Medicaid Plans Research Articles

Prevalence and Incidence of Primary Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia and Cold Agglutinin Disease in the United States, 2016-2022: A Retrospective Study in Administrative Claims

Background Autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) is a decompensated acquired hemolysis caused by autoantibodies that act against red blood cells leading to anemia. Cold agglutinin disease (CAD) is a rare subtype of AIHA mediated by classical complement pathway activation, characterized by chronic hemolysis, severe anemia, fatigue, weakness, dizziness, and circulatory problems. The aim of this study was to update the epidemiology of AIHA and CAD in the United States using administrative claims data that includes commercially insured patients, as well as those with Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee for Service (FFS) and Managed Medicaid plans. Methods Administrative closed claims from Optum CDM database (commercially insured single-payer and Medicare Advantage), Inovalon MORE 2 Registry (commercially insured multi-payer, Medicare Advantage, and Managed Medicaid), and 100% Medicare FFS (Part A/B services) data were used for this analysis. AIHA cases were defined as patients with at least 2 claims with ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes for AIHA (283.0, D59.1, D59.10, D59.11, D59.12, D59.13, D59.19) at least 30 days apart. CAD cases were defined as patients with at least 2 claims with ICD-10 diagnosis codes for CAD (D59.12) or at least 1 claim with diagnosis code for AIHA followed by 1 claim with diagnosis code for CAD (D59.12) at least 30 days apart. Index date was assigned to the first observed claims with the AIHA/CAD diagnosis. Analyses included patients 18 years of age and above with at least 180 days of continuous enrollment in their health plan prior to index for the assessment of the exclusion criteria. Patients with secondary causes of AIHA/CAD (e.g., lymphoma, leukemia, myeloma, cytomegalovirus, or Epstein-Barr virus) were excluded. US census data from years 2016-2021 was used to standardize the incidence and prevalence estimates by age and sex. Point prevalence was calculated as of January 1 st of each year using an all-data lookback. Period prevalence was calculated using a one calendar year assessment period. Incidence estimated new cases in a given year among patients with no prior evidence of AIHA in all data lookback. For CAD, estimates were presented for years 2022/23 due to the recency of the ICD-10 code specific to CAD (active as of 1 October 2020). Results Age and sex standardized point prevalence of AIHA per 1,000,000 persons was approximately 210 in the Medicare FFS across years 2016-2021, 160 in the Optum claims across years 2016-2022, and 50 in the MORE 2 database across years 2016-2022. One-year prevalence per 1,000,000 persons was approximately 190 in the Medicare FFS, 70 in the Optum claims, and 50 in the MORE 2 database across study years. Incidence per 1,000,000 was 50-60 in the Medicare FFS, 20-30 in the Optum claims, and 15 in the MORE 2 database. While overall standardized estimates differed across databases, incidence and prevalence estimates were similar when stratified by age group, indicating that standardization did not fully account for the underlying differences in the composition and representativeness of the overall US population in the three databases. Incidence and prevalence were higher among females than males and increased with age as expected. Incidence per 1,000,000 for year 2021 ranged from roughly 10-80 among those under the age of 45 years to 30-80 among those over the age of 65 years across the three databases. Point prevalence per 1,000,000 for year 2021 had a broader range from 30 to 220 among those under the age of 45 years and from 120 to 360 among those over the age of 65 years. The standardized point prevalence per 1,000,000 for CAD was 31 in Optum claims (year 2023), 33 in Medicare FFS (year 2021), and 14 in MORE 2 (year 2021). Prevalence of CAD was higher among females and increased with age. Conclusion This multi-database analysis provides updated epidemiology estimates for AIHA and CAD in the US. Age and sex standardized point prevalence for AIHA ranged from 60 to 210 per 1,000,000 across the 3 databases, with higher prevalence in the Medicare FFS database which primarily captures population over the age of 65 and was lower in the two databases that capture younger age groups, such as Managed Medicaid and commercially insured populations. Similarly, incidence of AIHA ranged from 15 to 60 per 1,000,000. Point prevalence of CAD ranged from 14 to 33 per 1,000,000. These estimates are in line with those previously reported for North America and Western Europe.

Assessing out-of-pocket cost differences in treatment for Medicare-eligible patients with favorable prognosis early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

15 Background: In the treatment of favorable Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), Level 1 evidence comparing combined modality therapy (CMT) with chemotherapy alone has persistently demonstrated that obviating radiation therapy (RT) worsens recurrence rates despite no significant overall survival difference. As there remains limited evidence on the granularity of the impact of insurance on HL treatment, this project disaggregates costs by insurance plans to enhance the transparency of out-of-pocket (OOP) cost estimations in Medicaid and/or Medicare-eligible (age 65+) patients. Methods: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were queried to assess the appropriate therapy for HL. Following initial adriamycin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy x 2 cycles with Deauville 1-2 response on PET scan, CMT was defined as involved site RT (20 Gy / 10 fractions), while chemotherapy alone was defined as an additional ABVD x 2. Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes identified treatments. OOP expenditures, deductibles, and copay/coinsurance were computed for Medicaid, Original Medicare, and Medigap Plan G plans via medicare.gov, medicaid.oh.gov, and cms.gov. Price estimates (from actual prices per insurance plan rather than claims data predictions) assume an Ohio hospital location (zip code = 44106) for all treatments. Total costs were calculated based on all treatments plus a 5-year follow-up (not adjusted for inflation). Treatment charges for chemotherapy alone include initial medical oncology office visit, cost of ABVD x 4, and infusion costs for 4 cycles. Additional treatment charges for CMT include initial radiation oncology consultation, treatment planning, dosimetry calculations, treatment device, simulation and verification, RT delivery, on-treatment visits, medical physics consultation, and annual TSH labs. Results: With Original Medicare plans, patients are faced with an OOP cost of 20% for Medicare Part B claims with no cost cap for approved procedures after the deductible. As such, patients are faced with a total 6-year charge of $1,928.95 for chemotherapy alone, and $2,385.28 for CMT. Under Medigap Plan G, patients encounter an OOP charge of $1,151.14 for chemotherapy alone and $1,176.34 for CMT. Medicaid beneficiaries (assuming all treatments are approved by Medicaid) face no OOP expenses for both treatment plans, as all expenses are covered without limit. Conclusions: By comparing OOP costs between Medicare and Medicaid plans, this model improves cost transparency in the treatment of favorable early-stage HL. Our findings indicate that omitting RT in favor of chemotherapy alone yields a cost savings of 2-24% at a 5-year follow-up. Further studies are required to assess whether these savings compensate for the inferior outcomes achieved by omitting RT in this patient population.

Payor-driven denials and delays for cancer-related supportive care medications.

78 Background: Prior authorization (PA) requires providers to obtain payor pre-approval for a prescribed treatment in order for it to be covered financially. While PA can be used to ensure adherence to evidence-based guidelines and to contain payor costs, it often results in delayed or denied care, which is problematic for patients with cancer who are seeking urgent management of symptoms. This analysis sought to describe PA-related denials and delays for supportive care medications among patients with cancer. Methods: All outpatient prescriptions at an urban comprehensive cancer center requiring PA from 2021-2022 were reviewed to characterize PA for supportive care medications. Prescriptions included long-acting opioids (buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone); non-opioid analgesics (duloxetine, pregabalin); and anti-emetics (aprepitant, dronabinol, granisetron, ondansetron, scopolamine). Prescription-level outcomes included decision status (approval vs. denial) and days to insurance decision. Bivariate analyses identified variations in PA denials by drug class and payor type. Among a subset of PA approvals for which data were available, we conducted bivariate analyses to evaluate associations of payor type and drug class with length of delay. Results: In the analysis period, 3304 supportive care medication prescriptions required PA: 2489 (75%) long-acting opioids; 131 (4%) non-opioid analgesics; 684 (21%) anti-emetics. Of these, 246 (8%) prescriptions were denied by the payor. The proportion of denied PAs for non-opioid analgesics (n=17; 13%) was greater than the proportion for opioids (n=182; 7%) and anti-emetics (n=17; 2%: χ2=6.5, df=2, p=.04). The proportion of denials among Medicare beneficiaries was greater than the proportion of denials among patients with private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage plans (χ2=12.6, df=3, p=.006). Among denials, length from prescription entry to PA final denial ranged from 0-78 days (median=2.0), with no variation by payor type (F=0.85, p=.47). Among approved prescriptions with available data (n=851), 349 (41%) had same-day approval, with delays ranging from 1-54 days (median=2.0). Medicaid patients faced longer delays than patients from other payors (F=4.98, p=.002), with no difference in length of delay by drug class. Conclusions: The acute burden of cancer-related pain and nausea requires immediate mitigation, often with medication. PA can have a negative impact on the medication management of cancer-related pain and nausea: over one-half of supportive care medications had a ≥1 day delay, and 8% were denied altogether. Denials, or even brief delays, of provider-prescribed medication to ease symptom burden may lead to downstream increases in patient morbidity and payor costs, including symptom-related emergency room visits and hospitalization. Urgent efforts to reform PA are needed.

