination encounters. Vaccination concerns were reported among 55.0% of vaccinated survey respondents (67.7%, vaccine confidence; 51.7%, access). CONCLUSIONS: Supportive services facilitate vaccinations, ease transportation and time barriers, and instill confidence among working-class racial and ethnic minority populations.