Medicaid managed care network adequacy standards and mental health care access.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Managed Care Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.37765/ajmc.2025.89662
Ju-Chen Hu, Janet R Cummings, Xu Ji, Adam S Wilk
{"title":"Medicaid managed care network adequacy standards and mental health care access.","authors":"Ju-Chen Hu, Janet R Cummings, Xu Ji, Adam S Wilk","doi":"10.37765/ajmc.2025.89662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health (MH) services in the US, and more than 80% of its enrollees are covered by Medicaid managed care (MMC). States are required to establish quantitative network adequacy standards (NAS) to regulate MMC plans' MH care access. We examined the association between quantitative NAS and MH care access among Medicaid-enrolled adults and among those with MH conditions.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cross-sectional study with a difference-in-differences design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the 2016-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we included Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years in 15 states. Subgroup analyses included enrollees with MH conditions who experienced in the past year (1) serious psychological distress, (2) a major depressive episode, and/or (3) suicidal thoughts. Outcomes assessed whether in the past year the enrollee had any (1) MH services, (2) inpatient MH stays, (3) outpatient MH visits, (4) MH prescription, and (5) unmet MH care needs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 9300 adults aged 18 to 64 years, 27.2% had MH conditions. Among all adults, NAS were marginally associated with increased use of any MH services (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1; P = .055) but were not associated with other outcomes. Among enrollees with MH conditions, no statistically significant association between NAS and MH care access was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current quantitative NAS requirements may have few impacts on improving MH care access for adults and those with MH conditions without the implementation of additional interventions. States should consider adjusting enforcement strategies and adopting other interventions alongside NAS.</p>","PeriodicalId":50808,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Managed Care","volume":"31 1","pages":"25-32"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Managed Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2025.89662","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health (MH) services in the US, and more than 80% of its enrollees are covered by Medicaid managed care (MMC). States are required to establish quantitative network adequacy standards (NAS) to regulate MMC plans' MH care access. We examined the association between quantitative NAS and MH care access among Medicaid-enrolled adults and among those with MH conditions.

Study design: Cross-sectional study with a difference-in-differences design.

Methods: Using the 2016-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we included Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 64 years in 15 states. Subgroup analyses included enrollees with MH conditions who experienced in the past year (1) serious psychological distress, (2) a major depressive episode, and/or (3) suicidal thoughts. Outcomes assessed whether in the past year the enrollee had any (1) MH services, (2) inpatient MH stays, (3) outpatient MH visits, (4) MH prescription, and (5) unmet MH care needs.

Results: Among 9300 adults aged 18 to 64 years, 27.2% had MH conditions. Among all adults, NAS were marginally associated with increased use of any MH services (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1; P = .055) but were not associated with other outcomes. Among enrollees with MH conditions, no statistically significant association between NAS and MH care access was observed.

Conclusions: Current quantitative NAS requirements may have few impacts on improving MH care access for adults and those with MH conditions without the implementation of additional interventions. States should consider adjusting enforcement strategies and adopting other interventions alongside NAS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Managed Care
American Journal of Managed Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Managed Care is an independent, peer-reviewed publication dedicated to disseminating clinical information to managed care physicians, clinical decision makers, and other healthcare professionals. Its aim is to stimulate scientific communication in the ever-evolving field of managed care. The American Journal of Managed Care addresses a broad range of issues relevant to clinical decision making in a cost-constrained environment and examines the impact of clinical, management, and policy interventions and programs on healthcare and economic outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Association between screening for suspected COVID-19 cases and outcomes of patients revisiting the emergency department. Cancellations in primary care in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Collaboration to transition members to preferred formulary dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor. Effects of individualized nurse-led care plans on olaparib treatment duration. High-intensity home-based rehabilitation in a Medicare accountable care organization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1