Variation in Medicaid and commercial coverage of cell and gene therapies

Growth in the availability of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) promises significant innovation in the treatment of serious diseases, but the high cost and one-time administration of CGTs has also raised concern about strain on health plan budgets and inequity in access. We used coverage information from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage (SPEC) database for 18 large commercial health plans in the US and information from state Medicaid websites to examine variation in coverage of 11 CGTs in August 2021. We found that US commercial and Medicaid health plans imposed restrictions in 53.5 % and 68.3 % of their coverage policies for the 11 included CGTs, respectively. In addition, we identified significant variation in access to CGTs across commercial plans and across Medicaid plans. Coverage restrictions for certain CGTs were more common than others; clinical requirements were often (but not always) consistent with the inclusion criteria for the clinical trial central to the drug’s approval. We conclude that there is variation in access to CGTs, creating differential patient access.

Comparison of a second TNFi vs other biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD following an initial TNFi.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis may require treatment with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD). Often, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the initial b/tsDMARD. The TNFi may not be effective or may not be well tolerated, so patients will opt for a different TNFi or switch to a non-TNFi b/tsDMARD. No preference for a TNFi or non-TNFi has been established and guidelines are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness by comparing patients using a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi after initial use of TNFi based on treatment patterns and health care utilization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plan, Medicaid, and commercial plan claims data from Humana's Research Database (Louisville, KY). The first claim for TNFi or non-TNFi (July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018) following earlier TNFi was the index date. Patients were required to have pre-index enrollment of 6 months and 12 months post-index along with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or psoriasis. During the 12-month follow-up, persistence to the index TNFi or non-TNFi was measured as continued therapy without a gap exceeding 45 days (81 days for intravenous infusions). Adherence was proportion of days covered at least 0.8. Addition of a nonbiologic DMARD or corticosteroid was also identified. Inpatient admissions and emergency department visits were observed. Inverse probability of treatment weights was used to balance cohorts. Logistic regression models were fit to TNFi vs non-TNFI on treatment and utilization measures. RESULTS: Of identified patients, 1,022 were indexed to a second TNFi and 1,024 were indexed to non-TNFi. Weighted cohorts were balanced, with mean age 56.5 vs 56.4 years, 70.5% vs 70.7% female sex, and 68.0% vs 67.9% MAPD plan. No differences were observed on persistence or adherence, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.05 (95% CI = 0.91-1.20) and 1.04 (0.91-1.20), respectively. No differences were observed for changes in therapy via switching to another TNFi/non-TNFi (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.54-1.62), via nonbiologic DMARD addition (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.83-1.11), or corticosteroid addition (OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.92-1.88). No differences were observed for hospitalization (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.99-1.37) or emergency department visits (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.89-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found between a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi. As a result, choice of TNFi or non-TNFi following an initial TNFi may be driven by relevant patient-specific considerations. At the population level, policies that prefer either TNFi or non-TNFi appear reasonable. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Humana Inc. Mr Racsa is an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc. Drs Asante and Bloomfield are employees of Humana Inc. Dr Schwab was an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc., and is now an employee of RTI Health Solutions. Dr Cornett was an employee of Humana Inc. and is now an employee of ImmunoGen Inc.

Insurance Plan Coverage Modeling of the Marginal Costs from One Week vs. Three Week Radiation Therapy in Standard-Of-Care Treatment of Post-Lumpectomy Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans

For early-stage breast cancer (BC), the choice of radiation therapy (RT) duration (1- versus 3-weeks) is highly debated. Cost and financial toxicity are major concerns that BC patients face. Nonetheless, there remain limited discussions providing granular details of the role of insurance in the aggregate cost of 1 week versus 3 weeks of RT for patients. This project addresses this gap by disaggregating costs by insurance plan to increase transparency of out-of-pocket (OOP) cost estimates in RT. Surgical, medical, and radiation oncology treatment procedures were determined through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; codes were identified using Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System. OOP treatment costs, deductibles, and copay/coinsurance were calculated in accordance with insurance type, including Medicaid, Original Medicare, and Medigap Plan G. The medicare.gov, medicaid.oh.gov, and the physician fee schedule from cms.gov were used to determine pricing. Price estimates reflect actual costs per insurance plan rather than costs estimated from claims data. All procedures were considered to be performed in an Ohio hospital setting. One-week RT was defined as 5 fractions without boost, and 3-week RT was defined as 15 fractions without boost. Treatment charges for RT included initial radiation oncology office consultation and subsequent radiation oncology clinical treatment planning notes, complex 3D treatment plan, dosimetry calculations, complex treatment device design and construction, complex treatment planning simulation, simple verification treatment simulation, complex RT delivery, port verification films, on-treatment visits with radiation oncology, and continuing medical physics consultation. Original Medicare beneficiaries face an OOP cost of 20% for every Medicare Part B charge with no cost cap for all approved procedures after the deductible is met, resulting in a marginal OOP treatment charge of $649.24 for 1 week and $1006.20 for 3 weeks of RT. Assuming the deductible is met post-lumpectomy, Medigap Plan G beneficiaries are faced with no additional charges for both lengths of radiation treatment. Similarly, for Medicaid beneficiaries (assuming all treatments approved by Medicaid), all expenses are covered without limit, resulting in no OOP expense. Considerations of 1 week and 3 weeks of RT for post-lumpectomy early-stage BC are often dependent on cancer characteristic and patient preferences. This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data) compares OOP costs across Medicaid and Medicare plans, which more holistically informs patients in their decision for choice of treatment.

Association of Managed Medicaid Plans and Cancer Stage at Diagnosis

Managed care organizations provide insurance to many Medicare (Advantage) and Medicaid beneficiaries and seek to maintain quality while controlling provider networks, utilization, and costs. In prior research, patients with Medicare Advantage plans had restricted access to care, including at cancer centers, and had higher mortality after cancer surgery than patients with traditional Medicare. Over 80% of Medicaid patients nationally are enrolled in managed care plans; despite their prevalence, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the quality of cancer care provided by these plans. We examined associations of state-level managed Medicaid rates and cancer stage at diagnosis. Adults ages 18-64 years with Medicaid coverage diagnosed with cancer from 2007-2016 were identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program data covering 12 states. Note that 2016 was the last year with unsuppressed insurance status data. Year-varying state-level rates of types of managed Medicaid plans (comprehensive risk-based managed care, limited benefit plans, and primary care case management) were obtained from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission and categorized in quartiles. The association of state levels of each type of managed Medicaid plan with localized stage diagnoses was evaluated using multivariable linear probability models with cluster-robust standard errors (state clusters) accounting for state fixed effects, year fixed effects, age, sex, race, metropolitan residence, marital status, county-level income and education, state Medicaid expansion status, and cancer type. A total of 229,227 Medicaid patients were identified. The average state-level rates of comprehensive managed care, limited benefit, and primary care case management plans were 47%, 47%, and 5.6%, respectively. In adjusted analyses, relative to states with <20% of Medicaid recipients enrolled in comprehensive managed care plans, states with 40-80% (-2.07 percentage points, 95% CI = -3.31 to -0.83, P = .001) and >80% (-1.49, 95% CI = -2.49 to -0.50, P = .003) had fewer localized stage diagnoses. States with >2% relative to 0-1% of recipients enrolled in primary care case management plans had more localized stage diagnoses (1.02, 95% CI = 0.27 to 1.77, P = .008). States with higher levels of limited benefit plans had more localized stage diagnoses (P = .011), though associations were attenuated with increasing levels (20-40%: 1.22; 40-80%: 0.53; >80%: 0.40). Patterns were similar across most cancer types. The prevalence and type of Medicaid managed care plans are associated with early-stage cancer diagnoses. Higher levels of comprehensive managed care plans were associated with fewer early diagnoses, raising concerns about barriers to symptom evaluation and diagnostic workup. In contrast, higher levels of primary care case management plans were associated with more early diagnoses, potentially through streamlined care coordination.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Duration in Standard-of-Care Early Stage Breast Cancer Treatment Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans

For early-stage breast cancer (BC), the choice of radiotherapy duration (1- versus 3-weeks) is highly debated. Cost and financial toxicity are major concerns that BC patients face. Nonetheless, there remain limited discussions providing granular details of the role of insurance in the aggregate cost of 1 week versus 3 weeks of radiotherapy for patients. This project aims to disaggregate costs by plan to increase transparency of out-of-pocket (OOP) cost estimates in radiotherapy. Treatment procedures were determined through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. OOP treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance were calculated by utilizing Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The medicare.gov, medicaid.oh.gov, aarpmedicareplans.com, and the physician fee schedule from cms.gov were used to determine costs by treatment. Price estimates reflect actual costs per insurance plan rather than costs estimated from claims data. All procedures were considered to be performed in an Ohio hospital setting. One-week radiotherapy was defined as 5 fractions without boost, and 3-week radiotherapy was defined as 15 fractions without boost. Medicare beneficiaries with Original Medicare coverage face an OOP treatment charge of $649.24 for one-week radiotherapy and $1006.20 for three-weeks of radiotherapy. Assuming the deductible is met post-lumpectomy, Medigap Plan G beneficiaries are faced with no additional charges for both lengths of radiotherapy. Similarly, for Medicaid beneficiaries (assuming treatment is approved by Medicaid), all expenses are covered without limit, resulting in no OOP expense. Considerations of one- and three-weeks of radiotherapy for post-lumpectomy early-stage BC are often dependent on cancer characteristics and patient preferences. This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data) compares OOP costs across Medicaid and Medicare plans, which more holistically informs providers and patients in radiotherapy duration decision-making.

Evaluating Telehealth Uptake Among North Carolina Medicaid Beneficiaries With Musculoskeletal Conditions: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The shift from in-person to virtual visits, known as telehealth (TH), during the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant change for North Carolina (NC) Medicaid beneficiaries seeking treatment for musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, as remote care for these conditions was previously unavailable. We used this policy change to investigate factors associated with TH uptake and whether TH availability mitigated disparities in access to care or affected emergency department (ED) visits among these beneficiaries. Using 2019-2021 NC Medicaid claims, we identified beneficiaries receiving treatment for MSK conditions before COVID-19 (March 2019-February 2020) and analyzed uptake of newly available TH during COVID-19 (April 2020-March 2021). We used descriptive analysis and Poisson generalized estimating equations to quantify TH uptake, factors associated with TH uptake, and the association with ED visits during COVID-19. Black and Hispanic beneficiaries were less likely to use TH compared with White and non-Hispanic counterparts (10%, P <0.001 and 20%, P =0.03, respectively). Adults eligible for Tailored Plans, specialized NC Medicaid plans for those with significant behavioral health needs or intellectual/developmental disabilities, were less likely to use TH [adjusted risk ratio (ARR):0.83, 95% CI (0.78, 0.87)]; youth eligible for Tailored Plans were more likely to use TH [ARR:1.28, 95% CI (1.16, 1.42)]. Lower county-level internet access was associated with lower TH use [ARR: 0.85, 95% CI (0.82, 0.99)]. No statistical difference in ED utilization was observed between TH users and non-users. TH has the potential to deliver convenient care to beneficiaries with MSK conditions who can access it. Further research and policy changes should explore and address underlying factors driving disparities and improve equitable access to care for this population.

Accessibility to Obstetric Care in South Florida Based on Insurance: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction Obstetrical research confirms that earlier onset prenatal care significantly improves pregnancy and birth outcomes. Initiating care in the second trimester or having less than 50% of recommended visits has been associated with an increased risk of prematurity, stillbirth, neonatal, and infant death. Studies have shown that women on public health insurance plans initiate prenatal care substantially later into pregnancy than those on private plans. The purpose of this study is to assess whether public health insurance limits Florida patients' access to obstetric care. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted by collecting data on the four most populated zip codes for Medicaid in South Florida using HealthGrades.com. The following search parameters were used: "obstetric care", "four stars and up" and "10-mile distance". Each obstetrician was called three times to assess appointment availability for fictional nulliparous women at eight weeks of gestation requesting prenatal care. Accepted insurance types (Medicaid, Cigna, and United Health Group (UHG)), time to an appointment in business days, and self-pay rates were recorded. Practices with invalid contact information and retired obstetricians were excluded. Summary statistics, chi-squared analysis, and a two-way t-test were conducted for the primary outcome. Results Seventy-one out of 178 obstetricians were successfully contacted, of which 31 physicians accepted all three insurances, and 40 physicians did not accept at least one insurance. Of those, 97.2% acceptedUnitedHealthcare, 98.6% accepted Cigna, and 45.1% accepted Medicaid. There was a statistically significant difference when comparing acceptance rates between UHC and Medicaid as well as Cigna and Medicaid (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in acceptance rates in the direct comparison of the two private insurances, Cigna and UnitedHealthcare (p=0.559). The average number of days until the next available appointment was 12.7 (SD= 7.2) for UnitedHealthcare, 20.0 (SD=6.7) for Cigna, and 17.0 (SD=8.6) for Medicaid. There was a statistically significant trend between the type of insurance and the time to the earliest appointment (p=0.002). Conclusion This study demonstrated patients enrolled in Medicaid in South Florida have significantly less access to prenatal care than those with private insurance. This evidence shows that decreased access to care from Medicaid plans can possibly increase the risk of adverse outcomes associated with inadequate prenatal care. This information should be considered by policymakers when considering future Medicaid expansion.

Factors associated with the implementation of a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefit among California Medicaid managed care plans

AbstractAlthough tobacco control efforts have been successful at reducing the rate of tobacco use in the general population, rates of use among low‐income populations persist. As a leader in tobacco control efforts, the U.S. state of California recently issued regulations regarding comprehensive tobacco cessation service requirements for state Medicaid plans (i.e., Medi‐Cal MCPs) providing health care to low‐income Californians. This research aims to evaluate the potential factors associated with the adoption of a comprehensive tobacco control program among Medi‐Cal's MCPs. In 2018, UC San Diego researchers distributed a survey to a listserv of 25 Medi‐Cal MCP health educators, for a response rate of 96%. The survey was comprised of questions related to All Plan Letter (APL) implementation of tobacco cessation services and policies. Health educators were also recruited to participate in a semi‐structured interview upon survey completion. Two years postrelease of the APL, Medi‐Cal's MCPs demonstrate low implementation of tobacco cessation services and related policies, with only one MCP (5%) fully implementing all 10 core provisions. Five consistent patterns were identified as being associated with implementation: larger MCP enrollment and staffing, lower median household income, noncapitated provider payment, participation in county tobacco control meetings, and high‐quality scores for preventive care and treatment of chronic disease. Small‐sized MCPs have been slow in fully implementing tobacco cessation services. State policymakers and tobacco control stakeholders may consider providing support to small‐sized MCPs to aid in their continued adoption of comprehensive tobacco cessation services. DHCS should also consider releasing guidance on how to engage in activities to ensure APL compliance.

Access to care following Planned Parenthood’s termination from Texas’ Medicaid network: A qualitative study

ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore Planned Parenthood Medicaid patients’ experiences getting reproductive health care in Texas after the state terminated Planned Parenthood providers from its Medicaid program in 2021. Study designBetween January and September 2021, we recruited Medicaid patients who obtained care at Planned Parenthood health centers prior to the state termination using direct mailers, electronic messages, community outreach, and flyers in health centers. We conducted baseline and 2-month follow-up semistructured phone interviews about patients’ previous experiences using Medicaid at Planned Parenthood and other providers and how the termination affected their care. We qualitatively analyzed the data using the principles of grounded theory. ResultsWe interviewed 30 patients, 24 of whom completed follow-up interviews. Participants reported that Planned Parenthood reliably accepted different Medicaid plans, worked with patients to ameliorate the structural barriers they face to care, and referred them to other providers as needed. After Planned Parenthood’s termination from the Texas Medicaid program, participants faced difficulties accessing care elsewhere, including same-day appointments and on-site medications. Consequences included delayed or forgone reproductive health care, including contraception, and emotional distress. ConclusionsPlanned Parenthood Medicaid patients found it difficult to connect with other providers for reproductive health care and to obtain evidence-based care following the organization’s termination from Medicaid. Ensuring all Medicaid patients have freedom to choose providers would improve access to quality contraception and other reproductive health care. ImplicationsMedicaid-funded reproductive health care access is restricted for people living on low incomes when providers do not reliably accept all Medicaid plans or cannot participate in Medicaid. This situation can lead to lower quality care, delayed or forgone care, and emotional distress.

Pneumococcal vaccination coverage among US adults enrolled in Medicaid and newly diagnosed with underlying medical conditions

ABSTRACTBackgroundAdults with chronic or immunocompromising conditions have an elevated risk of invasive pneumococcal disease, yet their pneumococcal vaccination rates remain low.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used the IBM MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid database to examine pneumococcal vaccination uptake among adults 19–64 years of age with underlying conditions. Gompertz accelerated failure time model was used to examine factors associated with vaccination.ResultsIn the study population of 108,159 adults, the vaccination rate was 4.1% after 1 year of follow-up and 19.4% after 10 years. The mean time from initial diagnosis to vaccination was 3.9 years. Adults aged 35–49 and 50–64 years (relative to 19–34) or those receiving an influenza vaccination were more likely to receive a pneumococcal vaccination. Adults with HIV/AIDS were more likely, while adults with chronic heart or lung disease, alcohol or tobacco dependence, or cancer were less likely to be vaccinated than adults with diabetes mellitus. Adults diagnosed by specialists were less likely to be vaccinated than those diagnosed by primary care providers.ConclusionsThe rates of pneumococcal vaccination among adults with Medicaid plans and underlying conditions were well under Healthy People Initiative targets. Insights into factors associated with vaccination can inform efforts to improve vaccination rates among this population.

Addressing the Maternal Mental Health Crisis Through a Novel Tech-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Driven Perinatal Collaborative Care Model

Addressing the Maternal Mental Health Crisis Through a Novel Tech-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Driven Perinatal Collaborative Care Model

Choosing Hospice is Not Giving Up

Choosing Hospice is Not Giving Up

Thematic Analysis of State Medicaid Buprenorphine Prior Authorization Requirements

Prior authorization (PA) requirements for buprenorphine are associated with lower provision of the medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). While Medicare plans have eliminated PA requirements for buprenorphine, many Medicaid plans continue to require them. To describe and classify buprenorphine coverage requirements based on thematic analysis of state Medicaid PA forms. This qualitative study used a thematic analysis of 50 states' Medicaid PA forms for buprenorphine between November 2020 and March 2021. Forms were obtained from the jurisdiction's Medicaid websites and assessed for features suggesting barriers to buprenorphine access. A coding tool was developed based on a review of a sample of forms, including fields for behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, drug screening requirements, and dosage limitations. Outcomes included PA requirements for different buprenorphine formulations. Additionally, PA forms were evaluated for various criteria such as behavioral health, drug screenings, dose-related recommendations or mandates or patient education. Among the total of 50 US states in the analysis, most states' Medicaid plans required PA for at least 1 formulation of buprenorphine. However, the majority did not require a PA for buprenorphine-naloxone. Four key themes of coverage requirements were identified: restrictive surveillance (eg, requirements for urine drug screenings, random drug screenings, pill counts), behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates (eg, mandatory counseling or 12-step meeting attendance), interfering with or restricting medical decision-making (eg, maximum daily dosages of 16 mg, requiring additional steps for dosages higher than 16 mg), and patient education (eg, information about adverse effects and interactions with other medications). Eleven states (22%) required urine drug screenings, 6 states (12%) required random urine drug screenings, and 4 states (8%) required pill counts. Fourteen states' forms (28%) recommended therapy, and 7 (14%) required therapy, counseling, or participation in group sessions. Eighteen states (36%) specified dosage maximums; among them, 11 (22%) required additional steps for a daily dosage higher than 16 mg. In this qualitative study of state Medicaid PA requirements for buprenorphine, themes were identified that included patient surveillance with drug screenings and pill counts, behavioral health treatment recommendations or mandates, patient education, and dosing guidance. These results suggest that state Medicaid plans' buprenorphine PA requirements for OUD are in conflict with existing evidence and may negatively affect states' efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Assessing the marginal costs of radiation therapy and antiestrogen therapy for post-lumpectomy, early-stage breast cancer across Medicaid and Medicare plans.

529 Background: With recent Level I evidence (FAST FORWARD) supporting radiation therapy (RT) duration as short as one week and Level I evidence (CALGB9343) supporting RT omission in favor of antiestrogen endocrine therapy (ET) alone in select patients, the necessity of both RT and ET, adjuvantly, in early-stage breast cancer (BC) has been questioned. Evidence providing granular details on the role of insurance in the aggregate cost of RT and ET is lacking. This project disaggregates costs by insurance plan to increase transparency of out-of-pocket (OOP) cost estimates. Methods: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were utilized to determine the proper treatments, with FAST FORWARD radiation dose/fractionation (26 Gy in 5 fractions) representing RT. Treatments were identified using Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. OOP costs, deductibles, and copay/coinsurance were calculated for Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx. The medicare.gov, medicaid.oh.gov, aarpmedicareplans.com, and cms.gov were used to determine pricing. Price estimates reflect actual costs per insurance plan rather than costs estimated from claims data. All procedures were considered to be performed in an Ohio hospital setting, insurance coverages were based on the zip code 44106, and total expenses were based on all treatments plus a 5-year follow-up (not adjusted for inflation). Results: Treatment charges for ET include medical oncology initial consultation, biannual medical oncology follow-up, baseline bone density study, and Anastrozole cost (5-years). Treatment charges for RT include initial consultation, treatment planning, dosimetry calculations, treatment device, simulation and verification, RT delivery, on-treatment visits, and medical physics consultation. Original Medicare beneficiaries face an OOP cost of 20% for Medicare Part B claims with no cost cap for approved procedures after the deductible. Medications are covered under Medicare Part D with copays. This results in a marginal OOP treatment charge (after 5-year follow-up) of $767.54 for ET alone and $1,416.78 for ET + RT. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries face a marginal OOP charge of $1,225 for both ET alone and ET + RT, assuming the $226 Medicare Plan B deductible is met by the cost of lumpectomy during the year of RT. For Medicaid beneficiaries (assuming all treatments are approved by Medicaid), all expenses are covered without limit, resulting in no OOP expense for either treatment plan. Conclusions: Discussions of adding RT to ET for post-lumpectomy early-stage BC often involves considerations of treatment costs. This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data) can help to enhance cost transparency by comparing expenses between Medicare and Medicaid plans.

