Medicaid demonstrations aren't properly evaluated. Randomized trials could fix that

Medicaid on paper and a stethoscope
Evaluating §1115 waivers more rigorously is a “legal, ethical, and practical imperative," the article says.

Section 1115 waivers in the Medicaid program are meant to be experiments for states to test coverage approaches that don't meet federal requirements. 

However, most of those evaluations fall far short, lacking the rigorous study design needed to properly evaluate them, according to a new commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The evaluations usually use before-and-after comparisons and difference-in-difference analyses, both of which contain numerous methodological limitations. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office has found these evaluations often contain small sample sizes and no comparison groups. They also fail to test certain hypotheses and report all outcomes.

Conference

2019 Drug Pricing and Reimbursement Stakeholder Summit

Given federal and state pricing requirements arising, press releases from industry leading pharma companies, and the new Drug Transparency Act, it is important to stay ahead of news headlines and anticipated requirements in order to hit company profit targets, maintain value to patients and promote strong, multi-beneficial relationships with manufacturers, providers, payers, and all other stakeholders within the pricing landscape. This conference will provide a platform to encourage a dialogue among such stakeholders in the pricing and reimbursement space so that they can receive a current state of the union regarding regulatory changes while providing actionable insights in anticipation of the future.

But demonstration projects are highly consequential and evaluating them rigorously is a “legal, ethical, and practical imperative," the authors wrote. Instead, they should use randomized controlled trials, the gold standard in study design.

Medicaid demonstration waivers have been a major source of controversy since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began allowing states to pursue work requirement demonstrations in January. Opponents said work requirements will force many beneficiaries out of the program, effectively blocking their access to health services and harming their health. 

RELATED: CMS tightens oversight of Medicaid demonstration projects after GAO highlights ‘billions’ in excess costs

A proper evaluation should examine how a waiver affects beneficiaries' health, according to Kristen Underhill, J.D., an associate professor of law at Columbia University and lead author of the article. Those evaluations are particularly important with new work requirements in Arkansas, and now Kentucky, following a recent reapproval from CMS.

“Evaluations can (and should) generate an important and useful body of evidence about how waiver terms affect population health,” Underhill told FierceHealthcare via e-mail.

There are financial implications to this problem, too. More than a third of Medicaid dollars are spent on these Medicaid demonstrations, so it's critical that states and CMS can rely on their evaluations. 

RELATED: CMS reapproves Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky

Currently, demonstration projects between states can be evaluated with a randomized design, but one particular demonstration shouldn’t need to count on similar states pursuing—and being approved for—similar ones. Using a randomized design for a given demonstration would eliminate that issue. 

Some may argue randomized trials are too challenging to design and implement—that states lack the administrative capacity to do so, there are too many methodologic choices involved, and there is not sufficient uncertainty around how the waiver will affect beneficiaries for such a design.  

But addressing these issues is not as daunting as it seems, the authors argue.

States already apply different benefits to different populations (e.g. pregnant women aren’t subject to work requirements), methodological issues “are surmountable with evaluation expertise,” and subjecting all beneficiaries to an untested policy is no better than subjecting controlled groups, they wrote.

Suggested Articles

Two lawsuits were filed suing the Trump administration to overturn a new rule that would allow healthcare workers to deny care over religious or conscience…

Policy changes are affecting how investors view the skilled home health market and paving the way for potential strategic acquisitions.

JLABS executive Kate Merton talks about the JLABS model and Johnson & Johnson’s interest in digital health.