Why Medicaid Is The Platform Best Suited For Addressing Both Health Care And Social Needs

The following excerpt comes from the article by Katharine Witgert published September 7, 2017 on the Health Affairs Blog.


...The Medicaid program provides a plausible platform upon which to build a health infrastructure that incorporates the social determinants of health. Medicaid could provide a common entry point that links individuals and families not just to health care services, but also to social services that affect their health. Indeed, state Medicaid leaders have long embraced this concept and are experienced in building bridges that link health and social programs to meet the comprehensive needs of their citizens.

Where Medicaid Leads In Addressing Social Determinants

Medicaid programs have long been leaders in addressing social determinants of health. A range of innovations for incorporating social determinants of health have been tested in Medicaid programs across the country. State Medicaid programs make referrals to social services, directly connect individuals to needed services, align systems to share goals, and invest future savings to the health care system into social services programs. For example:

  • In Pennsylvania, the online health and human services programs eligibility system known as COMPASS allows individuals and families to simultaneously apply for Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the health insurance marketplace, together with programs that administer food stamps, school lunches, child care assistance, and other benefits. There is evidence from a range of social programs that transaction costs—the difficulty of applying—significantly influence take-up rates. Single applications can facilitate access.
  • Colorado’s Medicaid program divides the state into seven Regional Care Collaborative Organizations, each of which connects beneficiaries to health care providers as well as social and community services. The goal is to link every beneficiary with a primary care provider who not only serves as a central point of contact for medical care, but also assesses a person’s nonmedical needs.
  • Louisiana, meanwhile, has embedded permanent supportive housing into Medicaid home- and community-based services, allowing for better integrated care for individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
  • Recognizing the mutually reinforcing roles of health and education—health status influences a child’s ability to learn, for instance—Oregon began aligning its health care and early education systems around 2011. The Medicaid program and early learning systems share goals, staffing, and funding.

Additionally, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont are all testing strategies not only to link Medicaid and social services, but also to use Medicaid funds to actually deliver supportive services that affect social determinants of health. These value-based delivery system reforms include the creation of accountable care organizations, health homes, community health teams, and accountable communities for health.

Most recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched an initiative called Accountable Health Communities to better manage the health-related social needs of Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. The initiative will test whether systematically identifying and addressing the social determinants of health through screening, referral, and community navigation services will impact health care costs and reduce health care utilization. Over the next five years, the model will provide support to community organizations that link enrollees to services that address housing instability, food insecurity, utility needs, interpersonal violence, and transportation needs. As CMS begins to test this model, there is reason for optimism, given Medicaid’s track record of integrating health care and social services.

Read the full article.

Advertisements

Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Care: Has the Affordable Care Act Made a Difference?

The following excerpt comes from the Issue Brief written by Susan L. Hayes, Pamela Riley, David Radley, and Douglas McCarthy.  It was originally posted to the Commonwealth Fund website on August 24, 2017.


Historically, in the United States, there has been a wide gulf between whites and members of minority groups in terms of health insurance coverage and access. Proponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) hoped that law’s major insurance coverage expansions and reforms would begin to bridge those gaps.

Evidence suggests that uninsured rates have declined among blacks and Hispanics under the ACA, but have these coverage gains reduced disparities between whites and ethnic and racial minorities? This brief seeks to answer that question and to examine if disparities in access to coverage and care are different in states that expanded Medicaid and states that did not.

We compared national averages between 2013 and 2015 for white, black, and Hispanic adults on three key measures of health care access to determine the effect of the ACA’s major coverage expansions on disparities:

  • the share of uninsured working-age adults ages 19 to 64
  • the share of adults age 18 and older who went without care because of costs in the past year
  • the share of adults age 18 and older without a usual source of care.

These measures align with those reported in the Commonwealth Fund Scorecard on State Health System Performance, 2017 Edition.

Additionally, we sought to determine if there were differences in disparities in states that chose to expand their Medicaid programs under the ACA and states that did not. For each indicator, we calculated the average rate for white, black, and Hispanic individuals in 2013 and in 2015 in two groups of states: the group of 27 states that, along with the District of Columbia, expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2015, and the group of 23 states that had not expanded Medicaid as of that time.

As the current administration and Congress weigh how to move forward after the recent failed attempt to repeal and replace the ACA, it is useful to examine how successful the law has been in making health care available to racial and ethnic groups that have historically been left out.

