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).

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.

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'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.

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.

Benefit requirements for substance use disorder treatment in state health insurance exchanges.

BACKGROUND: Established in 2014, state health insurance exchanges have greatly expanded substance use disorder (SUD) treatment coverage in the United States as qualified health plans (QHPs) within the exchanges are required to conform to parity provisions laid out by the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Coverage improvements, however, have not been even as states have wide discretion over how they meet these regulations. OBJECTIVE: How states regulate SUD treatment benefits offered by QHPs has implications for the accessibility and quality of care. In this study, we assessed the extent to which state insurance departments regulate the types of SUD services and medications plans must provide, as well as their use of utilization controls. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally-representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment. Data were obtained from state Departments of Insurance via a 15-minute internet-based survey. RESULTS: States varied widely in regulations on QHPs' administration of SUD treatment benefits. Some states required plans to cover all 11 SUD treatment services and medications we assessed in the study, whereas others did not require plans to cover anything at all. Nearly all states allowed the plans to employ utilization controls, but reported little guidance regarding how they should be used. CONCLUSION: Although some states have taken full advantage of the health insurance exchanges to increase access to SUD treatment, others seem to have done the bare minimum required by the ACA. By not requiring coverage for the entire SUD continuum of care, states are hindering client access to appropriate types of care necessary for recovery.

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.

The Politics of Medicaid: Most Americans Are Connected to the Program, Support Its Expansion, and Do Not View It as Stigmatizing.

Policy Points: More than half of Americans are connected to the Medicaid program-either through their own coverage or that of a family member or close friend-and are significantly more likely to view Medicaid as important and to support increases in spending, even among conservatives. This finding helps explain why Affordable Care Act repeal efforts faced (and will continue to face) strong public backlash. Policymakers should be aware that although renaming programs within Medicaid may have increased enrollment take-up, this destigmatization effort might have also increased program confusion and reduced support for Medicaid even among enrollees who say the program is important to them. CONTEXT: Since the 1980s, Medicaid enrollment has expanded so dramatically that by 2015 two-thirds of Americans had some connection to the program in which either they themselves, a family member, or a close friend is currently or was previously enrolled. METHODS: Utilizing a nationally representative survey-the Kaiser Family Foundation Poll: Medicare and Medicaid at 50 (n = 1,849)-and employing ordinal and logistic regression analyses, our study examines 3 questions: (1) are individuals with a connection to Medicaid more likely to view the program as important, (2) are they more likely to support an increase in Medicaid spending, and (3) are they more likely to support adoption of the Medicaid expansion offered under the Affordable Care Act? For each of these questions we examine whether partisanship and views of stigma also impact support for Medicaid and, if so, whether these factors overwhelm the impact of connection to the program. FINDINGS: Controlling for the strong effect of partisanship, 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 increasing spending or expanding the program, the type of connection to the program matters. In particular, adults with current and previous Medicaid coverage and those with a family member or close friend with Medicaid coverage are more likely to support increases in spending and the Medicaid expansion; but, those connected to Medicaid only through coverage of a child are no more likely to support Medicaid than those with no connection. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should probe more deeply into whether people with different types of connection to Medicaid view the program differently, and, if so, how and why. Moreover, future research should also explore whether state-level attempts to destigmatize Medicaid by renaming the program also serves to reduce knowledge and support for Medicaid.

How the ACA Addressed Health Equity and What Repeal Would Mean.

This commentary reviews the many different ways the Affordable Care Act (ACA) explicitly and implicitly attempted to improve health equity, and then assesses how the Republican proposal to repeal and replace the ACA (the proposed American Health Care Act) would impact efforts to improve health equity. Although the American health care system still had a long way to go to achieve health equity, it may be argued that the ACA was a major step forward in creating new programs and regulations that had the potential to improve health equity. In stark contrast, Trumpcare makes no mention of health equity as a goal and-if passed-would result in an increase in health inequity. It would shamefully represent the first time in modern US history that a major federal health reform bill would actually move us further away from creating more equal access to health care coverage and toward reduced health equity.

The Racial Divide in State Medicaid Expansions.

This study considers five important questions related to the role of race in state-level public support for the Medicaid expansion: (1) whether public support for the Medicaid expansion varies across the American states; (2) whether public support is positively related to state adoption; (3) whether this support is racialized; (4) whether, if racialized, there is evidence of more state responsiveness to white support than to nonwhite (black and/or Latino) support; and (5) does the size of the nonwhite population matter more when white support is relatively low? Our findings suggest that while public support for the Medicaid expansion is high at the state level, especially in comparison to public support for the ACA, there are important variations across the states. Although overall public support is positively related to state adoption, we find that public support for the Medicaid expansion is racialized in two ways. First, there are large differences in support levels by race; and second, state adoption decisions are positively related to white opinion and do not respond to nonwhite support levels. Most importantly, there is evidence that when the size of the black population increases and white support levels are relatively low, the state is significantly less likely to expand the Medicaid program. Our discussion highlights the democratic deficits and racial bias at the state level around this important coverage policy.

