Comparison of Medicaid Reimbursements for Psychiatrists and Primary Care Physicians

Medicaid managed care organizations' experiences with network adequacy

Access to behavioral health care continues to be a challenge in Medicaid, where most enrollees are restricted to networks of providers and facilities contracted with managed care organizations (MCOs). While state and federal regulations have sought to ensure access to care, little is known about how health plans perceive and respond to these network adequacy standards. We interviewed 27 administrators and executives across 19 local, regional, and national Medicaid MCOs to assess their behavioral health networks and perceived barriers and facilitators in these efforts. We purposively sampled MCOs for maximum heterogeneity, with early findings used to refine subsequent recruitment targets until thematic saturation. We used an iterative inductive coding approach with code discrepancies analyzed and reconciled until consensus was reached. Five major themes arose: existing regulations often failed to capture true access gaps; MCOs used supplementary approaches to monitor network adequacy; limited corrective actions were available; access measures were more meaningful when grounded in enrollee experiences; and provider directory accuracy was challenged by logistical barriers. In this first study to examine MCOs' experiences with network adequacy monitoring, our findings suggest key deficiencies with current regulations and opportunities to support MCOs more broadly as policymakers seek to strengthen network adequacy regulations.

Slipping Through the Cracks: Clinicians' Perspectives on the Gaps in New York City's Public Mental Health System

Most people who seek mental health treatment cannot access it. Certain groups (e.g., Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured) face particularly severe treatment access barriers along the care continuum. We interviewed 31 clinicians across two studies about their perspectives working in New York City's public mental health system. Because every clinician across both studies reported gaps in the system, we deployed an emergent, "serendipitous finding" approach and qualitatively analyzed the interviews together. Clinicians described three public mental health system gaps. First, many treatment-seekers must wait long periods of time to receive care and some never receive it at all. Second, patients with more serious challenges cannot access longer-term, higher-intensity, or specialized treatment. Third, some patients receiving high-intensity services may benefit from lower-intensity mental health support that is better integrated with medical and social service support. Coordinated and sustained financial investments at every step of the mental healthcare continuum are needed.

Insurance acceptance and cash pay rates for psychotherapy in the US

Cost and insurance coverage remain important barriers to mental health care, including psychotherapy and mental health counseling services ("psychotherapy"). While data are scant, psychotherapy services are often delivered in private practice settings, where providers frequently do not take insurance and instead rely on direct pay. In this cross-sectional analysis, we use a large national online directory of 175 083 psychotherapy providers to describe characteristics of private practice psychotherapy providers who accept and do not accept insurance, and assess self-reported private pay rates. Overall, about one-third of private practice psychotherapists did not accept insurance, with insurance acceptance varying substantially across states. We also found significant session rate differentials, with Medicaid rates being on average 40% lower than reported cash pay rates, which averaged $143.26 a session. Taken together, low insurance acceptance across a broad swath of mental health provider types means that access to care is disproportionately reliant on patients' ability to afford out-of-pocket payments-even when covered by insurance. While our findings are descriptive and may not be representative of all US psychotherapists, they add to scant existing knowledge about the cash pay market for an important mental health service that has experienced increased use and demand over time.

The 988 suicide hotline-Lifeline or letdown? A pre-post policy analysis

Suicide has emerged as an urgent threat in recent years as COVID-19 impaired the health and economic wellbeing of millions of Americans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the impact of COVID-19 and the ongoing opioid epidemic has "taken a mental, emotional, physical, and economic toll on individuals, families, and communities," increasing the need for innovative solutions to prevent suicide on a national scale. The National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020 established 988 as the universal telephone number for suicide prevention and represents a key federal intervention to address this crisis. However, research on 9-8-8's effectiveness is limited, given the Act's recent enactment and implementation at the federal and state levels. This policy analysis investigates how and to what extent the mental health crisis system in Georgia has improved since the implementation of the 2020 Act as well as the implications of state law on population-level mental health outcomes. Georgia is used as a nationally representative case study for two reasons: (1) Georgia had a robust statewide suicide hotline prior to 2020, providing solid infrastructure on which federal expansion of a suicide hotline number could be built, and (2) the conflicting characteristics of Georgia's mental health system represent several different pockets of the U.S., allowing this analysis to apply to a broad range of states and locales. The paper draws on takeaways from Georgia to propose state and national policy recommendations for equitable interventions to prevent and respond to this form of violence.

