Project description:ImportanceMedicaid coverage loss can substantially compromise access to and affordability of health care for dual-eligible beneficiaries. The extent to which this population lost Medicaid coverage before and during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) and the characteristics of beneficiaries more at risk for coverage loss are currently not well known.ObjectiveTo assess the loss of Medicaid coverage among dual-eligible beneficiaries before and during the first year of the PHE, and to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with heightened likelihood of losing Medicaid.Design, setting, and participantsThis repeated cross-sectional study used national Medicare data to estimate annual rates of Medicaid loss among dual-eligible beneficiaries before (2015 to 2019) and during the PHE (2020). Individuals who were dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning of a given year and who continuously received low-income subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage were included in the sample. Multivariable regression models were used to examine beneficiary-level and plan-level factors associated with Medicaid loss. Data analyses were conducted between March 2023 and October 2023.ExposureOnset of PHE.Main outcomes and measuresLoss of Medicaid for at least 1 month within a year.ResultsSample included 56 172 736 dual-eligible beneficiary-years between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, most dual-eligible beneficiaries were aged over 65 years (5 984 420 [61.1%]), female (5 868 866 [59.9%]), non-Hispanic White (4 928 035 [50.3%]), full-benefit eligible (6 837 815 [69.8%]), and enrolled in traditional Medicare (5 343 537 [54.6%]). The adjusted proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries losing Medicaid for at least 1 month increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2019 and then dropped to 2.3% in 2020. Between 2015 and 2019, dual-eligible beneficiaries who were older (ages 55-64 years: -1.4%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -1.0%; ages 65-74 years: -2.0%; 95% CI, -2.5% to -1.5%; ages 75 and older: -4.5%; 95% CI, -5.0% to -4.0%), disabled (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.1% to -0.6%), and in integrated care programs were less likely to lose Medicaid. In 2020, the disparities within each of these demographic groups narrowed significantly. Notably, while Black (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 0.9%) and Hispanic (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 1.2%) dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to lose Medicaid than their non-Hispanic White counterparts between 2015 and 2019, such gap was eliminated for Black beneficiaries and narrowed for Hispanic beneficiaries in 2020.Conclusions and relevanceDuring the PHE, Medicaid coverage loss declined significantly among dual-eligible beneficiaries, and disparities were mitigated across subgroups. As the PHE unwinds, it is crucial for policymakers to implement strategies to minimize Medicaid coverage disruptions and racial and ethnic disparities, especially given that loss of Medicaid was slightly increasing over time before the PHE.

Project description:ImportanceRising prescription medication costs under Medicaid have led to increased procedural prescription denials by health plans. The effect of unresolved denials on chronic condition exacerbation and subsequent acute care utilization remains unclear.ObjectiveTo examine whether procedural prescription denials are associated with increased net spending through downstream acute care utilization among Medicaid patients not obtaining prescribed medication following a denial.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Medicaid claims data from 2022 to 2023 for patients at inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy sites of care across 2 states (Virginia and Washington) and 2 independent health plans. Patients with at least 1 prescription denial in the study period (January 1 through July 31, 2023) were matched to those without denials in a given medication class, based on demographics, health plan data, chronic condition history, and health care utilization. Rates of and spending for physiologically related acute care visits in the 60 days following a medication fill or denial were compared for the study period.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were all-cause acute care utilization and total medical spending (in 2023 US dollars per member per year [PMPY]) for principal diagnoses physiologically related to each medication class, in the 60 days following a medication fill or denial. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check for spurious associations or unmeasured confounders.ResultsThe 19 725 patients in this study had a median age of 41 (IQR, 29-55) years, and most (60.7%) were female. Patients had a mean (SD) of 3.3 (16.1) comorbidities, 1.0 (2.6) all-cause acute care visits, and 5.6 (7.8) primary care visits during the baseline period. Patients experiencing specific procedural prescription denials had a higher risk of physiologically related emergency department visits and hospitalizations compared with those without a denial in the subsequent 60 days (adjusted odds ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.03-1.88] minimum vs 1.75 [95% CI, 1.39-2.20] maximum for exposure and control groups across the 7 medication classes with significant differences). Denials in 6 medication classes were associated with net total medical spending increases, ranging from $624 (95% CI, $435-$813) to $3016 (95% CI, $1483-$4550) in additional expense PMPY after accounting for both prescription and medical costs attributed to denials.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that although procedural prescription denials aimed to curb immediate drug costs, some denials prompted heightened acute care utilization and costs that outweighed the short-term prescription budget savings. Health plans should incorporate this potential unintended consequence when shaping prescription coverage policies. Future research should systematically review all medication classes across plans nationally.

Project description:ImportanceCOVID-19 relief legislation created a temporary moratorium on Medicaid disenrollment, but when the public health emergency ends, states will begin to "unwind" Medicaid enrollment. Prepandemic data shed light on factors that can affect Medicaid coverage stability.ObjectiveTo assess factors associated with the duration and continuity of Medicaid enrollment.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional analyses of a Medicaid data set for 2016 that was released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in June of 2022, we analyze a nationally representative data set of 5.7 million persons, weighted to represent 70 million Medicaid beneficiaries in 2016. We focus on 22 million nondisabled, nonelderly adults for this analysis. The data were analyzed between July and September of 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were the average months of Medicaid enrollment in 2016 and the probability of churning, defined as a break in coverage between 2 periods of enrollment during the calendar year. We compared these outcomes by eligibility category, state, demographic characteristics, and key Medicaid policies, including whether the state expanded Medicaid and whether it used ex parte reviews (automated reviews of other administrative data to reduce renewal paperwork burdens).ResultsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we analyze a nationally representative Medicaid data set of 5.7 million persons, weighted to represent 70 million Medicaid beneficiaries in 2016, released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in June of 2022. The analysis focused on nonelderly, nondisabled adults (aged 18-64 years) with a weighted population size of 22.7 million, of which 18.4% were Black, 19.2% were Latino, 39.5% were White, 7.3% were other/Asian/Native American, and 15.5% had unknown race. Multivariable regression analysis indicated that those living in states that expanded Medicaid but did not use ex parte reviews had longer average duration (0.31 months longer; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59) and lower risk of churning(odds ratio [OR], .40; 95% CI, 0.39-0.40), whereas those living in nonexpansion states that used ex parte reviews had lower odds of churning (OR, .68; 95% CI, 0.66-0.70) but also had shorter average duration (3.1 months shorter; 95% CI, -3.4 to -2.8). Those living in expansion states that used ex parte reviews also had reduced churning (OR, .83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.85). The average duration varied widely by state, even after adjustments for demographic and state policy factors.Conclusions and relevanceIf state Medicaid programs revert to prepandemic policies after the temporary moratorium ends, Medicaid coverage, particularly for nondisabled, nonelderly adults, is likely to become less stable again. Medicaid expansions are associated with improved continuity, but ex parte review may have a more complex role.

Project description:Background and objectiveTo characterize health care use and costs among new Medicaid enrollees before and during the COVID pandemic. Results can help Medicaid non-expansion states understand health care use and costs of new enrollees in a period of enrollment growth.Research designRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of North Carolina Medicaid claims data (January 1, 2018 - August 31, 2020). We used modified Poisson and ordinary least squares regression analysis to estimate health care use and costs as a function of personal characteristics and enrollment during COVID. Using data on existing enrollees before and during COVID, we projected the extent to which changes in outcomes among new enrollees during COVID were pandemic-related.Subjects340,782 new enrollees pre-COVID (January 2018 - December 2019) and 56,428 new enrollees during COVID (March 2020 - June 2020).MeasuresWe observed new enrollees for 60-days after enrollment to identify emergency department (ED) visits, nonemergent ED visits, primary care visits, potentially-avoidable hospitalizations, dental visits, and health care costs.ResultsNew Medicaid enrollees during COVID were less likely to have an ED visit (-46 % [95 % CI: -48 %, -43 %]), nonemergent ED visit (-52 % [95 % CI: -56 %, -48 %]), potentially-avoidable hospitalization (-52 % [95 % CI: -60 %, -43 %]), primary care visit (-34 % [95 % CI: -36 %, -33 %]), or dental visit (-36 % [95 % CI: -41 %, -30 %]). They were also less likely to incur any health care costs (-29 % [95 % CI: -30 %, -28 %]), and their total costs were 8 % lower [95 % CI: -12 %, -4 %]. Depending on the outcome, COVID explained between 34 % and 100 % of these reductions.ConclusionsNew Medicaid enrollees during COVID used significantly less care than new enrollees pre-COVID. Most of the reduction stems from pandemic-related changes in supply and demand, but the profile of new enrollees before versus during COVID also differed.

Project description:Research objectiveTo explore whether expanded Medicaid helps mitigate the relationship between unemployment due to COVID and being uninsured. Unanticipated unemployment spells are generally associated with disruptions in health insurance coverage, which could also be the case for job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanded access to Medicaid may insulate some households from long uninsurance gaps due to job loss.Data sourcePhase 1 of the Census Bureau's Experimental Household Pulse Survey covering April 23, 2020-July 21, 2020.Study designWe compare differences in health insurance coverage source and status linked to recent lob losses attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic in states that expanded Medicaid against states that did not expand Medicaid.Data collection/extraction methodsOur analytical dataset was limited to 733,181 non-elderly adults aged 20-64.Principal findingsTwenty-six percent of our study sample experienced an income loss between March 13, 2020, and the time leading up to the survey-16% experienced job losses (e.g., layoff, furlough) due to the COVID-19 crisis, and 11% had other reasons they were not working. COVID-linked job losses were associated with a 20 (p < 0.01) percentage-point (PPT) lower likelihood of having employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI). Relative to persons in states that did not expand Medicaid, persons in Medicaid expansion states experiencing COVID-linked job losses were 9 PPT (p < 0.01) more likely to report having Medicaid and 7 PPT (p < 0.01) less likely to be uninsured. The largest increases in Medicaid enrollment were among people who, based on their 2019 incomes, would not have qualified for Medicaid previously.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that expanded Medicaid eligibility may allow households to stabilize health care needs and they should become detached from private health coverage due to job loss during the pandemic. Households negatively affected by the pandemic are using Medicaid to insure themselves against the potential health risks they would incur while being unemployed.

Dataset Information

Variation in Procedural Denials of Medicaid Eligibility Across States Before the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Publications

Variation in Procedural Denials of Medicaid Eligibility Across States Before the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets