Search

Policy PointsOver the past century, the tax‐financed share of health care spending has risen from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020; a large part of this tax financing is now the subsidization of private health insurance.For‐profit ownership of health care facilities has also increased in recent decades and now predominates for many health subsectors. A rising share of physicians are now employees.US health care is, increasingly, publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend that has been accompanied by rising medical costs and, in recent years, stagnating or even worsening population health. A reconsideration of US health care financing and ownership appears warranted. Context: Who pays for health care—and who owns it—determine what care is delivered, who receives it, and who profits from it. We examined trends in health care ownership and financing over a century. Methods: We used multiple historical and current data sources (including data from the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, government publications and surveys, and analyses of Medicare Provider of Services files) to classify health care provider ownership as: public, private (for‐profit), and private (not‐for‐profit). We used US Census data to classify physicians' employers as public, not‐for‐profit, or for‐profit entities or "self‐employed." We combined estimates from the official National Health Expenditures Accounts with other data sources to determine the public vs. private share of health care spending since 1923; we calculated a "comprehensive" public share metric that accounted for public subsidization of private health expenditures, mostly via the tax exemption for employer‐sponsored insurance plans or government purchase of such plans for public employees. Findings: For‐profit ownership of most health care subsectors has risen in recent decades and now predominates in several (including nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical facilities, dialysis facilities, hospices, and home health agencies). However, most community hospitals remain not‐for‐profit. Additionally, over the past century, a growing share of physicians identify as employees. Meanwhile, the comprehensive taxpayer‐financed share of health care spending has increased dramatically from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020, with taxpayer‐financed subsidies to private expenditures accounting for much of the recent growth. Conclusions: American health care is increasingly publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend accompanied by rising costs and, recently, worsening population health. A reassessment of the US mode of health care financing and ownership appears warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsPeople are dying at record numbers from overdose in the United States.Concerted action has led to a number of successes, including reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing and increased availability of opioid use disorder treatment and harm‐reduction efforts, yet ongoing challenges include criminalization of drug use and regulatory and stigma barriers to expansion of treatment and harm‐reduction services.Priorities for action include investing in evidence‐based and compassionate policies and programs that address sources of opioid demand, decriminalizing drug use and drug paraphernalia, enacting policies to make medication for opioid use disorder more accessible, and promoting drug checking and safe drug supply. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the availability and facility‐level predictors of LGBT‐specific mental health and substance abuse treatment in the United States. Data Sources/Study Setting: 2016 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, 2016 National Mental Health Service Survey, and 2015‐2016 Gallup Daily tracking survey. Study Design: Logistic regression models and average marginal effects were used to identify characteristics of facilities that offer LGBT‐specific programs. Linear regression models were used to estimate the association between the state‐level proportion of LGBT people and the proportion of facilities that offer LGBT‐specific programs. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Secondary data analysis. Cases with missing values for any predictor were excluded. Principle Findings: 12.6 percent of mental health and 17.6 percent of substance abuse facilities reported LGBT‐specific programs. Several facility characteristics were statistically associated with the likelihood of mental health and substance abuse facilities providing LGBT‐specific programs, including offering outpatient or residential treatment, private ownership, religious affiliation, and payment type. The proportion of LGBT adults living within each state was statistically associated with state‐level density of LGBT‐specific mental health programs, but not substance abuse programs. Conclusions: Findings suggest limited availability of culturally competent mental health and substance abuse treatment, despite well‐documented need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess frequency, type, and extent of behavioral health (BH) nonquantitative treatment limits (NQTLs) before and after implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA).Data Sources: Secondary administrative data for Optum carve-out and carve-in plans.Study Design: Cross-tabulations and "two-part" regression models were estimated to assess associations of parity period with NQTLs.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Optum provided four proprietary BH databases, including 2008-2013 data for 40 carve-out and 385 carve-in employers from Optum's claims processing databases and 2010 data from interviews conducted by Optum's parity compliance team with 49 carve-out employers.Principal Findings: Preparity, carve-out plans required preauthorization for in-network inpatient/intermediate care; otherwise coverage was denied. Postparity, 73 percent would review later by request and half charged no penalty for late authorization. Outpatient visit authorization requirements virtually disappeared. For carve-out out-of-network inpatient/intermediate care, and for carve-ins, plans changed penalties to match medical service policies, but this did not necessarily lead to fewer requirements or lower penalties.Conclusion: After 2011, MHPAEA was associated with the transformation of BH care management, including much less restrictive preauthorization requirements, especially for in-network care provided by carve-out plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the influence of Oregon's coordinated care organizations (CCOs) and pay-for-performance incentive model on completion of screening and brief intervention (SBI) and utilization of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services.Data Sources/study Setting: Secondary analysis of Medicaid encounter data from 2012 to 2015 and semiannual qualitative interviews with stakeholders in CCOs.Study Design: Longitudinal mixed-methods design with simultaneous data collection with equal importance.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded in ATLAS.ti. Quantitative data included Medicaid encounters 30 months prior to CCO implementation, a 6-month transition period, and 30 months following CCO implementation. Data were aggregated by half-year with analyses restricted to Medicaid recipients 18-64 years of age enrolled in a CCO, not eligible for Medicare coverage or Medicaid expansion.Principal Findings: Quantitative analysis documented a significant increase in SBI rates coinciding with CCO implementation (0.1 to 4.6 percent). Completed SBI was not associated with increased initiation in treatment for SUD diagnoses. Qualitative analysis highlighted importance of aligning incentives, workflow redesign, and leadership to facilitate statewide SBI.Conclusions: Results provide modest support for use of a performance metric to expand SBI in primary care. Future research should examine health reform efforts that increase initiation and engagement in SUD treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]