The Impact of Changes in Medicaid Provider Fees on Provider Participation and Enrollees' Care: a Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Changing Medicaid fees is a common approach for states to address budget fluctuations, and many currently set Medicaid physician fees at levels lower than Medicare and private insurers. The Affordable Care Act included a temporary Medicaid fee bump for primary care providers (PCPs) in 2013-2014 that recently led to both an increase and then subsequent decrease in PCP fees in many states. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review on the effects of changing Medicaid fees on provider participation and enrollees' access to care and service use. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline and JSTOR and identified 18 studies that assessed the longitudinal impact of provider fee changes in Medicaid on the outcomes of interest. We summarized information on study design, methods, and findings. RESULTS: Seven studies examined the impact of fee changes on provider participation in Medicaid. Of these, three studies found that fee increases were associated with positive effects on providers' likelihood of accepting Medicaid patients or on their Medicaid caseloads. Five studies that examined the impact of fee changes on Medicaid enrollees' access to care found a positive association with one or more access measure, such as having a usual source of care or appointment availability. Lastly, eight of 14 studies that examined service use found positive associations between fee changes and at least one measure of use, such as changes in the probability of enrollees having any visit, the number of visits, and shifts in the site of care toward office-based care; others largely did not find significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: There is mixed evidence on the impact of changing Medicaid fees on provider participation and enrollees' service use; however, increasing fees appears to have more consistent positive effects on access to care. Whether these improvements in access translate into better health outcomes or downstream cost savings are critical questions.

Access to care among Medicaid and uninsured patients in community health centers after the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid and increased federal funding for Community Health Centers (CHCs). To examine the role of Medicaid coverage on care patterns for those with available safety net care, we assessed differences in access to care for CHC patients with continuous Medicaid coverage vs. gaps in insurance coverage in the last year. METHODS: We used data on adult respondents from the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey (N = 1720) with continuous Medicaid coverage vs. those with some period without insurance coverage in the last 12 months. We examined reported need for any medical care, mental health care, prescription drugs, dental care, and referrals for care outside of the CHC in the last 12 months, and reports of being delayed or unable to get needed care by insurance status. We used logistic regression to assess the association between insurance status and care access, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Patients with insurance gaps and continuous Medicaid coverage reported similar levels of need for most types of care in the last 12 months, but those with insurance gaps were significantly more likely to report having difficulty obtaining medical care, prescription drugs, dental care, and completing outside referrals. Of those with incomplete referrals for care outside of the CHC, patients with insurance gaps were more likely than those with continuous Medicaid to cite cost or insurance-related reasons for not following up (70% vs. 19%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Having continuous Medicaid coverage appeared to mitigate barriers to care for CHC patients compared to having intermittent or no insurance coverage over the last year. Policies that increase disruptions in Medicaid coverage could adversely impact access to care, even among those with available safety net care.

Potential Effects Of Eliminating The Individual Mandate Penalty In California.

The tax penalty for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is to be eliminated starting in 2019. We investigated the potential impact of this change on enrollees' decisions to purchase insurance and on individual-market premiums. In a survey of enrollees in the individual market in California in 2017, 19 percent reported that they would not have purchased insurance had there been no penalty. We estimated that premiums would increase by 4-7 percent if these enrollees were not in the risk pool. The percentages of enrollees who would forgo insurance were higher among those with lower income and education, Hispanics, and those who had been uninsured in the prior year, relative to the comparison groups. Compared to older enrollees and those with two or more chronic conditions, respectively, younger enrollees and those with no chronic conditions were also more likely to say that they would not have purchased insurance. Eliminating the mandate penalty alone is unlikely to destabilize the California individual market but could erode coverage gains, especially among groups whose members have historically been less likely to be insured.