No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Regulatory Pathways to Promote Treatment for Substance Use Disorder or Other Under-Treated Conditions Using Risk Adjustment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Abstract
This commentary provides a legal analysis of the extent to which changes proposed by scholars to promote care for substance use disorder or other under-treated illnesses through risk adjustment could be implemented administratively, without legislation, in federal risk adjustment systems: Medicare's privatized component, Medicare's pharmaceutical component, and the individual and small group market. As the article explains, federal laws governing risk adjustment provide broad discretion to regulators and can reasonably be interpreted to permit (or in the case of Part C even compel) full and final implementation through the administrative process of almost all of the changes that scholars have proposed.
- Type
- Symposium Articles
- Information
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 46 , Issue 4: Next Steps in Health Reform , Winter 2018 , pp. 935 - 939
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2018
References
Sordo, L. et al., “Mortality Risk During and After Opioid Substitution Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies,” BMJ 357, no. 14 (2017): j1550.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, “Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General's Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health,” Rockville, MD, 2016.Google Scholar
Swenson, I., “Substance-Abuse Treatment and Mortality,” Journal of Public Economics 122 (Feb. 2015): 13–30.Google Scholar
Title V(B), 122 Stat. 3765, 3881-3893 (2008).Google Scholar
McGuire, T.G., “Achieving Mental Health Care Parity Might Require Changes in Payments and Competition,” Health Affairs 35, no. 6 (2016): 1029–1035.Google Scholar
Bergquist, S.L., “Intervening on the Data to Improve the Performance of Health Plan Payment Methods,” NBER Working Paper No. 24491 (April 2018); A. Shrestha et al., “Mental Health Risk Adjustment with Clinical Categories and Machine Learning,” Health Services Research 15 (2017); E. Montz et al., “Risk-Adjustment Simulation: Plans May Have Incentives To Distort Mental Health and Substance Use Coverage,” Health Affairs 35, No. 6 (2016): 1022-1028; T.J. Layton, T.G. McGuire, and R.C. van Kleef, “Deriving Risk Adjustment Payment Weights to Maximize Efficiency of Health Insurance Markets,” at 4 (NBER 2016); R.C. van Kleef et al., “Improving Risk Equalization with Constrained Regression,” NBER Working Paper No. 21570 (Sept. 2015): 1-18.Google Scholar
McGuire, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Id. at 1031-1032.Google Scholar
Center On Addiction, “New Campaign Announced to Achieve Effective Parity Enforcement in 10 States,” November 14, 2017, available at <https://www.centeronaddiction.org/newsroom/press-releases/new-campaign-announced-achieve-effective-parity-enforcement-10-states> (last visited November 6, 2018).+(last+visited+November+6,+2018).>Google Scholar
Natalie V. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. 15 C09174, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123783, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 13, 2016).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 18022.Google Scholar
E.g., S. 1156(a), 2017-2018 Reg. Sess., (NY 2017) (proposed legislation amending parity law in New York to provide for more effective enforcement structure advocated by Parity @ 10 campaign). Weber, E. et. al., “Parity Tracking Project: Making Parity a Reality, Addition Solutions Campaign (2017),” available at <https://lac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ES_ParityTrackingReport_ASC.pdf> (last visited July 12, 2018).+(last+visited+July+12,+2018).>Google Scholar
McGuire, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Baker, T., “Health Insurance, Risk, and Responsibility after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159, no. 6 (2011): 1577–1622; E. Montz et al., supra note 6.Google Scholar
CMS, Announcement of CY 2017 Medicare Advantage Capitation Rates and Medicare Advantage and Part D Payment Policies and Final Call Letter (April 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Hall, M.A., “Risk Adjustment Under the Affordable Care Act: Issues and Options,” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 20 (2011): 222–236, at 224-225.Google Scholar
McGuire, supra note 5.Google Scholar
CMS, March 31, 2016 HHS-Operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Meeting Discussion Paper (March 24, 2016): 31.Google Scholar
See HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019, 83 Fed. Reg. 16930, 16942-16943 (April 17, 2018); 2019 ACA Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (acknowledging but rejecting requests to include prescription drug data regarding mental health and SUD; requests cited Montz et al., supra note 6); CMS, Announcement of CY 2019 Medicare Advantage Capitation Rates and Medicare Advantage and Part D Payment Policies and Final Call Letter 43-44 (Apr. 2, 2018) (announcing new diagnoses such as “Drug Abuse, Uncomplicated, Except Cannabis”). The 21st Century Cures Act directed the Secretary to consider adding additional mental illness and SUD diagnoses to the Part C risk adjustment model. 42 U.S.C. 1395w–23(a)(1)(I)(i)(I).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 1395w-23 (Part C), 1395w-115 (Part D), 18063 (ACA).Google Scholar
See generally CMS, Announcements and Documents, available at <https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/MedicareAdvtgSpecRateStats/Announcements-and-Documents.html> (last visited November 6, 2018) (collecting annual Medicare Advantage and Part D actions); CMS, Regulations and Guidance, available at <https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/index.html#%20Affordable%20Care%20Act> (last visited November 6, 2018) (collecting, under “premium stabilization programs,” annual notices for ACA).+(last+visited+November+6,+2018)+(collecting+annual+Medicare+Advantage+and+Part+D+actions);+CMS,+Regulations+and+Guidance,+available+at++(last+visited+November+6,+2018)+(collecting,+under+“premium+stabilization+programs,”+annual+notices+for+ACA).>Google Scholar
Pope, G.C. et al., “Evaluation of the CMS-HCC Risk Adjustment Model: Final Report,” RTI Project Number 0209853.006 (March 2011): 18–19.Google Scholar
Cf. 42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(1)(C)(iii) (illness-specific risk adjustment for new enrollees who are “special needs individuals with chronic health conditions”).Google Scholar
Montz, supra note 6. A “bug” of using prescription drug data is that doing so might encourage prescriptions, but this may be a feature when it comes to under-treated illnesses.Google Scholar
Van Kleef et al., supra note 6 (constrained regression); Shrestha et al., supra note 6 (machine learning).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23(a)(1)(C)(i).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1395w-115(c)(1).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 18063.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(1)(C)(iii)(III).Google Scholar
Pope et al., supra note 22.Google Scholar
Layton, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Bergquist et al., supra note 6 at 23-24 (discussing comparative strengths and weaknesses of this and other approaches in light of upcoding, accuracy, and other considerations).Google Scholar
Bergquist et al., supra note 6 at 14, 19.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23(a)(1)(C)(ii)(IV) (Part C diagnostic, cost, and use data); 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-115(c)(1)(A) (“variation in costs for basic prescription drug coverage”).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1315a.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 18063.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23.Google Scholar
Cf. Minuteman Health Inc. v. Burwell, 191 F. Supp. 3d 174, 198-99 (D. Ma. 2018) (recognizing agency discretion to consider values other than actuarial risk); New Mexico Health Connections v. HHS, 2018 WL 1136901, *28 (D. N.M. 2018) (same).Google Scholar