Findings include:

  • Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Adult Uninsured Rates Narrowed After the ACA’s Major Coverage Expansions
  • Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Rates of Adults Who Went Without Care Because of Costs Narrowed After the ACA’s Major Coverage Expansions
  • Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Rates of Adults Without a Usual Source of Care Narrowed After the ACA’s Major Coverage Expansions
  • Disparities Between Hispanic and White Adult Uninsured Rates in Medicaid Expansion States vs. Nonexpansion States, 2013–2015
  • Disparities Between Black and White Adult Uninsured Rates in Medicaid Expansion States vs. Nonexpansion States, 2013–2015
  • Disparities Between Hispanic and White Adults Who Went Without Care Because of Costs in Expansion States vs. Nonexpansion States, 2013–2015
  • Disparities Between Black and White Adults Who Went Without Care Because of Costs in Expansion States vs. Nonexpansion States, 2013–2015
  • Disparities Between Hispanic and White Adults Without a Usual Source of Care in Medicaid Expansion States vs. Nonexpansion States, 2013–2015

Download the full issue brief.

The Affordable Care Act and Women

In August, the Commonwealth Fund released the issue brief How the Affordable Care Act Has Helped Women Gain Insurance and Improved Their Ability to Get Health Care Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2016. The brief explores how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) reforms on women’s insurance coverage and access to care. Prior to the law’s consumer protections implemented in 2010, women faced obstacles to buying health insurance in the individual market:

  • Being turned down
  • Charged a higher premium because of their health
  • Had specific health problems excluded from their plans.

To understand how the ACA’s consumer protections, researchers analyzed data from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Surveys covering 2001 to 2016. Findings include:

  • After rising steadily through 2010, the number of uninsured women in the U.S. had fallen by nearly half in 2016.
  • Women with low incomes have made gains in coverage across race and ethnic groups
  • Young women have made the greatest coverage gains of any age group since 2010.
  • More women have coverage through Medicaid and the individual market since the ACA’s passage.
  • Women in Texas and Florida are more likely to report being uninsured compared to women in California and New York
  • The ACA’s individual-market reforms and subsidies have made it easier for women to buy health plans on their own.
  • Fewer women say they are not getting needed care because of cost.
  • There has been a modest reduction in reports of medical bill problems by women.
  • Insured women were more likely to receive cancer screenings than uninsured women in 2016.
  • Insured women are more likely to have a regular source of care and receive preventive services.

Download the full issue brief.

Drop In Sudden Cardiac Arrests Linked To Obamacare

The following excerpt comes from an article by Jenny Gold on Kaiser Health News.

If 22 million Americans lose their health care coverage by 2026 under the GOP Senate’s plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, how many people could die? The question is at the heart of the debate raging in Washington, D.C., but has been difficult to answer.

“Show me the data on lives saved by Obamacare, please,” conservative political scientist Charles Murray requested in a recent tweet.

A pilot study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Heart Association may provide an answer: Researchers found that the rate of sudden cardiac arrest outside of a hospital dropped by 17 percent among people ages 45-64 in Multnomah County, Ore., after the Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage.

The study analyzed sudden cardiac arrest data from the emergency medical system in 2011-12 before the ACA, and compared the data from 2014-15 after insurance coverage expanded. During that time, the percentage of people in Multnomah County with Medicaid coverage nearly doubled, from 7 percent to 13.5 percent.

Cardiac arrest can serve as an early indicator to show how an increase in health insurance coverage under the ACA might affect mortality.

Each year, about 350,000 people in the United States have a sudden cardiac arrest, in which the heart unexpectedly stops beating. It is one of the most deadly types of heart attacks — only 1 in 10 patients survive it. “It speaks to the importance of predicting and preventing [cardiac arrest] because once it happens, it’s much too late,” said Dr. Sumeet Chugh, medical director of the Heart Rhythm Center of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in California and one of the authors of the study.

The good news is that nearly half of patients experience warning symptoms, offering an opportunity for intervention, said Chugh. Cholesterol and blood pressure medication, diet and exercise, and surgical interventions can all help stave off sudden cardiac arrest. But patients without health insurance might ignore their symptoms and avoid seeing a doctor.

“Imagine that you’re someone with a warning symptom. If you had insurance or access to health care that was relatively easy, you might be more inclined to see a provider. If you didn’t, you might let it go for a while,” said Chugh.

Chugh cautions that the study population was small and did not examine other factors that could have led to a decline in cardiac arrests. Still, it is consistent with other studies that found a link between Medicaid expansion and a decline in mortality. Chugh and fellow author Eric Stecker of the Oregon Health & Science University plan follow-up studies to narrow in on the causes in Multnomah County.

Read the full article.

Health Insurance Coverage, Doctor-Patient Relationship, and Health Care Utilization

A recent study published in Preventive Medicine Reports explored the effect of health insurance coverage and doctor-patient relationships on the likelihood that an individual would receive diagnostic tests for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Using data collected from 230 participants in the Labor Market Health Care Survey (LMHCS), the study examined three questions:

  • How does health insurance affect the likelihood of having a regular health care provider?
  • How does health insurance coverage affect the likelihood of receiving tests for cardiovascular disease?
  • To what extent does having a regular health care health care provider mediate the effect of health insurance coverage on receiving the diagnostic tests?

The research team, led by Dr. Kenneth Hudson, the LMHCS was a multi-wave longitudinal study of adults 18 and older living in nine high-poverty census tracts in a county of approximately 400,000 residents. For the study, high poverty census tracts were defined as those where 50% of the households have incomes below the poverty threshold. Interview participants were selected through a two-stage random sample. To be included in the study, an individual had to be over 18 years of age. While data collection began in 2006, about 90% of the data in this study were collected since 2013. The research team interviewed participants every 2 to 3 years when they could be located. During interviews, participants provide information on their household composition, employment history, health status, health care utilization and income. Of the 230 participants in the study, about half were under the age of 40.

Analysis of the data included 3 dependent variables:

  • Whether or not participants have health insurance from any source
  • Whether or not the participant has a regular health care provider and knows their doctor’s name
  • Whether or not participants receive diagnostic tests for blood pressure, cholesterol levels and blood sugar levels.

In terms of health insurance coverage, only 12% of participants reported having coverage through an employer, 7% purchased coverage from the private market, and 5% had coverage through a family member. About ⅓ of participants had coverage through Medicare or Medicaid. The final ⅓ did not have any type of insurance coverage.

In relation to health care utilization, 45% of participants reported not having a regular provider. 17% reported having a regular health care provider but did not know their doctor’s name. The remaining 38% had a regular provider and could report the doctor’s name. Around half of the participants reported having cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure tests in the last 2 years.

Through the analysis, Dr. Hudson and his team found that participants with health insurance coverage were more likely to have had recent tests for diabetes and cardiovascular disease than those without coverage. However, they also found that having a regular health care provider mediates the effects of insurance coverage, especially when the participant could report the name of their doctor.

Read the full study.

Three-Year Impacts of the Affordable Care Act: Improved Medical Care and Health Among Low-Income Adults

The following comes from a Commonwealth Fund summary of research first published in Health Affairs Web.


Synopsis
Low-income adults in Arkansas and Kentucky who obtained coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion had better access to primary care and preventive health services, lower out-of-pocket costs, improved medication compliance, and improved self-reported health status than did low-income adults in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid. Among adults with chronic conditions, ACA coverage was associated with better disease management and medication compliance and a significant increase in self-reported health status.

The Issue
Congress is currently weighing the future of the Affordable Care Act. Since becoming law, the ACA has helped more than 20 million Americans enroll in health insurance coverage, and national studies have noted improvements in coverage, consumer satisfaction, and access to care. In this Commonwealth Fund–supported study, researchers compared Kentucky, which expanded Medicaid as prescribed by the ACA; Arkansas, which obtained a waiver to use federal Medicaid funds available through the ACA to purchase private marketplace insurance for low-income adults; and Texas, which did not expand Medicaid coverage. Looking at these three states, the authors assessed ongoing changes in health care use and self-reported health among low-income adults, including those with chronic conditions, after three full years of the ACA’s coverage expansions.

Key Findings

  • By the end of 2016, the uninsured rate in Arkansas and Kentucky—the two expansion states—had dropped by more than 20 percentage points compared to Texas, the nonexpansion state. In 2016, the uninsured rate was 7.4 percent in Kentucky, 11.7 percent in Arkansas, and 28.2 percent in Texas.
  • Low-income adults in Kentucky and Arkansas who gained coverage experienced a 41-percentage-point increase in having a usual source of care, a $337 reduction in annual out-of-pocket costs, and a 23-point increase in the share of those who reported they were in “excellent” health.
  • Results were similarly positive for people with chronic illnesses who gained coverage because of the ACA. Low-income patients with diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and stroke who gained coverage were 56 points more likely to report having regular care for their condition than were chronically ill adults in Texas, 51 points less likely than those in Texas to skip medications because of the cost, and 20 points more likely to report being in excellent health.

