医疗补助机构如何改善药物使用治疗福利?三个州1115弃权经验的教训。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Erika Crable, David K Jones, Alexander Y Walley, Jacqueline Milton Hicks, Allyn Benintendi, Mari-Lynn Drainoni
{"title":"医疗补助机构如何改善药物使用治疗福利?三个州1115弃权经验的教训。","authors":"Erika Crable, David K Jones, Alexander Y Walley, Jacqueline Milton Hicks, Allyn Benintendi, Mari-Lynn Drainoni","doi":"10.1215/03616878-9716740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) urged state Medicaid programs to use 1115 waiver demonstrations to expand substance use treatment benefits. We analyzed four critical points in states' decision-making processes before expanding benefits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative cross-case comparison of three states that were early adopters of the 1115 waiver request. We conducted 44 interviews with key informants from CMS, Medicaid, and other state agencies, providers, and managed care organizations.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Policy makers expanded substance use treatment in response to \"fragmented\" care systems and unsustainable funding streams. Medicaid staff had mixed preferences for implementing new benefits via 1115 waivers or state plan amendments. The 1115 waiver process enabled states to provide coverage for residential benefits, but state plan amendments made other services permanent parts of the benefit. Medicaid agencies relied on interorganizational networks to identify evidence-based practices. Medicaid staff secured legislative support for reform by focusing on program integrity concerns and downstream effects of substance use rather than Medicaid beneficiaries' needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Decision-making processes were influenced by Medicaid agency characteristics and interorganizational partnerships, not federal executive branch influence. Lessons from early-adopter states provide a road map for other state Medicaid agencies considering similar reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"47 4","pages":"497-518"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688542/pdf/","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Medicaid Agencies Improve Substance Use Treatment Benefits? Lessons from Three States' 1115 Waiver Experiences.\",\"authors\":\"Erika Crable, David K Jones, Alexander Y Walley, Jacqueline Milton Hicks, Allyn Benintendi, Mari-Lynn Drainoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/03616878-9716740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) urged state Medicaid programs to use 1115 waiver demonstrations to expand substance use treatment benefits. We analyzed four critical points in states' decision-making processes before expanding benefits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted qualitative cross-case comparison of three states that were early adopters of the 1115 waiver request. We conducted 44 interviews with key informants from CMS, Medicaid, and other state agencies, providers, and managed care organizations.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Policy makers expanded substance use treatment in response to \\\"fragmented\\\" care systems and unsustainable funding streams. Medicaid staff had mixed preferences for implementing new benefits via 1115 waivers or state plan amendments. The 1115 waiver process enabled states to provide coverage for residential benefits, but state plan amendments made other services permanent parts of the benefit. Medicaid agencies relied on interorganizational networks to identify evidence-based practices. Medicaid staff secured legislative support for reform by focusing on program integrity concerns and downstream effects of substance use rather than Medicaid beneficiaries' needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Decision-making processes were influenced by Medicaid agency characteristics and interorganizational partnerships, not federal executive branch influence. Lessons from early-adopter states provide a road map for other state Medicaid agencies considering similar reform.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"497-518\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688542/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9716740\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9716740","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:2015年,医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)敦促各州医疗补助计划使用1115豁免示范来扩大药物使用治疗福利。在扩大福利之前,我们分析了各州决策过程中的四个关键点。方法:我们对早期采用1115豁免请求的三个州进行了定性的交叉案例比较。我们对来自CMS、Medicaid和其他州机构、供应商和管理式医疗机构的关键信息提供者进行了44次访谈。研究结果:政策制定者扩大了药物使用治疗,以应对“碎片化”的护理系统和不可持续的资金流。医疗补助工作人员对通过1115豁免或州计划修正案实施新的福利有不同的偏好。1115豁免程序使各州能够提供住宅福利,但州计划修正案使其他服务成为福利的永久组成部分。医疗补助机构依靠组织间网络来确定循证实践。医疗补助工作人员通过关注项目的完整性和药物使用的下游影响,而不是医疗补助受益人的需求,获得了对改革的立法支持。结论:决策过程受医疗补助机构特征和组织间伙伴关系的影响,而不是联邦行政部门的影响。早期采用医疗补助的州的经验教训为其他考虑类似改革的州医疗补助机构提供了路线图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Do Medicaid Agencies Improve Substance Use Treatment Benefits? Lessons from Three States' 1115 Waiver Experiences.

Context: In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) urged state Medicaid programs to use 1115 waiver demonstrations to expand substance use treatment benefits. We analyzed four critical points in states' decision-making processes before expanding benefits.

Methods: We conducted qualitative cross-case comparison of three states that were early adopters of the 1115 waiver request. We conducted 44 interviews with key informants from CMS, Medicaid, and other state agencies, providers, and managed care organizations.

Findings: Policy makers expanded substance use treatment in response to "fragmented" care systems and unsustainable funding streams. Medicaid staff had mixed preferences for implementing new benefits via 1115 waivers or state plan amendments. The 1115 waiver process enabled states to provide coverage for residential benefits, but state plan amendments made other services permanent parts of the benefit. Medicaid agencies relied on interorganizational networks to identify evidence-based practices. Medicaid staff secured legislative support for reform by focusing on program integrity concerns and downstream effects of substance use rather than Medicaid beneficiaries' needs.

Conclusions: Decision-making processes were influenced by Medicaid agency characteristics and interorganizational partnerships, not federal executive branch influence. Lessons from early-adopter states provide a road map for other state Medicaid agencies considering similar reform.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信