A classification system for youth outpatient behavioral health services billed to medicaid

Rates of youth behavioral health concerns have been steadily rising. Administrative data can be used to study behavioral health service utilization among youth, but current methods that rely on identifying an associated behavioral health diagnosis or provider specialty are limited. We reviewed all procedure codes billed to Medicaid for youth in one U.S. county over a 10-year period. We identified 158 outpatient behavioral health procedure codes and classified them according to service type. This classification system can be used by health services researchers to better characterize youth behavioral health service utilization.

Implementation of an office-based addiction treatment model for Medicaid enrollees: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) but remain underutilized. To reduce barriers to MOUD prescribing and increase treatment access, New Jersey's Medicaid program implemented the Office-Based Addiction Treatment (OBAT) Program in 2019, which increased reimbursement for office-based buprenorphine prescribing and established newly reimbursable patient navigation services in OBAT clinics. Using a mixed-methods design, this study aimed to describe stakeholder experiences with the OBAT program and to assess implementation and uptake of the program.

METHODS

This study used a concurrent, triangulated mixed-methods design, which integrated complementary qualitative (semi-structured interviews) and quantitative (Medicaid claims) data to gain an in-depth understanding of the implementation of the OBAT program. We elicited stakeholder perspectives through interviews with 22 NJ Medicaid MOUD providers and 8 policy key informants, and examined trends in OBAT program utilization using 2019-2020 NJ Medicaid claims for 5380 Medicaid enrollees who used OBAT services. We used cross-case analysis (provider interviews) and a case study approach (key informant interviews) in analyzing qualitative data, and calculated descriptive statistics and trends for quantitative data.

RESULTS

Provider enrollment and utilization of OBAT services increased steadily during the first two years of program implementation. Interviewees reported that enhanced reimbursements for office-based MOUD incentivized greater MOUD prescribing, while coverage of patient navigation services improved patient care. Despite increasing enrollment in the OBAT program, the proportion of primary care physicians in the state who enrolled in the program remained limited. Key barriers to enrollment included: requirements for a patient navigator; concerns about administrative burdens and reimbursement delays from Medicaid; lack of awareness of the program; and beliefs that patients with OUD were better served in comprehensive care settings. Patient navigation was highlighted as a critical and valuable element of the program, but navigator enrollment and reimbursement challenges may have prevented greater uptake of this service.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an OBAT model that enhanced reimbursement and provided coverage for patient navigation likely expanded access to MOUD in NJ. Results support initiatives like the OBAT program in improving access to MOUD, but program adaptations, where feasible, could improve uptake and utilization.

Structural Barriers Associated with the Intersection of Traumatic Stress and Gun Violence: A Case Example of New Orleans

Gun violence drastically increased in urban cities following the ease of shutdown restrictions associated with the Coronavirus Pandemic. The association of gun violence and COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of taking a public health perspective, particularly as it relates to impacts on the Black community. In this article we discuss macro-level factors and community traumas in the city of New Orleans, an area that has had longstanding issues related to gun violence. Community structural issues, traumatic stress from disasters, and recommendations to address disparities in social determinants of health are discussed.

Outpatient Off-Label Gabapentin Use for Psychiatric Indications Among U.S. Adults, 2011-2016

OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin is widely prescribed off label in medical practice, including psychiatry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned of risks associated with gabapentin combined with central nervous system depressant (CNS-D) drugs, which are commonly prescribed in psychiatric treatment. This study examined off-label outpatient gabapentin use for psychiatric indications and concomitant CNS-D medication use.

