Dimensions of Disadvantage: Normative and Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Public Insurance on Low-Income Children and Families

This dissertation considers some challenges to delivering effective and equitable health care to disadvantaged children and families in the United States. Chapter one examines whether expanded access to health insurance following the enactment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in 1997 reduced the prevalence of economic hardships (food insecurity, problems affording housing) and postponed medical care. In difference-in-differences analysis, I find that relative to a comparison group of families that missed the eligibility cutoffs, families that gained eligibility under CHIP did not experience changes in food or housing problems, but were significantly less likely to postpone medical care. These findings suggest that while public insurance for families with children likely improves access to care, it does not significantly reduce other forms of hardship. Chapter two provides an ethical argument for subsidizing health insurance for low income families – a central component of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). I argue subsidies are a vehicle for promoting equality of opportunity: specifically, subsidies ensure access to specific “basic opportunities” (such as the ability to attend college) when out-of-pocket spending on insurance would have otherwise crowded out those opportunities. Subsidies thus make a modest, but important, contribution to mitigating the negative effect of health spending on social mobility and financial security, even if they fall short of comprehensive income protection. I raise and respond to some potential concerns about inequities created by this system, and conclude with implications for evaluating the subsidies under the ACA. Chapter three investigates whether diffusion of long-acting stimulants, a medication for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), narrowed racial/ethnic disparities among diagnosed children in the Florida Medicaid program. In longitudinal analysis, we found that minorities were substantially less likely than whites to use medications overall, but minority medication users were equally likely to switch to long-acting medications after market introduction. The increase in prescribed days was comparable for white and black medication users, but lower for Hispanics. Geography and provider setting helped explain overall medication utilization disparities, but adherence disparities were not explained by any of the covariates. We recommend targeting interventions to increase medication adherence to high-volume, minorityserving providers

Primary Care Appointment Availability and Preventive Care Utilization: Evidence From an Audit Study

Insurance expansions under the Affordable Care Act raise concerns about primary care access in communities with large numbers of newly insured. We linked individual-level, cross-sectional data on adult preventive care utilization from the 2011-2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to novel county-level measures of primary care appointment availability collected from an experimental audit study conducted in 10 states in 2012-2013 and other county-level health service and demographic measures. In multivariate regressions, we found higher county-level appointment availability for privately-insured adults was associated with significantly lower preventive care utilization among adults likely to have private insurance. Estimates were attenuated after controlling for county-level uninsurance, poverty, and unemployment. By contrast, greater availability of Medicaid appointments was associated with higher, but not statistically significant, preventive care utilization for likely Medicaid enrollees. Our study highlights that the relationship between preventive care utilization and primary care access in small areas likely differs by insurance status

A Qualitative Evaluation of Advances in Emergency Department Opioid Use Disorder Care in Michigan

The United States opioid epidemic claims the lives of tens of thousands of Americans each year due to opioid overdose. Hospital emergency departments (EDs) have been essential in combatting the crisis by stabilizing patients who are experiencing an overdose and other symptoms of their opioid use disorders (OUD). Over time, EDs have also become more involved in providing other addiction treatment services, such as prescribing and administering medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and referring their patients to outpatient behavioral health care providers for follow-up treatment. Policymakers have been essential in driving EDs to expand the scope of their addiction medicine services and referrals by creating specialized programs that provide incentivizes to participating hospitals.The following report summarizes advances in opioid use disorder care within EDs in 19 hospitals across 8 health systems in Michigan. These hospitals participated in an initiative created by the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan (CFSEM) in collaboration with the Michigan Opioid Partnership (MOP), a public-private collaborative with a mission to reduce opioid overdoses in Michigan by improving the access and quality of prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery services. The initiative was supported by State Opioid Response grants from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Vital Strategies, a global public health organization that helps governments strengthen public health, provided support, technical assistance, and resources to improve hospital coordination and designed the evaluation. Specifically, hospitals were provided funding by CFSEM to improve OUD care training, coordination, delivery, and quality in their EDs. Hospitals and health systems funded by CFSEM included the University of Michigan Health System (Michigan Medicine hospital), Trinity Health (Mercy Health Muskegon, Mercy Health St. Mary, St. Joseph Mercy - Ann Arbor, St. Joseph Mercy Chelsea, St. Joseph Mercy Livingston, St. Joseph Mercy Oakland), Henry Ford Health Systems (Henry Ford – Main, Henry Ford - Wynadotte/ Brownstown), Beaumont Health Systems (Beaumont - Royal Oak, Beaumont – Troy, Beaumont – Wayne), Ascension (Ascension St. John Hospital, Ascension Genesys Hospital), Munson Healthcare (Munson Medical Center - Traverse City, Sparrow Health System (Sparrow Hospital - Lansing), Spectrum Health (Spectrum Health Butterworth), War Memorial, and Hurley Medical Center. After receiving funding, hospitals created work plans related to improving opioid use disorder care in their EDs, including by increasing their number of employed X-waivered providers, integrating clinical tracking and support tools into electronic medical records, and connecting patients with behavioral health care providers in the community to establish treatment continuity (i.e., "warm handoffs"). Researchers with the Bloomberg Overdose Prevention Initiative at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health evaluated hospital improvement in these areas using surveys and qualitative interviews with participants

Primary Care Appointment Availability for Medicaid Patients: Comparing Traditional and Premium Assistance Plans

Key Findings: In 2014, Arkansas and Iowa expanded their Medicaid programs and enrolled many of their adult beneficiaries in commercial Marketplace plans. This study suggests that this “private option” may make it easier for new Medicaid patients to get primary care appointments

Declining Medicaid Fees and Primary Care Availability for New Medicaid Patients

Primary care appointment availability for new Medicaid patients declined when Medicaid fees for providers decreased after the ACA-mandated “fee bump” expired

Primary Care Access for new Patients on the eve of Health Care Reform

Importance: Current measures of access to care have intrinsic limitations and may not accurately reflect the capacity of the primary care system to absorb new patients. Objective: To assess primary care appointment availability by state and insurance status. Design, Setting, and Particpants: We conducted a simulated patient study. Trained field staff, randomly assigned to private insurance, Medicaid, or uninsured, called primary care offices requesting the first available appointment for either routine care or an urgent health concern. The study included a stratified random sample of primary care practices treating nonelderly adults within each of 10 states (Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas), selected for diversity along numerous dimensions. Collectively, these states comprise almost one-third of the US nonelderly, Medicaid, and currently uninsured populations. Sampling was based on enrollment by insurance type by county. Analyses were weighted to obtain population-based estimates for each state. Main Outcomes and Measures: The ability to schedule an appointment and number of days to the appointment. We also examined cost and payment required at the visit for the uninsured. Results: Between November 13, 2012, and April 4, 2013, we made 12,907 calls to 7788 primary care practices requesting new patient appointments. Across the 10 states, 84.7% (95% CI, 82.6%-86.8%) of privately insured and 57.9% (95% CI, 54.8%-61.0%) of Medicaid callers received an appointment. Appointment rates were 78.8% (95% CI, 75.6%-82.0%) for uninsured patients with full cash payment but only 15.4% (95% CI, 13.2%-17.6%) if payment required at the time of the visit was restricted to $75 or less. Conditional on getting an appointment, median wait times were typically less than 1 week (2 weeks in Massachusetts), with no differences by insurance status or urgency of health concern. Conclusions and Relevance: Although most primary care physicians are accepting new patients, access varies widely across states and insurance status. Navigator programs are needed, not only to help patients enroll but also to identify practices accepting new patients within each plan\u27s network. Tracking new patient appointment availability over time can inform policies designed to strengthen primary care capacity and enhance the effectiveness of the coverage expansions with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Assessment of Filled Buprenorphine Prescriptions for Opioid Use Disorder During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly disrupted health care delivery in the US.1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted a 9.1% increase in reported 12-month counts of drug overdose deaths from March 2019 to March 2020, from 67 726 to 73 860.2 On March 13, 2020, a COVID-19 national emergency was declared. To diminish potential barriers to treatment access, 3 days later, federal guidelines on telemedicine use were released, providing authorized practitioners increased flexibility to prescribe buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) during this public health emergency.3 Other local, state, and federal policy initiatives have also attempted to preserve access to medication treatment for OUD, yet the cumulative outcome of these undertakings is not clear