Advertisement

Medicaid chemical dependency patients in a commercial health plan

Do high medical costs come down over time?
  • Lawrence J. Walter
  • Lynn Ackerson
  • Steven Allen
Regular Articles

Abstract

A cohort of 197 Medicaid-insured patients presenting for treatment in Kaiser Permanente's out-patient chemical dependency treatment program were observed the year prior to their program intake visit and followed for 3 years afterwards, to compare their medical costs and utilization to demographically matched commercially insured patients entering the same programs. The Medicaid-insured patients on average incurred medical costs 60% higher than non-Medicaid patients during the 12-month preintake period ($5402 vs $3277). During the 3 years subsequently, however, both groups of chemical dependency patients displayed significant declines in medical costs, averaging 30% from the baseline period to the third year of follow-up. Cost trends reflected declines in use of hospital days, emergency department visits, and nonemergent outpatient visits. These results may help address concerns among Medicaid managed care providers and payers by giving a more realistic account of the long-term costs of this group of high-utilizing enrollees.

Keywords

Medical Cost Emergency Department Visit Baseline Period Dependency Treatment Chemical Dependency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alexandre PK, Roebuck MC, French MT, Chitwood DD, McCoy CB. Problem drinking, health services utilization, and the cost of medical care. In:Services Research in the Era of Managed Care. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 2001:285–298. Galanter M, ed.Recent Developments in Alcoholism; Vol 15.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    French MT, McGeary KA, Chitwood DD, et al. Chronic illicit drug use, health services utilization and the cost of medical care.Social Science Medicine. 2000;50:1703–1713.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holder HD, Lennox RD, Blose JO. The economic benefits of alcoholism treatment: a summary of twenty years of research.Journal of Employee Assistance Research. 1992;1:63–82.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGeary KA, French MT. Illicit drug use and emergency room utilization.Health Services Research. 2000;35:153–169.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parthasarathy S, Weisner C, Hu TW, et al. Association of outpatient alcohol and drug treatment with health care utilization and cost: revisiting the offset hypothesis.Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2001;62:89–97.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parthasarathy S, Mertens J, Moore C, et al. Utilization and cost impact of integrating substance abuse treatment and primary care.Medical Care. 2003;41:357–367.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stein MD, O'Sullivan PS, Ellis P, et al. Utilization of medical services by drug abusers in detoxification.Journal of Substance Abuse. 1993;5:187–193.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones KR, Vischi TR. Impact of alcohol, drug abuse and mental health treatment on medical care utilization. A review of the research literature.Medical Care. 1979;17:1–82.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holder HD. The cost offsets of alcoholism treatment. In:The Consequences of Alcoholism. New York: Plenum Press; 1998;361–374. Galanter M, ed.Recent Developments in Alcoholism; Vol 14.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burke KC, Meek WJ, Krych R, et al. Medical services use by patients before and after detoxification from benzodiazepine dependence.Psychiatric Services. 1995;46:157–160.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffmann NG, DeHart SS, Fulkerson JA. Medical care utilization as a function of recovery status following chemical addictions treatment.Journal of Addictive Diseases. 1993;22:97–108.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lennox RD. Cost-offsets of drug-abuse treatment provided in the private sector. Invited paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the Association for Health Services Research; June 27–29, 1993; Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walter LJ, Parthasarathy S, Allen S, et al. Medicaid patients in a private health maintenance organization: patterns of chemical dependency treatment.The Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research. 2002;29:1–14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SAS Institute Inc.SAS/STAT(c) User's Guide, Version 8, Vols 1 and 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1999:3884.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selby JV. Linking automated databases for research in managed care settings.Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998;127:719–724.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ray GT, Lieu TA, Weinstein MC, et al. Comparing the medical expenses of children with Medicaid and commercial insurance in an HMO.The American Journal of Managed Care. 2000;6:753–760.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D'Agostino Jr RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.Statistics in Medicine. 1998;17:2265–2281.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diehr P, Yanez D, Ash A, et al. Methods for analyzing health care utilization and costs.Annual Review Public Health. 1999;20:125–144.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCullagh P, Nelder JA.Generalized Linear Models. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolfinger R, O'Connell M. Generalized linear mixed models: a pseudo-likelihood approach.Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. 1993;48:233–243.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Health Care Financing Administration.A Profile of Medicaid Chart Book 2000. Rockville, Md: Health Care Financing Administration; 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salganicoff A. Medicaid and managed care: implications for low-income women.Journal of the American Medical Women's Association. 1997;52:78–80.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    American Society of Addiction Medicine.ASAM Patient Placement Criteria. 2nd ed. Chevy Chase, Md: American Society of Addiction Medicine; 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stein MD. Medical consequences of substance abuse.Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 1999;22:351–370.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Felt-Lisk S, Dodge R, McHugh M.Trends in Health Plans Serving Medicaid—2000 Data Update. Washington, DC: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid & the Uninsured; 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ettner SL, Frank RG, Mcguire TG. Risk adjustment alternatives in paying for behavioral health care under Medicaid.HSR: Health Services Research. 2001;36:793–811.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ettner SJ, Johnson S. Do adjusted clinical groups eliminate incentives for HMOs to avoid substance abusers: evidence from the Maryland Medicaid HealthChoice Program.Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research. 2003;30:63–77.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Partnership HealthPlan of California.Partnership HealthPlan of California 2000–2001 Annual Report. Suisun City, Calif: Partnership HealthPlan of California; 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavioral Healthcare Management, NCCBH 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence J. Walter
    • 1
  • Lynn Ackerson
    • 2
  • Steven Allen
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of ResearchOakland
  2. 2.the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care ProgramNorthern California Region, Division of ResearchOakland
  3. 3.the Vallejo Chemical Dependency Recovery Program in the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care ProgramNorthern California RegionOakland

Personalised recommendations