See the full summary.
See the original article.

 

Medicaid’s Role in Providing Access to Preventive Care for Adults

The following excerpt is from a Data Note by Leighton Ku, Julia Paradise, and Victoria Thompson published by the Kaiser Family Foundation published on May 17, 2017.


Medicaid, the nation’s public health insurance program for people with low income, covers 74 million Americans today, including millions of low-income adults. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid to nonelderly adults with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and, in the 32 states (including DC) that implemented the expansion, more than 11 million adults have gained Medicaid as a result. Chronic illness is prevalent in the adult Medicaid population. Preventive care, including immunizations and regular screenings that permit early detection and treatment of chronic conditions, improves the prospects for better health outcomes. This Data Note focuses on Medicaid’s role in providing access to preventive care for low-income adults.

Why is preventive care for adult Medicaid Enrollees Important?

Adults in Medicaid have high rates of preventable and controllable conditions. Nearly one-third (30%) of non-elderly adult Medicaid beneficiaries report that they are in only fair or poor health – roughly double the percentage of low-income privately insured and uninsured adults who report fair or poor  health (Figure 1). Medicaid adults also have significantly higher rates of chronic conditions and risky health behaviors that may be amenable to preventive care. One in 10 adult enrollees has a diagnosed mental illness; 7 in 10 are overweight or obese, and almost 1 in 3 smoke tobacco.

Preventive care can reduce disease and avoidable use of high-cost services. Increased access to screening for diabetes, cancer, depression, and o ther chronic conditions, and counseling to address behavioral risk factors, have the potential to reduce disease and prevent exacerbations of conditions that can be medically managed. Improved health may reduce the use of avoidable hospital and other high-cost care, and reduce Medicaid spending. For example, smoking can cause heart disease and other chronic illnesses that one study estimated may be responsible for more than $75 billion in Medicaid costs. Medicaid coverage of smoking cessation services, including quit lines and medications, has the potential to mitigate both the health and cost impacts of smoking. Obesity, a major driver of preventable chronic illness and health care costs, affects about two-thirds of low-income adults. Findings from one study indicate that severe obesity in adults cost state Medicaid programs almost $8 billion in 2013, suggesting that “effective treatment for severe obesity should be part of each state’s strategy to mitigate rising obesity-related costs.”

What Preventive Services Does Medicaid Cover for Adults?

Coverage of most adult preventive services has historically been optional for states. Medicaid coverage of preventive services for children has long been strong, as states must cover comprehensive preventive services at no cost for children in Medicaid under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit. In contrast, historically, coverage of adult preventive care has been largely optional for states, with some exceptions – states must cover pregnancy-related care and family planning services without cost-sharing. In addition, within federal guidelines, states can charge adults cost-sharing for preventive services.

The ACA expanded coverage of adult preventive care. An important thrust of the ACA was an emphasis on preventive care. In particular, the ACA included recommended preventive services without patient cost-sharing as one of the 10 “essential health benefits” (EHBs) that most health plans are now required to cover. The required preventive services are based on the recommendations of independent, expert clinical panels and include, for adults: 1) screening and counseling services (e.g., cancer screening, diet counseling); 2) routine immunizations; and 3) preventive services for women. The EHB requirement applies to Medicaid benefits for adults who are newly eligible due to the ACA expansion, but not “traditional” Medicaid adults, for whom most preventive services are optional for states and can require cost-sharing within federal guidelines. To incentivize states to cover the EHB preventive services for all Medicaid adults, the ACA provided for a one percentage point increase in the federal Medicaid match rate for these services in states that opt to cover all of them without cost-sharing.

Read the full data note.

 

HDRG Recap: Health Care Apartheid: Labor Markets, Race-Ethnicity, and Affordable Care

At the April 21, 2017, meeting of the Health Disparities Research Group (HDRG), Dr. Kenneth Hudson and his team presented findings from their research on the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on insurance rates. This work is part of the research project The Impact of Labor Force/Labor Market  Status on Access to Health Care. The presentation focused on analysis of data from the  Current Population Survey (CPS).

