Medicaid savings from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project: a cost-savings analysis.

BACKGROUND: Forty-five percent of births in the United States are unintended, and the costs of unintended pregnancy and birth are substantial. Clinical and policy interventions that increase access to the most effective reversible contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) have potential to generate significant cost savings. Evidence of cost savings for these interventions is needed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-savings analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, which provided counseling and no-cost contraception, to demonstrate the value of investment in enhanced contraceptive care to the Missouri Medicaid program. STUDY DESIGN: The Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a prospective cohort study of 9256 reproductive-age women who were enrolled between 2007 and 2011. Study follow-up was completed October 2013. This analysis includes 5061 Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were current Missouri Medicaid beneficiaries or were uninsured and reported household incomes <201% of the federal poverty line. We created a simulated comparison group of women who were receiving care through the Missouri Title X program and modeled the contraception and pregnancy outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Data about contraceptive use for the comparison group (N=5061) were obtained from the Missouri Title X program and adjusted based on age, race, ethnicity, and income. To make an accurate comparison that would account for the difference in the 2 populations, we used our simulation model to estimate total Contraceptive CHOICE Project costs and total comparison group costs. We reported all costs in 2013 dollars to account for inflation. RESULTS: Among the Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were included, the uptake of intrauterine devices and implants was 76.1% compared with 4.8% among the comparison group. The estimated contraceptive cost for the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group was $4.0 million vs $2.3 million for the comparison group. The estimated numbers of unintended pregnancies and births averted among the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group compared with the comparison group were 927 and 483, respectively, which represented a savings in pregnancy and maternity care of $6.7 million. We estimated that the total cost savings for the state of Missouri attributable to the Contraceptive CHOICE Project was $5.0 million (40.7%) over the project duration. CONCLUSION: A program providing counseling and no-cost contraception yields substantial cost savings because of the increased uptake of highly effective contraception and consequent averted unintended pregnancy and birth.

2016 Rural Enrollment in Health Insurance Marketplaces, by State.

Purpose. In this brief, cumulative county-level enrollment in Health Insurance Marketplaces (HIMs) through March 2016 is presented for state HIMs operated as Federally Facilitated Marketplaces (FFMs) and for those operated as Federally Supported State-Based Marketplaces (FS-SBMs). Enrollment rates in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas of each state, defined as the percentage of "potential market" participants selecting plans, are presented. Monitoring annual enrollment rates provides a gauge of how well state outreach and enrollment efforts are proceeding and helps identify states with strong non-metropolitan enrollment as models for other states to emulate. Key Findings. (1) Cumulative enrollment in the HIMs in non-metropolitan counties has grown to about 1.4 million in 2016, representing 40 percent of the potential market in non-metropolitan counties. (2) Estimated enrollment rates varied considerably across the United States. In particular, estimated enrollment rates in non-metropolitan areas were substantially higher than in metropolitan areas in Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Maine, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (3) The states that achieved the highest absolute non-metropolitan enrollment totals were Michigan, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Of these, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin also had non-metropolitan enrollment rates above 50 percent. (4) About half of all states, evenly distributed by Medicaid expansion status but mostly concentrated in the Midwestern census region, had higher enrollment growth in non-metropolitan areas from 2015 to 2016, and in fact aggregated non-metropolitan growth was greater than metropolitan growth in both expansion categories.

Changing Rural and Urban Enrollment in State Medicaid Programs.

Purpose. From October 2013­before implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)­to November 2016, Medicaid enrollment grew by 27 percent. However, very little attention has been paid to date to how changes in Medicaid enrollment vary within states across the rural-urban continuum. This brief reports and analyzes changes in enrollment in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural (noncore) areas in both expansion states (those that used ACA funding to expand Medicaid coverage) and nonexpansion states (those that did not use ACA funding to expand Medicaid coverage). The findings suggest that growth has been uneven across rural-urban geography, and that Medicaid enrollment growth is lower in rural counties, particularly in nonexpansion states. Key Findings. (1) Medicaid growth rates in metropolitan counties in nonexpansion states from 2012 to 2015 were twice as large as in rural counties (14 percent compared to 7 percent). (2) In contrast, the differential in growth rates between metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties was much less dramatic in expansion states (growth rates of 43 percent, 38 percent, and 38 percent, respectively). (3) Analysis at the state level shows much variability across the states, even when controlling for expansion status. For example, some states with an above-average rural population, such as Tennessee and Idaho, had higher-than-average enrollment increases, with strong rural increases, while other states with similar proportions of rural residents, such as Nebraska, Oklahoma, Maine, and Wyoming, experienced enrollment decreases in micropolitan and/or rural counties. (4) States' pre-ACA Medicaid eligibility levels for parents and children affected the potential for growth. For example, some states that had higher eligibility levels (e.g., Maryland and Illinois) experienced lower Medicaid growth rates from 2012 to 2015, in part because their baseline enrollment was higher. (5) In the expansion states of Colorado and Nevada, which both have State-Based Marketplaces (SBMs), enrollment increases were over four times the overall average.