The Many Roads toward Achieving Health Equity.

This special issue of the Journal is devoted to understanding the many roads that lead toward achieving health equity. The eleven articles in the issue portray an America that is struggling with the clash between its historical ideal of pursuing equality for all and its ambivalence toward achieving equity in all social domains, especially health. Organized in five sections, the issue contains articles that examine and analyze: the role of civil rights law and the courts in shaping health equity; the political discourse that has framed our understanding of health equity; health policies that affect health equity, such as the Medicaid program, as well as related strategies that might help to improve equity, such as the use of mobile technologies to empower individuals; immigration policies and practices that impact health equity in marginalized populations; and commentaries in the final section that explore how the Affordable Care Act has addressed health equity, how repeal of the law would jeopardize equity gains, and how the political discourse and culture of the Trump administration could adversely affect health equity.

Rhetoric and Reform in Waiver States.

Seven states have used Section 1115 waivers to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While each state pursued a unique plan, there are similarities in the types of changes each state desired to make. Equally important to how a state modified their Medicaid programs is how a state talked about Medicaid and reform. We investigate whether the rhetoric that emerged in waiver states is unique, analyze whether the rhetoric is associated with particular waiver reforms, and consider the implications of our findings for the future of Medicaid policy making. We find that proponents in waiver states have convinced a conservative legislature that their reform is sufficiently innovative that they are not doing a Medicaid expansion, and not building on the traditional Medicaid program. Particularly striking is that none of these reforms are entirely new to the Medicaid program. While not new, the way in which waiver states have been allowed to implement many of the reforms is new and has become stricter. We find an emerging consensus utilized by conservative policy makers in framing the Medicaid expansion. Expansion efforts by conservative policy makers in other states have subsequently pushed this framing far to the right.

Encouraging Competition and Cooperation: The Affordable Care Act's Contradiction?

This introductory essay to JHPPL's special issue on accountable care organizations (ACOs) presents the broader themes addressed in the issue, including (1) a central tension between cooperation versus competition in health care markets with regard to how to bring about improved quality, lower costs, and better access; (2) US regulatory policy - whether it will be able to achieve the appropriate balance in health care markets under which ACOs could realize expected outcomes; and (3) ACO realities - whether ACOs will be able to overcome or further embed existing inequities in US health care markets.

Most States Allow Medicaid Managed Care Plans Discretion To Restrict Substance Use Disorder Treatment Benefits.

Managed care plans, which contract with states to cover three-quarters of Medicaid enrollees, play a crucial role in addressing the drug epidemic in the United States. However, substance use disorder benefits vary across Medicaid managed care plans, and it is unclear what role states play in regulating their activities. To address this question, we surveyed thirty-three states and Washington, D.C., regarding their substance use disorder treatment coverage and utilization management requirements for Medicaid managed care plans in 2021. Most states mandated coverage of common forms of substance use disorder treatment and prohibited annual maximums and enrollee cost sharing in managed care. Fewer than one-third of states forbade managed care plans from imposing prior authorization for each treatment service. For most treatment medications, fewer than two-thirds of states prohibited prior authorization, drug testing, "fail first," or psychosocial therapy requirements in managed care. Our findings suggest that many states give managed care plans broad discretion to impose requirements on covered substance use disorder treatments, which may affect access to lifesaving care.

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.

Statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic: Results from a national survey of single state agencies.

BACKGROUND: Single State Agencies (SSAs) are at the forefront of efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic, responsible for allocating billions of dollars in federal, state, and local funds to ensure service quality, promote best practices, and expand access to care. Federal expenditures to SSAs have more than tripled since the early years of the epidemic, yet, it is unclear what initiatives SSAs have undertaken to address the crisis and how they are financing these efforts. METHODS: This study used data from an internet-based survey of SSAs, conducted by the University of Chicago Survey Lab from January to December 2021 (response rate of 94 %). The survey included a set of 14 items identifying statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic and six funding sources. We calculated the percentage of SSAs that supported each statewide effort and the percentage of SSAs reporting use of each source of funding across the 14 statewide efforts. RESULTS: Treatment of opioid-related overdose figured most prominently among statewide efforts, with all SSAs providing funding for naloxone distribution and all but one SSA supporting naloxone training. Recovery support services, Project ECHO, and Hub and Spoke models were supported by the vast majority of SSAs. Statewide efforts related to expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) received somewhat less support, with 45 % of SSAs supporting mobile methadone/MOUD clinics/programs and 70 % supporting buprenorphine in emergency departments. A relatively low proportion of SSAs (54 %) provided support for syringe services programs. State Opioid Response (SOR) funds were the most common funding source reported by SSAs (57 % of SSAs), followed by block grant funds (19 %) and other state funding (15 %). CONCLUSION: Results highlight a range of SSA efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic. Limited adoption of efforts to expand access to MOUD and harm reduction services may represent missed opportunities. The uncertainty over reauthorization of the SOR grant post-2025 also raises concerns over sustainability of funding for many of these statewide initiatives.