Search results

Over 70% of Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicaid managed care (MMC). MMC provider networks therefore represent a critical determinant of access to the Medicaid program. Many MMC insurers also participate in commercial insurance markets where prices are high, and some insurers exercise considerable market power. In this paper, we examined the relationship between commercial insurer market power and MMC physician network breadth using linked national enrollment data and provider directory data. Insurers with more commercial market power had broader Medicaid physician networks. Insurers with over 30% market share had 37.3% broader Medicaid networks than insurers in the same county that had no commercial market share. These differences were driven by greater breadth among primary care providers, as well as other specialists including OB/GYNs, surgeons, neurologists, and cardiologists. Commercial insurance market power may have spillovers on access to care for MMC beneficiaries.

This study examined if greater insurer market power was associated with consistently lower negotiated prices within each hospital for 44 shoppable and emergency procedures, using price transparency data disclosed by 1,506 hospitals in metropolitan areas. We used multi-level fixed effects models to estimate the within-hospital variation in plan-level insurer-negotiated prices (from the largest insurer, the second largest insurer, other major insurers, and nonmajor insurers) and cash-pay prices as a function of insurer market power. For shoppable services, relative to nonmajor insurers, the largest, second largest, and other major insurers negotiated 23%, 16%, and 3% lower prices, respectively, while cash prices were 17% higher. For emergency room visits, while the largest insurers paid 5% less than nonmajor insurers, the second largest and other major insurers did not pay lower prices. Stratified analyses by type of shoppable services found varying magnitudes and patterns of price discounts associated with insurer market power.

In concentrated labor markets, where workers have fewer employers to choose from, employers may exploit their monopsony power by contributing less to workers' health benefits. This study examined if labor market concentration was associated with higher worker contributions to health plan premiums. We combined publicly available data from the Census to calculate labor market concentration and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Insurance/Employer Component to determine premium contributions from 2010 to 2016 for metropolitan areas. After controlling for year fixed-effects and market characteristics, we found that higher labor market concentration was associated with higher worker contributions to health plan premiums, lower take-home income, and no change in employer contributions to premiums, consistent with the hypothesis that greater labor market concentration is associated with less generous health benefits. When evaluating the effects of mergers and acquisitions on labor markets, regulatory agencies should critically assess worker contributions to health insurance premiums.

Provider networks in Medicaid Managed Care (MMC) play a crucial role in ensuring access to buprenorphine, a highly effective treatment for opioid use disorder. Using a difference-in-differences approach that compares network breadth across provider specialties and market segments within the same state, we investigated the association between three Medicaid policies and the breadth of MMC networks for buprenorphine prescribers: Medicaid expansion, substance use disorder (SUD) network adequacy criteria, and SUD carveouts. We found that both Medicaid expansion and SUD network adequacy criteria were associated with substantially increased breadth in buprenorphine-prescriber networks in MMC. In both cases, we found that the associations were largely driven by increases in the network breadth of primary care physician prescribers. Our findings suggest that Medicaid expansion and SUD network adequacy criteria may be effective strategies at states' disposal to improve access to buprenorphine.

A high-deductible health plan (HDHP) may incentivize enrollees to limit health care use at the beginning of a plan year, when they are responsible for 100% of costs, or to increase the use of care at the end of the year, when enrollees may have less cost exposure. We investigated both the impact of the deductible reset that occurs at the beginning of a plan year and the option to enroll in an HDHP on the use of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services over the course of a health plan year. We found decreases in SUD treatment use following the increase in cost exposure related to a deductible reset. There was no variation in this behavior between HDHP offer enrollees and comparison enrollees who were not offered an HDHP. These findings reinforce that cost-sharing poses a barrier to SUD care and continuity of care, which can increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes.