Dataset Information

Medicare Payment for Opioid Treatment Programs.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Medicare began paying for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that dispense methadone and other MOUD in January 2020. There has been little research describing the response to this payment change and whether it resulted in more patients receiving MOUD or just a shift in who pays for this care.

Objective

To describe how many and which Medicare beneficiaries receive care from OTPs and how this compares to those receiving MOUD in other settings.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study included all patients receiving MOUD care identified in 2019-2022 100% US Medicare Parts B and D claims. Patients receiving care in an OTP who were dually insured with Medicare and Medicaid in the 2019-2020 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System were also included.

Exposure

Receiving MOUD care in an OTP.

Main outcomes and measures

Comparisons of 2022 beneficiaries treated in OTPs vs other non-OTP settings in 2022.

Results

The share of Medicare beneficiaries treated by OTPs rose steadily from 4 per 10 000 (14 160 beneficiaries) in January 2020 to 7 per 10 000 (25 596 beneficiaries) in August 2020, then plateaued through December 2022; of 38 870 patients (23% ≥66 years; 35% female) treated at an OTP in 2022, 96% received methadone. Patients in OTPs, compared to those receiving MOUD in other settings, were more likely be 65 years and younger (65% vs 62%; P < .001), less likely to be White (72% vs 82%; P < .001), and more likely to be an urban resident (86% vs 74%; P < .001). When Medicare OTP coverage began, there was no associated drop in the number of dually insured patients with Medicaid with an OTP claim. Of the 1854 OTPs, 1115 (60%) billed Medicare in 2022, with the share billing Medicare ranging from 13% to 100% across states.

Conclusions and relevance

This study showed that since the initiation of Medicare OTP coverage in 2020, there has been a rapid increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries with claims for OTP services for MOUD, and most OTPs have begun billing Medicare. Patients in OTPs were more likely to be urban residents and members of racial or ethnic minority groups than the patients receiving other forms of MOUD.

SUBMITTER: Nakamoto CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11259898 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Medicare Payment for Opioid Treatment Programs.

Nakamoto Carter H CH Huskamp Haiden A HA Donohue Julie M JM Barnett Michael L ML Gordon Adam J AJ Mehrotra Ateev A

JAMA health forum 20240705 7

<h4>Importance</h4>Medicare began paying for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) that dispense methadone and other MOUD in January 2020. There has been little research describing the response to this payment change and whether it resulted in more patients receiving MOUD or just a shift in who pays for this care.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe how many and which Medicare beneficiaries receive care from OTPs and how this compares to those receiving MOUD in ...[more]

PMID: 39028654

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA significant proportion of Medicare beneficiaries have a diagnosed opioid use disorder (OUD). Methadone and buprenorphine are both effective medications for the treatment of OUD (MOUDs); however, Medicare did not cover methadone until 2020.ObjectiveTo examine trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing among Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees after 2 policy changes in 2020 related to methadone access.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis of temporal trends in methadone and buprenorphine treatment dispensing assessed MA beneficiary claims from January 1, 2019, through March 31, 2022, captured by Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart. Of 9 870 791 MA enrollees included in the database, 39 252 had at least 1 claim for methadone, buprenorphine, or both during the study period. All available MA enrollees were included. Subanalyses by age and dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid status were conducted.ExposuresStudy exposures were (1) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare bundled payment reimbursement policy for OUD treatment and (2) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and CMS Medicare policies designed to facilitate access to treatment for OUD, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic.Main outcomes and measuresStudy outcomes were trends in methadone and buprenorphine dispensing by beneficiary characteristics. National methadone and buprenorphine dispensing rates were calculated as claims-based dispensing rates per 1000 MA enrollees.ResultsAmong the 39 252 MA enrollees with at least 1 MOUD dispensing claim (mean age, 58.6 [95% CI, 58.57-58.62] years; 45.9% female), 195 196 methadone claims and 540 564 buprenorphine pharmacy claims were identified, for a total of 735 760 dispensing claims. The methadone dispensing rate for MA enrollees was 0 in 2019 because the policy did not allow any payment until 2020. Claims rates per 1000 MA enrollees were low initially, increasing from 0.98 in the first quarter of 2020 to 4.71 in the first quarter of 2022. Increases were primarily associated with dually eligible beneficiaries and beneficiaries younger than 65 years. National buprenorphine dispensing rates were 4.64 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2019, increasing to 7.45 per 1000 enrollees in quarter 1 of 2022.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that methadone dispensing increased among Medicare beneficiaries after the policy changes. Rates of buprenorphine dispensing did not provide evidence that beneficiaries substituted buprenorphine for methadone. The 2 new CMS policies represent an important first step in increasing access to MOUD treatment for Medicare beneficiaries.

Project description:ImportanceVarious policy proposals would reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. However, it is unclear whether payment reductions would compromise beneficiary access to the MA program.ObjectiveTo quantify the association between MA payment reductions under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and MA enrollment growth.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study examined the MA market before and after the ACA, which mandated cuts to MA benchmark payment rates. Using 2008 to 2019 county-level enrollment and payment data, a difference-in-differences analysis was conducted comparing MA enrollment changes between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark reductions, before vs after the ACA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the MA enrollment rate, defined as the proportion of a county's Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA. A secondary analysis examined MA plan payments per member per month.ResultsAmong 3138 counties with 37 639 county-year observations, ACA-induced benchmark cuts were sizeable and varied, ranging from 0% to 42.9% (mean [SD], 5.9% [6.6%]). Counties with benchmark cuts above the 75th percentile had population-weighted average benchmark cuts of 14.9% compared with 4.4% in other counties. In the 8 years following the ACA, there was no differential change in MA enrollment between counties with larger vs smaller benchmark cuts (difference-in-differences estimate, 0.02 [95% CI, -1.18 to 1.21] percentage points; P = .98). Plan payments differentially fell in counties with larger benchmark cuts by $78.35 (95% CI, $62.21-$94.48) per member per month (P < .001).Conclusion and relevanceThis cohort study found no evidence that the MA benchmark and ensuing payment cuts imposed by the ACA were associated with reduced MA enrollment, compromising access to MA. This evidence can inform ongoing policy debates regarding the growth of MA, concerns about excess payments to MA plans, and proposed Medicare reforms, including further reductions in MA payments.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the relationship between evidence-based appropriateness criteria for neurologic imaging procedures and Medicare payment determinations. The primary research question is whether Medicare is more likely to pay for imaging procedures as the level of appropriateness increases.Data sourcesThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) for neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, CPT codes, and payment determinations by the Medicare Part B carrier for Florida and Connecticut.Study designCross-sectional study of appropriateness criteria and Medicare Part B payment policy for neurological imaging. In addition to descriptive and bivariate statistics, multivariate logistic regression on payment determination (yes or no) was performed.Data collection methodsThe American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) documents specific to neurological imaging, ICD-9-CM codes, and CPT codes were used to create 2,510 medical condition/imaging procedure combinations, with associated appropriateness scores (coded as low/middle/high).Principal findingsAs the level of appropriateness increased, more medical condition/imaging procedure combinations were payable (low = 61 percent, middle = 70 percent, and high = 74 percent). Logistic regression indicated that the odds of a medical condition/imaging procedure combination with a middle level of appropriateness being payable was 48 percent higher than for an otherwise similar combination with a low appropriateness score (95 percent CI on odds ratio=1.19-1.84). The odds ratio for being payable between high and low levels of appropriateness was 2.25 (95 percent CI: 1.66-3.04).ConclusionsMedicare could improve its payment determinations by taking advantage of existing clinical guidelines, appropriateness criteria, and other authoritative resources for evidence-based practice. Such an approach would give providers a financial incentive that is aligned with best-practice medicine. In particular, Medicare should review and update its payment policies to reflect current information on the appropriateness of alternative imaging procedures for the same medical condition.

Project description:ImportanceUS primary care physicians (PCPs) have lower mean incomes than specialists, likely contributing to workforce shortages. In 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services increased payment for evaluation and management (E/M) services and relaxed documentation requirements. These changes may have reduced the gap between primary care and specialist payment.ObjectivesTo simulate the effect of the E/M payment policy change on total Medicare physician payments while holding volume constant and to compare these simulated changes with observed changes in total Medicare payments and E/M coding intensity, before (July-December 2020) and after (July-December 2021) the E/M payment policy change.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective observational study of US office-based physicians who were in specialties with 5000 or more physicians billing Medicare and who had 50 or more fee-for-service Medicare visits before and after the E/M payment policy change.ExposuresE/M payment policy changes.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included physician-level simulated volume-constant payment change, total observed Medicare payment change, and share of high-intensity (ie, level 4 or 5) E/M visits before and after the E/M payment policy change. For each specialty, the median change in each outcome was reported. The payment gap between primary care and specialty physicians was calculated as the difference between total Medicare payments to the median primary care and median specialty physician.ResultsThe study population included 180 624 physicians. Repricing 2020 services yielded a simulated volume-constant payment change ranging from a 3.3% (-$4557.0) decrease for the median radiologist to an 11.0% ($3683.1) increase for the median family practice physician. After the E/M payment change, the median high-intensity share of E/M visits increased for physicians of nearly all specialties, ranging from a -4.4 percentage point increase (dermatology) to a 17.8 percentage point increase (psychiatry). The median change in total Medicare payments by specialty ranged from -4.2% (-$1782.9) for general surgery to 12.1% ($3746.9) for family practice. From July-December 2020 to July-December 2021, the payment gap between the median primary care physician and the median specialist shrank by $825.1, from $40 259.8 to $39 434.7 (primary care, $41 193.3 in July-December 2020 and $45 962.4 in July-December 2021; specialist, $81 453.1 in July-December 2020 and $85 397.1 in July-December 2021)-a relative decrease of 2.0%.Conclusions and relevanceAmong US office-based physicians receiving Medicare payments in 2020 and 2021, E/M payment policy changes were associated with changes in Medicare payment by specialty, although the payment gap between primary care physicians and specialists decreased only modestly. The findings may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and further research in subsequent years is needed.

Dataset Information

Medicare Payment for Opioid Treatment Programs.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposure

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Medicare Payment for Opioid Treatment Programs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets