Evaluation of the 40 Hours per Month Work Requirement for MassHealth’s CommonHealth Working Program

Summary: This report evaluates the effectiveness of the 40 hours per month work requirement for eligibility for CommonHealth Working, Massachusetts\u27 Medicaid Buy-In program. The evaluation compared CommonHealth Working to other Massachusetts Medicaid programs and to other state Buy-In programs, examining enrollee earnings, hours worked, expenditures and enrollment patterns. The study also analyzed the impact of eligibility rules and case closure data on enrollment. Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services

How Do Employment Outcomes of Medicaid Buy-In Participants Vary Based on Prior Medicaid Coverage? An Example from Massachusetts

Summary: The Medicaid Buy-In program is a key component of the federal effort to make it easier for people with disabilities to work without losing health benefits. Authorized by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (“BBA”) and the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (“Ticket Act”), the Buy-In program allows states to expand Medicaid coverage to workers with disabilities whose income and assets would ordinarily make them ineligible for Medicaid. To be eligible for the program, an individual must have a disability (as defined by the Social Security Administration) and earned income, and must meet other financial eligibility requirements established by states. States have some flexibility to customize their Buy-In programs to their specific needs, resources, and objectives. As of July 1, 2008, 33 states with a Medicaid Infrastructure Grant (MIG) reported covering 82,488 individuals in the Medicaid Buy-In program. The CommonHealth Working (CHW) program in Massachusetts is the oldest Buy-In program in the nation. It began in 1988 as a state-funded program and was folded into the state’s 1115 Medicaid research and demonstration project in 1996. This issue brief, the eighth in a series on workers with disabilities, compares the employment outcomes of newly enrolled CHW participants based on whether or not they were previously enrolled in MassHealth, Massachusetts’s Medicaid program, under another eligibility category. For those who had been enrolled in MassHealth, employment outcomes before and after CHW enrollment are contrasted

Psychosocial treatment in the 21st century

Over the past 50 years, psychosocial treatment has played an increasingly prominent role in helping persons with mental illness live in communities rather than in institutions. This paper briefly reviews evidence for and discusses three forms of treatment-assertive community treatment, supported employment, and cognitive behavior treatment-which have been studied extensively and are widely accepted as effective interventions. Forces are discussed that have shaped these and other psychosocial treatment over the past five decades. Despite the accumulated evidence, many questions remain about the cost-effectiveness and applicability of these treatments in specific populations and service environments. The development of these and other treatments has been, and continues to be, shaped by concerns about rising health care costs, a heightened emphasis on evidence-based treatment and by consumers taking a more active role in determining the services, and outcomes that are most helpful to them

Comparative evaluation of two asthma care quality measures among Medicaid beneficiaries

BACKGROUND: The relative performance of asthma care quality measures has not been evaluated in Medicaid populations. METHODS: Using complete claims and pharmaceutical data for 19,076 patients with persistent asthma (based on Health Effectiveness and Data Information Set criteria) in five Medicaid populations, we compared the following two measures of asthma care quality: filling prescriptions for controller asthma medications within 1 year and the ratio of controller medication to the total number of asthma medication prescriptions filled within 1 year. We calculated whether meeting each quality measure was associated with decreased odds of emergency department (ED) treatment episodes. We then compared the odds ratios, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and deviances between models, using each measure to predict ED utilization in Medicaid populations. RESULTS: Although meeting each measure was associated with lower odds of ED utilization, this decrease was larger if the controller asthma medication measure was met rather than the ratio measure. Additionally, models using the controller medication measure had greater areas under the ROC curve and smaller deviances than models using the ratio measure. CONCLUSIONS: Both administrative measures of asthma care quality were associated with lower odds of ED utilization. The controller medication measure of asthma care quality may be better than the ratio measure in relation to emergency asthma care utilization by Medicaid beneficiaries

The quality of asthma care among adults with substance-related disorders and adults with mental illness

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the presence of substance-related disorders or mental illness may affect the quality of medication management in asthma care. METHODS: Claims from 1999 for adult Medicaid patients with persistent asthma from five states were analyzed. Sample sizes ranged from 1,207 to 5,815. The adjusted odds of meeting two quality-of-care measures for asthma were calculated: the Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure of filling a single prescription for a controller medication and a non-HEDIS measure of achieving a ratio of long-term controller medications to total asthma medications of \u3e or = .5. RESULTS: Odds of achieving the HEDIS measure were lower for patients with substance-related or schizophrenia disorders in two states (range of odds ratio [OR]=.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.53-.90, to OR=.81, 95% CI=.69-.96), but the odds increased for patients with depressive disorders in two states (OR=1.34, CI= 1.12-1.61; OR=1.37, CI=1.05-1.77) and for patients with bipolar disorder in one state (OR=1.69, CI=1.13-2.55). Odds of achieving the ratio measure were lower for patients with substance-related disorders in four states (range of OR=.63, CI=.47-.88, to OR=.75, CI=.62-.92) and higher for patients with depressive disorders, although only in one state (OR=1.25, CI=1.03-1.53). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with substance-related disorders and those with schizophrenia disorders may be receiving lower-quality asthma care, whereas patients with some other forms of mental illness may be receiving higher-quality care. Further studies are needed to identify the determinants of high-quality asthma care and the validity of quality measures based on administrative data in these populations

Racial/ethnic disparities in mental health treatment in six Medicaid programs

Little is known about ethnic and racial disparities in mental health care among Medicaid beneficiaries. The association between ethnicity and race and the utilization of mental health care was explored in six Medicaid programs. The analysis distinguished between different settings of care, including community-based, outpatient hospital, inpatient, and emergency departments (EDs). Racial and ethnic disparities in mental health care were observed across state Medicaid programs. Hispanic and African American beneficiaries with mental illness were much less likely than Whites to be treated in community-based settings. African Americans were more likely to receive mental health treatment in inpatient, ED, and outpatient hospital settings in some states. The implications of these findings and possible initiatives to enhance community-based mental health care among African American and Hispanic Medicaid beneficiaries are discussed

Co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders: a multistate feasibility study of the quadrant model

OBJECTIVE: The quadrant model was developed to organize the heterogeneous group of persons with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders and to anticipate differential use of systems of care. The purpose of the study presented here was to test the feasibility of applying the model to classify persons with co-occurring disorders, examine the reliability of quadrant prevalence and distribution, and test the validity of differential service use by quadrant. METHODS: Medicaid claims data from 1999 from six states were analyzed, and 22,912 individuals with co-occurring disorders were classified into quadrants, by severity of substance use and psychiatric disorders. Distribution by quadrant and the utilization of emergency and inpatient services were analyzed. RESULTS: A majority of cases were classified in quadrant IV (52.5%) (high severity of psychiatric and substance use disorders), and fewest were classified in quadrant I (8.2%) (low severity of psychiatric and substance use disorders). There was equivalence in distribution for quadrant III (19.8%) (high severity of substance use disorders and low severity of psychiatric disorders) and quadrant II (19.4%) (high severity of psychiatric disorders and low severity of substance use disorders). Distribution was consistent across states, and service utilization was most associated with quadrant IV. Persons with the more severe psychiatric problems (quadrants II and IV) were more likely to be female, to be older, and to have been hospitalized or to have visited an emergency department. Another important finding is the high rate of persons with substance dependence disorders (quadrants III and IV). CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of applying the quadrant model was supported. The quadrant model has been well adopted conceptually by community providers and policy makers. The consistency of the findings across six state Medicaid systems supports the potential utility of the model to articulate patient characteristics and service use patterns. Further application and research with this model is proposed

Treatment for co-occurring mental and substance use disorders in five state Medicaid programs

OBJECTIVES: This study described the locations and patterns of psychiatric and substance abuse treatment for Medicaid beneficiaries with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders in five states. METHODS: Medicaid beneficiaries aged 21 to 65 with psychiatric or substance use disorders were identified with claims and encounter records. Groups were further divided into those with and those without a diagnosed substance use disorder. Adjusted odds of treatment in community-based settings, inpatient facilities, emergency departments, and hospital outpatient departments were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 92,355 persons had a psychiatric disorder, 34,158 had a substance use disorder, and 14,256 had co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders. In all five states, beneficiaries with severe mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression) and a substance use disorder had higher odds of inpatient, emergency department, and hospital-based outpatient psychiatric treatment, compared with those with severe mental illness alone. In four of five states, both severe and less severe mental illness and a co-occurring substance use disorder were associated with lower odds of community-based treatment compared with those with the respective mental illness alone. Compared with those with less severe mental illness alone, individuals with less severe psychiatric disorders and a co-occurring substance use disorder had higher odds of inpatient treatment in all states and of emergency department use in three of five states. Odds of inpatient and outpatient hospital use and emergency department use for substance abuse treatment were higher for persons with severe mental illness and a co-occurring substance use disorder in most states, compared with odds for those with a substance use disorder alone. CONCLUSIONS: Heavy inpatient and emergency department use by Medicaid beneficiaries with co-occurring substance use disorders is a consistent cross-state problem. Co-occurring disorders may decrease the likelihood of community-based treatment for those with less severe mental disorders and for those with severe mental illness, suggesting that policies focusing only on these settings may miss a significant proportion of people with these co-occurring disorders

Impact of substance disorders on medical expenditures for medicaid beneficiaries with behavioral health disorders

OBJECTIVE: This study measured the impact of substance use disorders on Medicaid expenditures for behavioral and physical health care among beneficiaries with behavioral health disorders. METHODS: Claims for Medicaid beneficiaries with behavioral health diagnoses in 1999 from Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey, and Washington were analyzed. Behavioral health and general medical expenditures for individuals with diagnoses of substance use disorders were compared with expenditures for those without such diagnoses. States were analyzed separately with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 148,457 beneficiaries met selection criteria, and 43,457 (29.3%) had a substance use diagnosis. Compared with other beneficiaries with behavioral health disorders, individuals with diagnoses of substance use disorders had significantly higher expenditures for physical health problems in five of six states. Approximately half of the additional care and expenditures were for treatment of physical conditions. Differences declined but remained statistically significant after adjustment for higher overall disease burden among beneficiaries with addictions. Medical expenditures for individuals with diagnoses of substance use disorders increased significantly with age in five of six states, whereas behavioral health expenditures were stable or declined. Hospital admissions for psychiatric and general medical reasons were higher for those with diagnoses of substance use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of addiction on Medicaid populations with behavioral health disorders is greater than the direct cost of mental health and addictions treatment. Higher medical expenditures can be partly attributed to greater prevalence of co-occurring physical disorders, but expenditures remained higher after adjustment for disease burden. Spending estimates based only on behavioral health diagnoses may significantly underestimate addictions-related costs, particularly for older adults

The evidence doesn\u27t justify steps by state Medicaid programs to restrict opioid addiction treatment with buprenorphine

Many state Medicaid programs restrict access to buprenorphine, a prescription medication that relieves withdrawal symptoms for people addicted to heroin or other opiates. The reason is that officials fear that the drug is costlier or less safe than other therapies such as methadone. To find out if this is true, we compared spending, the use of services related to drug-use relapses, and mortality for 33,923 Massachusetts Medicaid beneficiaries receiving either buprenorphine, methadone, drug-free treatment, or no treatment during the period 2003-07. Buprenorphine appears to have significantly expanded access to treatment because the drug can be prescribed by a physician and taken at home compared with methadone, which by law must be administered at an approved clinic. Buprenorphine was associated with more relapse-related services but $1,330 lower mean annual spending than methadone when used for maintenance treatment. Mortality rates were similar for buprenorphine and methadone. By contrast, mortality rates were 75 percent higher among those receiving drug-free treatment, and more than twice as high among those receiving no treatment, compared to those receiving buprenorphine. The evidence does not support rationing buprenorphine to save money or ensure safety