HPR19 Variation in Medicaid and Commercial Coverage of Cell and Gene Therapies

Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) are potentially curative treatments for a growing array of diseases. CGTs pose a particular challenge to health care payers due to their one-time administration, high costs and uncertain long-term benefits. Most patients who are eligible for CGTs are covered by Medicaid or Commercial health plans. In this study we assessed variation in Medicaid and Commercial coverage for 11 CGTs.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance among Individuals with Cirrhosis: Trends by Payer, Etiology, and Calendar Year, from a Statewide, Multi-Payer Dataset, 2010-2018.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is underutilized, with <25% of individuals with cirrhosis receiving surveillance exams as recommended. The epidemiology of cirrhosis and HCC in the United States has also shifted in recent years, but little is known about recent trends in surveillance utilization. We characterized patterns of HCC surveillance by payer, cirrhosis etiology, and calendar year in insured individuals with cirrhosis. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals with cirrhosis using claims data from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance plans in North Carolina. We included individuals ≥ 18 years with a first occurrence of an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2018. The outcome was HCC surveillance by abdominal ultrasound, CT, or MRI. We estimated 1- and 2-year cumulative incidences for HCC surveillance and assessed longitudinal adherence to surveillance by computing the proportion of time covered (PTC). Among 46,052 individuals, 71% were enrolled through Medicare, 15% through Medicaid, and 14% through private insurance. The overall 1-year cumulative incidence of HCC surveillance was 49% and the 2-year cumulative incidence was 55%. For those with an initial screen in the first 6 months of their cirrhosis diagnosis, the median 2-year PTC was 67% (Q1, 38%; Q3, 100%). HCC surveillance initiation after cirrhosis diagnosis remains low, though it has improved slightly over time, particularly among individuals with Medicaid. This study provides insight into recent trends in HCC surveillance and highlights areas to target for future interventions, particularly among patients with nonviral etiologies.

Psychotropic Medication Prescribing: Youth in Foster Care Compared with Other Medicaid Enrollees.

Objective: To compare the prevalence of psychotropic medication prescriptions among youth in foster care with those among nonfoster youth on Medicaid. Methods: Children ages 1-18 years in a region of a large southern state who were enrolled in their respective Medicaid plan for at least 30 days between 2014 and 2016 and had at least one health care claim were included. Medicaid prescription claims were categorized by class: alpha agonists, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and stimulants. Primary mental health (MH) or developmental disorder (DD) diagnostic groups were identified for each class. Analyses included chi-square tests, t-tests, Wilcoxon sign rank tests, and logistic regression. Results: A total of 388,914 nonfoster and 8426 children in foster care were included. Overall, 8% of nonfoster and 35% of foster youth were dispensed at least one prescription for a psychotropic medication. Prevalence was higher for youth in care within each drug class and, with one exception, across all age groups. Among children prescribed a psychotropic medication, the mean number of drug classes prescribed was 1.4 (SD 0.8) and 2.9 (SD 1.4) for nonfoster and foster youth, respectively (p < 0.000). Except for anxiolytics and mood stabilizers, more children in foster care were prescribed psychotropic medications without an MH or DD diagnosis. Finally, children in foster care experienced 6.8 (95% CI: 6.5-7.2) times higher odds of being prescribed a psychotropic medication than their nonfoster peers, after controlling for age group, gender, and number of mental and developmental diagnoses. Conclusions: Across all age groups, children in foster care on Medicaid were prescribed psychotropic medications disproportionately more than their nonfoster peers on Medicaid. In addition, children in foster care were significantly more likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication absent an MH or DD diagnosis.