Dr. Hudson began his talk by outlining the theoretical foundations of and major influences on his work. Citing the work of Dr. William Julius Wilson on race and labor markets and the work of Clayton and Byrd on the history of minority health disparities, Dr. Hudson outlined three eras in American history focusing on race and labor relations, and the provision of medical care. After the civil rights movement, institutions  such as hospitals couldn’t overtly discriminate on race, but they could, however, discriminate based on the ability to pay. Currently, the primary mechanism for covering the cost of health care in the United States is health insurance, which is usually provided by either an employer, family members, or a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid.

Within this context, Dr. Hudson relayed the findings from his team’s analysis of the health insurance data from the CPS. The findings reaffirmed what was already known; the ACA substantially reduced the rate of uninsured Americans. They also found that the expansion of Medicaid was the primary mechanism for this reduction, even though 19 states chose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion program..

Dr. Hudson and his team are currently preparing their findings for publication.

Medicaid Helps Schools Help Children

From the report by Jessica Schubel on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website:

Medicaid provides affordable and comprehensive health coverage to over 30 million children, improving their health and their families’ financial well-being.[1] In addition to the immediate health and financial benefits that Medicaid provides, children covered by Medicaid experience long-term health and economic gains as adults.[2] Many children receive Medicaid-covered health care not only at the doctor’s office, but also often at school.

For students with disabilities, schools must provide medical services that are necessary for them to get an education as part of their special education plans, and Medicaid pays for these services for eligible children. And Medicaid’s role in schools goes beyond special education, as it also pays for health services that all children need, such as vision and dental screenings, when they are provided in schools to Medicaid-eligible children. Schools can also help enroll eligible but unenrolled children in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and connect them to other health care services and providers. Medicaid also helps schools by reducing special education and other healthcare-related costs, freeing up funding in state and school budgets to help advance other education initiatives.

Read the full report to learn more about

  • Leveraging Medicaid for special education
  • Helping kids stay healthy and succeed academically
  • Connecting kids to coverage

As Some Holdout States Revisit Medicaid Expansion, New Data Show It Pays Off

From the article by Shefali Luthra on Kaiser Health News:

Although the GOP-controlled Congress is pledging its continued interest — despite stalls and snags — to dismantle Obamacare, some “red state” legislatures are changing course and showing a newfound interest in embracing the health law’s Medicaid expansion.

And a study out Wednesday in Health Affairs adds to these discussions, percolating in places such as Kansas, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina and Maine. Thirty-one states plus the District of Columbia already opted to pursue the expansion, which provided federal funding to broaden eligibility to include most low-income adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (about $16,000 for an individual).

Researchers analyzed data from the National Association of State Budget Officers for fiscal years 2010 to 2015 to assess the fiscal effects of expansion’s first two years.

Their findings address arguments put forth by some GOP lawmakers, who say the expansion will add to the nation’s budget deficit and saddle states with additional coverage costs, forcing them to skimp on other budget priorities like education or transportation.

The researchers concluded that when states expanded eligibility for the low-income health insurance program they did see larger health care expenditures — but those costs were covered with federal funding. In addition, expansion states didn’t have to skimp on other policy priorities — such as environment, housing and other public health initiatives — to make ends meet.

“This is a potential big benefit, not only to people who get coverage, but to state economies,” said Benjamin Sommers, an associate professor of health policy and economics at Harvard University’s public health school, and the study’s first author.

This finding — that states expanding Medicaid didn’t encounter unforeseen budget problems — shouldn’t be surprising.

“Expansion is basically free” to the states, agreed Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacare’s architects who worked with Sommers to systematically compare the budgets of all 50 states to examine Medicaid expansion’s impact. “That’s the big insight,” he said. “There’s no sort of hidden downside.”

And that may be part of what’s fueling this renewed interest, said Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. These states are seeing the federal windfall their neighbors received while trying to navigate public health concerns like opioid addiction, he said. They “are looking at how their neighbors or expansion states have done, and see the benefits,” Park said. “The primary argument against the expansion on the state level has been it’s going to break the bank. The research demonstrates that’s not the case.”

But a caveat: The data used in this analysis reflected only years during which the federal government picked up 100 percent of the tab for expanding Medicaid eligibility and therefore could overestimate the benefit to state budgets. That’s because in 2017 that federal support begins to taper off, and by 2020 states have to pay 10 percent of the expansion costs themselves.

Read the full article.