State Medicaid Initiatives Targeting Substance Use Disorder in Criminal Legal Settings, 2021.

Objectives. To document state Medicaid pre- and postrelease initiatives for individuals in the criminal legal system with substance use disorder (SUD). Methods. An Internet-based survey was sent in 2021 to Medicaid directors in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia to determine whether they were pursuing initiatives for persons with SUD across 3 criminal legal settings: jails, prisons, and community corrections. A 90% response rate was obtained. Results. In 2021, the majority of states did not report any targeted Medicaid initiatives for persons with SUD residing in criminal legal settings. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia adopted at least 1 Medicaid initiative for persons with SUD across the 3 criminal legal settings. The most commonly adopted initiatives were in the areas of medication for opioid use disorder treatment and Medicaid enrollment. Out of 24 possible initiatives for each state (8 initiatives across 3 criminal legal settings), the 2 most commonly adopted were (1) provision of medication treatment of opioid use disorder before release from criminal legal settings (16 states) and (2) facilitation of Medicaid enrollment through suspension rather than termination of Medicaid enrollment upon entry to a criminal legal setting (14 states). Initiatives pertaining to Medicaid SUD care coordination were adopted by the fewest (9) states. Conclusions. In 2021, states' involvement in Medicaid SUD initiatives for criminal legal populations remained low. Increased adoption of Medicaid SUD initiatives across criminal legal settings is needed, especially knowing the high rate of overdose mortality among this group. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(5):527-530. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307604).

Medicaid Managed Care Prior Authorization For Buprenorphine Tied To State Partisanship And Health Plan Profit Status, 2018.

Buprenorphine is among the most effective drugs for treating opioid use disorder, yet only a quarter of Americans who need it receive it. Requiring prior authorization has been identified as an important barrier to buprenorphine access. However, the practice remains widespread in Medicaid-the largest insurer of Americans with opioid use disorder. In this study, we examined how prior authorization for buprenorphine is related to plan structure and state political environment, using data on all 266 comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans active in 2018. We found substantial variation in prior authorization use across states, with all plans requiring prior authorization in eleven states and no plans requiring it in thirteen other states. We found that for-profit plans and those located in Republican states were more likely to impose prior authorization policies. Our findings suggest that managed care plans' decisions regarding use of prior authorization may be shaped by internal pressures to control costs, as well as by differing partisan stances regarding the need to prevent criminal diversion of buprenorphine.

Changes in Medicaid Fee-for-Service Benefit Design for Substance Use Disorder Treatment During the Opioid Crisis, 2014 to 2021.

Importance: Medicaid is the largest payer of substance use disorder treatment in the US and plays a key role in responding to the opioid epidemic. However, as recently as 2017, many state Medicaid programs still did not cover the full continuum of clinically recommended care. Objective: To determine whether state Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) programs have expanded coverage and loosened restrictions on access to substance use disorder treatment in recent years. Design, Setting, and Participants: In 2014, 2017, and 2021, a survey on coverage for substance use disorder treatment was conducted among state Medicaid programs and the District of Columbia with FFS programs. This survey was completed by Medicaid program directors or knowledgeable staff. Data analysis was performed in 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The following were calculated for a variety of substance use disorder treatment services (individual and group outpatient, intensive outpatient, short-term and long-term residential, recovery support, inpatient treatment and detoxification, and outpatient detoxification) and medications (methadone, oral and injectable naltrexone, and buprenorphine): (1) the percentage of Medicaid FFS programs covering these services and medications and (2) the percentage of Medicaid FFS programs using utilization management policies, such as copayments, prior authorizations, and annual maximums. Results: This study had response rates of 92% in 2014 and 2017 (47 of 51 states) and 90% in 2021 (46 of 51 states). For the 2021 wave, data are reported for the 38 non-managed care organization plan-only states. Between 2017 and 2021, coverage of individual and group outpatient treatment increased to 100% of states, and use of annual maximums for medications decreased to 3% or less (n ≤ 1). However, important gaps in coverage persisted, particularly for more intensive services: 10% of Medicaid FFS programs (n = 4) did not cover intensive outpatient treatment, 13% (n = 5) did not cover short-term residential care, and 33% (n = 13) did not cover long-term residential care. Use of utilization controls, such as copays, prior authorizations, and annual maximums, decreased but continued to be widespread. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of state Medicaid FFS programs, increases in coverage and decreases in use of utilization management policies over time were observed for substance use disorder treatment and medications. However, these findings suggest that some states still lag behind and impose barriers to treatment. Future research should work to identify the long-term ramifications of these barriers for patients.

State Funding For Substance Use Disorder Treatment Declined In The Wake Of Medicaid Expansion.

The US continues to grapple with an escalating epidemic of opioid-related overdose and mortality. State funds, which are the second-largest source of public funding for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and prevention, play a critically important role in responding to this crisis. Despite their importance, little is known about how these funds are allocated and how they have changed over time, particularly within the context of Medicaid expansion. In this study we assessed trends in state funds during the period 2010-19, using difference-in-differences regression and event history models. Our findings reveal dramatic variation in state funding across states, from a low of $0.61 per capita in Arizona to a high of $51.11 per capita in Wyoming in 2019. Moreover, state funding declined during the period after Medicaid expansion by an average of $9.95 million in expansion states (relative to nonexpansion states), especially in states that expanded eligibility under Republican-controlled legislatures, where it declined by an average of $15.94 million. Medicaid substitution strategies, which, in effect, shift some of the financial burden for financing SUD treatment from the state to the federal level, may erode resources for broader system-level efforts that are urgently needed in the midst of the opioid epidemic.

Allocation of federal funding to address the opioid overdose crisis in the criminal legal system.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid overdose crisis remains a chief public health concern in the United States, and people involved in the criminal legal system are among the most vulnerable to opioid related harms. This study aimed to identify all discretionary federal funding allocated to states, cities, and counties targeting the overdose crisis for criminal legal system-involved populations in fiscal year (FY) 2019. We then aimed to assess the extent to which federal funding was allocated to states with the highest need. METHODS: We collected data from publicly available government databases (N = 22) to identify federal funding targeting opioid use disorder in criminal legal system-involved populations. Descriptive analyses examined the extent to which funding allocated per person in the criminal legal system-involved population was associated with funding need, proxied by a composite measure of opioid mortality and drug-related arrests. We created a generosity measure and dissimilarity index to assess the degree to which funding matched need across states. RESULTS: More than 590 million dollars were allocated across 517 grants by 10 federal agencies in FY 2019. About half of states received less than $100.00 dollars per capita in the state criminal legal system-involved population. Funding generosity ranged from 0 % to 504.2 %, with more than half of states (52.9 %, n = 27) receiving fewer dollars per opioid problem than the US average. Further, a dissimilarity index indicated that about 34.2 % of funding (~$202.3 million) would have to be reallocated to distribute funding more evenly across states. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that additional efforts are needed to more equitably distribute funds to meet the needs of states with more severe opioid problems.

Tailoring dissemination strategies to increase evidence-informed policymaking for opioid use disorder treatment: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Policy is a powerful tool for systematically altering healthcare access and quality, but the research to policy gap impedes translating evidence-based practices into public policy and limits widespread improvements in service and population health outcomes. The US opioid epidemic disproportionately impacts Medicaid members who rely on publicly funded benefits to access evidence-based treatment including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). A myriad of misaligned policies and evidence-use behaviors by policymakers across federal agencies, state Medicaid agencies, and managed care organizations limit coverage of and access to MOUD for Medicaid members. Dissemination strategies that improve policymakers' use of current evidence are critical to improving MOUD benefits and reducing health disparities. However, no research describes key determinants of Medicaid policymakers' evidence use behaviors or preferences, and few studies have examined data-driven approaches to developing dissemination strategies to enhance evidence-informed policymaking. This study aims to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors, then develop and test data-driven tailored dissemination strategies that promote MOUD coverage in benefit arrays. METHODS: Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we will conduct a national survey of state Medicaid agency and managed care organization policymakers to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence how they seek, receive, and use research in their decision-making processes. We will use latent class methods to empirically identify subgroups of agencies with distinct evidence use behaviors. A 10-step dissemination strategy development and specification process will be used to tailor strategies to significant predictors identified for each latent class. Tailored dissemination strategies will be deployed to each class of policymakers and assessed for their acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for delivering evidence about MOUD benefit design. DISCUSSION: This study will illuminate key determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors when designing benefits for MOUD. This study will produce a critically needed set of data-driven, tailored policy dissemination strategies. Study results will inform a subsequent multi-site trial measuring the effectiveness of tailored dissemination strategies on MOUD benefit design and implementation. Lessons from dissemination strategy development will inform future research about policymakers' evidence use preferences and offer a replicable process for tailoring dissemination strategies.

Coverage and Prior Authorization Policies for Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Medicaid Managed Care.

Importance: Medicaid is a key policy lever to improve opioid use disorder treatment, covering approximately 40% of Americans with opioid use disorder. Although approximately 70% of Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in comprehensive managed care organization (MCO) plans, little is known about coverage and prior authorization (PA) policies for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in these plans. Objective: To compare coverage and PA policies for buprenorphine, methadone, and injectable naltrexone across Medicaid MCO plans and fee-for-service (FFS) programs and across states. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed MOUD data from 266 Medicaid MCO plans and FFS programs in 38 states and the District of Columbia in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each medication, the percentages of MCO plans and FFS programs that covered the medication without PA, covered the medication with PA, and did not cover the medication were calculated, as were the percentages of MCO, FFS, and all (MCO and FFS) beneficiaries who were covered with no PA, covered with PA, and not covered. In addition, MCO plan coverage and PA policies were mapped by state. Analyses were conducted from January 1 through May 31, 2022. Results: Coverage and PA policies were compared for MOUD in 266 MCO plans and 39 FFS programs, representing approximately 70 million Medicaid beneficiaries. Overall, FFS programs had more generous MOUD coverage than MCO plans. However, a higher percentage of FFS programs imposed PA for the 3 medications (47.0%) than did MCOs (35.9%). Furthermore, although most Medicaid beneficiaries were enrolled in a plan that covered MOUD, 53.2% of all MCO- and FFS-enrolled beneficiaries were subject to PA. Results also showed wide state variation in MCO plan coverage and PA policies for MOUD and the percentage of Medicaid beneficiaries subject to PA. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found variation in MOUD coverage and PA policies across Medicaid MCO plans and FFS programs and across states. Thus, Medicaid beneficiaries' access to MOUD may be heavily influenced by their state of residency and the Medicaid plan in which they are enrolled. Left unaddressed, PA policies are likely to remain a barrier to MOUD access in the nation's Medicaid programs.

Unsanitized and Unfair: How COVID-19 Bailout Funds Refuel Inequity in the US Health Care System.

CONTEXT: The CARES Act of 2020 allocated provider relief funds to hospitals and other providers. We investigate whether these funds were distributed in a way that responded fairly to COVID-19-related medical and financial need. The US health care system is bifurcated into the "haves" and "have nots." The health care safety net hospitals, which were already financially weak, cared for the bulk of COVID-19 cases. In contrast, the "have" hospitals suffered financially because their most profitable procedures are elective and were postponed during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: To obtain relief fund data for each hospital in the United States, we started with data from the HHS website. We use the RAND Hospital Data tool to analyze how fund distributions are associated with hospital characteristics. FINDINGS: Our analysis reveals that the "have" hospitals with the most days of cash on hand received more funding per bed than hospitals with fewer than 50 days of cash on hand (the "have nots"). CONCLUSIONS: Despite extreme racial inequities, which COVID-19 exposed early in the pandemic, the federal government rewards those hospitals that cater to the most privileged in the United States, leaving hospitals that predominantly serve low-income people of color with less.

Medicaid's Post-ACA Paradoxes.

Medicaid's experience one decade after the passage of the Affordable Care Act represents extreme divergence across the American states in health care access and utilization, policy designs that either expand or restrict eligibility, and delivery model reforms. The past decade has also witnessed a growing ideological divide about the very purpose and intent of the Medicaid program and its place within the US health care system. While liberal-leaning states have actively embraced the program and used it to expand health coverage to working adults and families as an effort to improve health and prevent poverty and the insecurity and instability that comes with high medical costs (evictions, bankruptcy), conservative states have actively rejected this expanded idea of Medicaid and argued instead that the program should revert back to its "original" purpose and be used only for the "truly" needy. This article highlights several paradoxes within Medicaid that have led to this growing bifurcation, and it concludes by shedding light on important targets for future reform.

Are Policy Strategies for Addressing the Opioid Epidemic Partisan? A View from the States.

CONTEXT: In contrast to the Affordable Care Act, some have suggested the opioid epidemic represents an area of bipartisanship. This raises an important question: to what extent are Democrat-led and Republican-led states different or similar in their policy responses to the opioid epidemic? METHODS: Three main methodological approaches were used to assess state-level policy responses to the opioid epidemic: a legislative analysis across all 50 states, an online survey of 50 state Medicaid agencies, and in-depth case studies with policy stakeholders in five states. FINDINGS: Conservative states pursue hidden and targeted Medicaid expansions, and a number of legislative initiatives, to address the opioid crisis. However, the total fiscal commitment among these Republican-led states pales in comparison to states that adopt the ACA Medicaid expansion. Because the state legislative initiatives do not provide treatment, these states spend substantially less than states with Democratic control. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than persistently working to retrench all programs, conservatives have relied on policy designs that emphasize devolution, fragmentation, and inequality to both expand and retrench benefits. This strategy, which allocates benefits differentially to different social groups and obfuscates responsibility, allows conservatives to avoid political blame typically associated with retrenchment.

How Medicaid work requirements could exacerbate the opioid epidemic.

In 2018, the Trump Administration took the unprecedented step of allowing states to impose work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. States can apply for a demonstration waiver to require Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 who do not meet exemption criteria (e.g., disability, caring for a sick relative) to participate in "community engagement" activities, which include employment, volunteering, and enrollment in a qualifying education or job training program. Debate thus far has focused primarily around the important issue of whether such requirements are legal. Less attention has focused on another serious concern - namely, that work requirements could exacerbate the nation's most urgent public health crisis: the opioid epidemic. Many enrollees with opioid use disorder who are unable to meet states' community engagement criteria will not qualify for an exemption from the work requirements, and risk being dropped from Medicaid enrollment. Refusing health insurance to individuals who are unable to meet work requirements could result in significant losses in coverage among a highly vulnerable population. Implementing new barriers to Medicaid coverage will hinder the effectiveness of massive state and federal investments in improving access to evidence-based addiction treatment.

Medicaid coverage in substance use disorder treatment after the affordable care act.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) prompted sweeping changes to Medicaid, including expanding insurance coverage to an estimated 12 million previously uninsured Americans, and imposing new parity requirements on benefits for behavioral health services, including substance use disorder treatment. Yet, limited evidence suggests that these changes have reduced the number of uninsured in substance use disorder treatment, or increased access to substance use disorder treatment overall. This study links data from a nationally-representative study of outpatient substance use disorder treatment programs and a unique national survey of state Medicaid programs to capture changes in insurance coverage among substance use disorder treatment patients after ACA implementation. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 15.7-point increase in the percentage of patients insured by Medicaid in substance use disorder treatment programs and a 13.7-point decrease in the percentage uninsured. Restrictions in state Medicaid benefits and utilization policies were associated with a decreased percentage of Medicaid patients in treatment. Moreover, Medicaid expansion was not associated with a change in the total number of clients served over the study period. Our findings highlight the important role Medicaid has played in increasing insurance coverage for substance use disorder treatment.

Changes in State Technical Assistance Priorities and Block Grant Funds for Addiction After ACA Implementation.

Objectives. To assess states' provision of technical assistance and allocation of block grants for treatment, prevention, and outreach after the expansion of health insurance coverage for addiction treatment in the United States under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Methods. We used 2 waves of survey data collected from Single State Agencies in 2014 and 2017 as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey. Results. The percentage of states providing technical assistance for cross-sector collaboration and workforce development increased. States also shifted funds from outpatient to residential treatment services. However, resources for opioid use disorder medications changed little. Subanalyses indicated that technical assistance priorities and allocation of funds for treatment services differed between Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. Public Health Implications. The ACA's infusion of new public and private funds enabled states to reallocate funds to residential services, which are not as likely to be covered by health insurance. The limited allocation of block grant funds for effective opioid medications is concerning in light of the opioid crisis, especially in states that did not implement the ACA's Medicaid expansion.

Impact of Medicaid Restrictions on Availability of Buprenorphine in Addiction Treatment Programs.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how utilization restrictions on state Medicaid benefits for buprenorphine are related to addiction treatment programs' decision to offer the drug. METHODS: We used data from 2 waves of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey conducted in 2014 and 2017 in the United States to assess the relationship of utilization restrictions to buprenorphine availability. RESULTS: The proportion of programs offering buprenorphine was 43.2% in states that did not impose any utilization restrictions, 25.5% in states that imposed only annual limits, 17.3% in states that imposed only prior authorization, and 12.8% in states that imposed both. Programs in states requiring prior authorization from Medicaid had substantially lower odds of offering buprenorphine (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% confidence interval = 0.29, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid prior authorization was linked to lower odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs. Public Health Implications. State Medicaid prior authorization requirements are linked to reduced odds of buprenorphine provision among addiction treatment programs and may discourage prescribing.

Medicaid Benefits For Addiction Treatment Expanded After Implementation Of The Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established a minimum standard of insurance benefits for addiction treatment and expanded federal parity regulations to selected Medicaid benefit plans, which required state Medicaid programs to make changes to their addiction treatment benefits. We surveyed Medicaid programs in all fifty states and the District of Columbia regarding their addiction treatment benefits and utilization controls in standard and alternative benefit plans in 2014 and 2017, when plans were subject to ACA parity requirements. The number of state plans that provided benefits for residential treatment and opioid use disorder medications increased substantially. States imposing annual service limits on outpatient addiction treatment decreased by over 50 percent. Fewer states required preauthorization for services, with the largest reductions for medications treating opioid use disorder. The ACA may have prompted state Medicaid programs to expand addiction treatment benefits and reduce utilization controls in alternative benefit plans. This trend was also observed among standard Medicaid plans not subject to ACA parity laws, which suggests a potential spillover effect.

Medicaid retrenchment politics: fragmented or unified?

Medicaid has grown substantially over time; indeed, more than half of all Americans have some connection to the program. Considering that Medicaid retrenchment is the centerpiece of recent proposals to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we ask: How will the American public react to massive reductions in Medicaid funding? Using a nationally representative survey, our study investigates whether adults with elderly parents who have used long-term care services and supports (LTSS), compared to other constituency groups, (1) perceive the Medicaid program as more important, (2) are more knowledgeable about program benefits, and (3) are more likely to oppose Medicaid funding cuts. Results show that people with any connection to the Medicaid program are more likely to view the program as important than those with no connection. However, when it comes to understanding specific Medicaid benefits and protecting Medicaid against retrenchment, adults with elderly parents who have used LTSS are significantly more knowledgeable and more likely to favor protection, compared both to other connected groups and the nonconnected. These findings suggest that Medicaid retrenchment politics could be characterized by fragmentation and infighting among constituency groups, unless significant mobilizing work is done to create a broad-based Medicaid coalition.

Do benefits restrictions limit Medicaid acceptance in addiction treatment? Results from a national study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of restrictions on Medicaid benefits for addiction treatment to Medicaid acceptance among addiction treatment programs. DATA SOURCES: We collected primary data from the 2013-2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We created two measures of benefits restrictiveness. In the first, we calculated the number of addiction treatment services covered by each state Medicaid program. In the second, we calculated the total number of utilization controls imposed on each service. Using a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we estimated the relationship between state Medicaid benefit restrictiveness for addiction treatment and adjusted odds of Medicaid acceptance among addiction treatment programs. DATA COLLECTION: Study data come from a nationally-representative sample of 695 addiction treatment programs (85.5% response rate), representatives from Medicaid programs in forty-seven states and the District of Columbia (response rate 92%), and data collected by the American Society for Addiction Medicine. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Addiction treatment programs in states with more restrictive Medicaid benefits for addiction treatment had lower odds of accepting Medicaid enrollees (AOR = 0.65; CI = 0.43, 0.97). The predicted probability of Medicaid acceptance was 35.4% in highly restrictive states, 48.3% in moderately restrictive states, and 61.2% in the least restrictive states. CONCLUSIONS: Addiction treatment programs are more likely to accept Medicaid in states with less restrictive benefits for addiction treatment. Program ownership and technological infrastructure also play an important role in increasing Medicaid acceptance.

State-Targeted Funding and Technical Assistance to Increase Access to Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: As the United States grapples with an opioid epidemic, expanding access to effective treatment for opioid use disorder is a major public health priority. Identifying effective policy tools that can be used to expand access to care is critically important. This article examines the relationship between state-targeted funding and technical assistance and adoption of three medications for treating opioid use disorder: oral naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, and buprenorphine. METHODS: This study draws from the 2013-2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment programs. The sample includes data from 695 treatment programs (85.5% response rate) and representatives from single-state agencies in 49 states and Washington, D.C. (98% response rate). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships of single-state agency targeted funding and technical assistance to availability of opioid use disorder medications among treatment programs. RESULTS: State-targeted funding was associated with increased program-level adoption of oral naltrexone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.49-6.60, p=.004) and buprenorphine (AOR=2.47, 95% CI=1.31-4.67, p=.006). Buprenorphine adoption was also correlated with state technical assistance to support medication provision (AOR=1.18, 95% CI=1.00-1.39, p=.049). CONCLUSIONS: State-targeted funding for medications may be a viable policy lever for increasing access to opioid use disorder medications. Given the historically low rates of opioid use disorder medication adoption in treatment programs, single-state agency targeted funding is a potentially important tool to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with opioid disorders and misuse.