Substance use disorder treatment carve outs in Medicaid managed care.

INTRODUCTION: Medicaid managed care organizations (MCO) play a major role in addressing the nation's epidemic of drug overdose and mortality by administering substance use disorder (SUD) treatment benefits for over 50 million Americans. While it is known that some Medicaid MCO plans delegate responsibility for managing SUD treatment benefits to an outside "carve out" entity, the extent and structure of such carve out arrangements are unknown. This is an important gap in knowledge, given that carve outs have been linked to reductions in rates of SUD treatment receipt in several studies. To address this gap, we examined carve out arrangements used by Medicaid MCO plans to administer SUD treatment benefits in ten states. METHODS: Data for this study was gleaned using a purposive sampling approach through content analysis of publicly available benefits information (e.g., member handbooks, provider manuals, prescription drug formularies) from 70 comprehensive Medicaid MCO plans in 10 selected states (FL, GA, IL, MD, MI, NH, OH, PA, UT, and WV) active in 2018. Each Medicaid MCO plan's documents were reviewed and coded to indicate whether a range of SUD treatment services (e.g., inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, residential treatment) and medications were carved out, and if so, to what type of entity (e.g., behavioral health organization). RESULTS: A large majority of Medicaid MCO plans carved out at least some (28.6 %) or all (40.0 %) SUD treatment services, with nearly all plans carving out some (77.1 %) or all (14.3 %) medications, mainly due to the carving out of methadone treatment. Medicaid MCO plans most commonly carved out SUD treatment services to behavioral health organizations, while most medications were carved out to state Medicaid fee-for-service plans. CONCLUSIONS: Carve out arrangements for SUD treatment vary dramatically across states, across plans, and even within plans. Given that some studies have linked carve out arrangements to reductions in treatment access, their widespread use among Medicaid MCO plans is cause for further consideration by policymakers and other key interest groups. Moreover, reliance on such complex arrangements for administering care may create challenges for enrollees who seek to learn about and access plan benefits.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic impact on independent and provider-based rural health clinics' operations and cancer prevention and screening provision in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cancer care, but it is unknown how the pandemic has affected care in Medicare-certified rural health clinics (RHCs) where cancer prevention and screening services are critical for their communities. This study examined how the provision of these cancer services changed pre- and peri-pandemic overall and by RHC type (independent and provider-based). METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to a stratified random sample of RHCs to assess clinic characteristics, pandemic stressors, and the provision of cancer prevention and control services among RHCs pre- and peri-pandemic. We used McNemar's test and Wilcoxon signed rank tests to assess differences in the provision of cancer prevention and screening services pre- and peri-pandemic by RHC type. RESULTS: Of the 153 responding RHCs (response rate of 8%), 93 (60.8%) were provider-based and 60 (39.2%) were independent. Both RHC types were similar in their experience of pandemic stressors, though a higher proportion of independent RHCs reported financial concerns and challenges obtaining personal protective equipment. Both types of RHCs provided fewer cancer prevention and screening services peri-pandemic-5.8 to 4.2 for provider-based and 5.3 to 3.5 for independent (P<.05 for both). Across lung, cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer-related services, the proportion of both RHC groups providing services dropped peri-pandemic. DISCUSSION: The pandemic's impact on independent and provider-based RHCs and their patients was considerable. Going forward, greater resources should be targeted to RHCs-particularly independent RHCs-to ensure their ability to initiate and sustain evidence-based prevention and screening services.

Identification and Treatment of Addiction in Medicaid Health Homes.

OBJECTIVE: Coordinated care models, such as the Medicaid health home, may be well positioned to identify and address addiction, yet little is known about the strategies health home plans use to identify and treat this condition. This study examined state requirements of active Medicaid health home plans. METHODS: Content analyses of all 35 active Medicaid health home plans were conducted to identify state requirements related to enrollment eligibility; provision of addiction screening, treatment, and prevention services; inclusion of addiction treatment professionals within the health home provider care team; and outcomes monitoring. RESULTS: Apart from health homes specifically focused on addiction, few states require health home plans to screen (44% of primary care-based and 33% of psychiatric health homes), treat (0% and 13%, respectively), and monitor treatment services for addiction (25% and 13%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Limited screening and treatment of addiction within health homes may limit the model's effectiveness in improving overall health.

An Exploratory Analysis of Self-Reported Protective Factors against Self-Harm in an Enrolled Veteran General Mental Health Population.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to characterize self-reported protective factors against suicide or self-harm within free-response comments from a harm-risk screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans enrolled in Department of Veterans Affairs mental health care were administered a self-harm and suicide screening as part of the baseline assessment in an ongoing implementation trial. Veterans indicated if they had thoughts of harming themselves and if so, what kept them from acting on them. Responses were coded based on established Centers for Disease Control protective factor categories. Descriptive analyses of demographic factors (such as age, gender, and race), clinical factors, and quality of life measures were conducted across groups depending on levels of self-harm risk. RESULTS: Of 593 Veterans, 57 (10%) screened positive for active thoughts of self-harm or suicide. Those with thoughts of self-harm had lower quality of life scores and higher rates of depression diagnoses. Of those individuals, 41 (72%) reported protective factors including Personal Resources (17%), Community Resources or Relationships (68%), and Other including pets and hobbies (15%). Those with stated protective factors had higher rates of employment and lower rates of PTSD diagnoses. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first open-response studies of harm-risk protective factors, allowing for a patient-centered approach that prioritizes the individual's voice and values. New protective factors emerged through the open-response format, indicating important factors that kept Veterans safe from self-harm or suicide such as pets and hobbies. Increasing focus on strengths and positive aspects of Veterans' lives that serve as protective factors may ultimately improve mental health treatment and prevention of suicide and self-harm.