Financial Outcomes Associated With the COVID-19 Pandemic in California Hospitals.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the financial solvency of hospitals, yet there is limited evidence examining hospital financial performance through the first 15 months of the pandemic. Objective: To assess the financial outcomes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in California hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study tracked the financial performance of 348 hospitals in California using Hospital Quarterly Financial and Utilization Data from the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Hospital financial performance was examined from January 2019 to June 2021 for all hospitals in aggregate and by safety-net status. Exposures: Pre-COVID-19 financial outcomes vs COVID-19 period outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quarterly revenues, expenses, and profits. Results: In 348 California hospitals, hospital financial performance was highly variable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Losses were reduced by COVID-19 relief funding and strong equities market performance starting in the second quarter of 2020. Non-safety net hospitals maintained positive operating margins throughout the pandemic, while safety-net hospitals experienced large losses. Between the first quarter of 2020 and the second quarter of 2021, California safety-net hospitals' net operating losses were more than $3.2 billion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of California hospitals, hospital financial performance was tracked between the first quarter of 2019 and the second quarter of 2021. Although hospitals experienced reduced profits between January 2020 and June 2021, the interventions of government assistance programs were able to mitigate more detrimental fiscal consequences. When compared with non-safety net hospitals, safety-net hospitals were confronted with more concentrated financial losses.

Marijuana liberalization policies and perinatal health.

We studied the effect of marijuana liberalization policies on perinatal health with a multiperiod difference-in-differences estimator that exploited variation in effective dates of medical marijuana laws (MML) and recreational marijuana laws (RML). We found that the proportion of maternal hospitalizations with marijuana use disorder increased by 23% (0.3 percentage points) in the first three years after RML implementation, with larger effects in states authorizing commercial sales of marijuana. This growth was accompanied by a 7% (0.4 percentage points) decline in tobacco use disorder hospitalizations, yielding a net zero effect over all substance use disorder hospitalizations. RMLs were not associated with statistically significant changes in newborn health. MMLs had no statistically significant effect on maternal substance use disorder hospitalizations nor on newborn health and fairly small effects could be ruled out. In absolute numbers, our findings implied modest or no adverse effects of marijuana liberalization policies on the array of perinatal outcomes considered.

Impact of Financial Incentives on Service Use, Spending, and Health in Medicaid.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provided grants to Medicaid programs through the Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Diseases program to test whether financial incentives changed the use of healthcare services, Medicaid spending, and health outcomes. Six states implemented programs related to diabetes prevention, weight management, diabetes management, and hypertension management. The purpose of this study is to examine whether receipt of financial incentives increased use of services incentivized by the program; reduced expenditures, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits; and improved health outcomes. METHODS: State data on program participation and incentives (between 2011 and 2015) and 2 years of Medicaid claims data pre-Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Diseases enrollment and >2 years of claims data after enrollment were analyzed using covariate-adjusted regression analyses. Negative binomial, logistic, and linear regressions were used, depending on the outcome variable of interest (services, inpatient admissions and emergency department visits, and total expenditures). Analyses were conducted in 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: Incentive recipients attended, on average, one to two more diabetes prevention classes than control participants, but incentives did not significantly improve uptake of other types of services, such as meetings with a health coach or doctor, gym visits, or attendance at Weight Watchers meetings. Modest improvements in health outcomes, such as weight loss, were observed, yet there were very few significant changes in inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and Medicaid expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives are useful for engaging Medicaid enrollees in disease prevention programs, but program engagement may not necessarily lead to changing patterns of healthcare utilization and expenditures in the short run.

The role of health insurance on treatment for opioid use disorders: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.

We estimate the effect of health insurance coverage on opioid use disorder treatment utilization and availability by exploiting cross-state variation in effective dates of Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act. Using a difference-in-differences design, we find that aggregate opioid admissions to specialty treatment facilities increased 18% in expansion states, most of which involved outpatient medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Opioid admissions from Medicaid beneficiaries increased 113% without crowding out admissions from individuals with other health insurance. These effects appeared to be driven by market entry of select MAT providers and by greater acceptance of Medicaid payments among existing MAT providers. Moreover, effects were largest in expansion states with comprehensive MAT coverage. Our findings suggest that Medicaid expansions resulted in substantial utilization and availability gains to clinically efficacious and cost-effective pharmacological treatments, implying potential benefits of expanding Medicaid to non-expansion states and extending MAT coverage.