METHODS

National Ambulatory Care Medical Survey data (2011-2016) were used to identify encounters involving gabapentin (gabapentin visits) for adults (ages ≥18) (N=5,732). FDA-approved uses and off-label psychiatric use indications were identified with ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. CNS-D drugs examined were opioids, benzodiazepines, sedatives-hypnotics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, first-generation antihistamines, and skeletal muscle relaxants. Concomitance was prescription of one or more CNS-D medications at the same visit. Visits were stratified by provider type and specialty.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, 2.8% of visits listed gabapentin prescriptions (weighted estimate of 129.6 million visits). A small proportion (<1%) listed an FDA-approved indication. Among off-label gabapentin visits, 5.3% listed a depressive disorder, 3.5% an anxiety disorder, and 1.8% bipolar disorder. Over 6 years, 58.4% of off-label gabapentin visits listed one or more concomitant CNS-D medications, most frequently antidepressants (24.3%), opioids (22.9%), and benzodiazepines (17.3%). Most gabapentin visits were with primary care providers (34.9%) and other provider specialties (i.e., not primary care, neurology, or psychiatry) (48.1%).

CONCLUSION

In this nationally representative sample, <1% of outpatient gabapentin use was for approved indications. High concomitant use of CNS-D drugs and off-label gabapentin for psychiatric diagnoses underlines the need for improved communication about safety.

Assessment of Behavioral Health Services Use Among Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries After Reductions in Coinsurance Fees

IMPORTANCE

Medicare has historically imposed higher beneficiary coinsurance for behavioral health services than for medical and surgical care but gradually introduced parity between 2009 and 2014. Although Medicare insures many people with serious mental illness (SMI), there is limited information on the impact of coinsurance parity in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between coinsurance parity and outpatient behavioral health care use among low-income beneficiaries with SMI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used Medicare claims data for a 50% national sample of lower-income Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. The study sample included patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to July 15, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Reduction in behavioral health care coinsurance from 50% to 20% between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total annual spending for outpatient behavioral health care visits and the percentage of beneficiaries with an annual outpatient behavioral health care visit overall, with a prescriber, and with a psychiatrist. A difference-in-difference approach was used to compare outcomes before and after the reduction in coinsurance for beneficiaries with and without cost-sharing decreases. Linear regression models with beneficiary fixed effects that adjusted for time-changing beneficiary- and area-level covariates were used to examine changes in outcomes.

RESULTS

The study included 793 275 beneficiaries with SMI in 2008; 518 893 (65.4%) were younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [16.1] years), 511 265 (64.4%) were female, and 552 056 (69.6%) were White. In 2008, the adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with an outpatient behavioral health care visit was 40.7% (95% CI, 40.4%-41.0%) among those eligible for the cost-sharing reduction and 44.9% (95% CI, 44.9%-45.0%) among those with free care. The mean adjusted out-of-pocket costs for outpatient behavioral health care visits decreased from $132 (95% CI, $129-$136) in 2008 to $64 (95% CI, $61-$66) in 2016 among those with reductions in cost-sharing. The adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with behavioral health care visits increased to 42.2% (95% CI, 41.9%-42.5%) in the group with a reduction in coinsurance and to 47.2% (95% CI, 47.0%-47.3%) in the group with free care. The cost-sharing reduction was not positively associated with visits (eg, relative change of -0.76 percentage points [95% CI, -1.12 to -0.40 percentage points] in the percentage of beneficiaries with outpatient behavioral health care visits in 2016 vs 2008).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that beneficiary costs for outpatient behavioral health care decreased between 2009 and 2014. There was no association between cost-sharing reductions and changes in behavioral health care visits. Low levels of use in this high-need population suggest the need for other policy efforts to address additional barriers to behavioral health care.