|
Tap 15 — TAPs <<<Documents<<<Home
This page contains links to external Web sites. The Treatment Improvement Exchange has no control over their content or availability.
Chapter 5 of TAP 15: Forecasting the Cost of Chemical Dependency
Treatment Under Managed Care: The Washington State Study
Chapter 5Assumptions in Substance Abuse Actuarial Studies
Actuarial data are rarely perfect. Often, data are missing, incomplete, or
believed to be inaccu-rate. Some subgroups of the covered population may not be
adequately represented in the data, or some services in the benefit package may
be unique. In such cases, the actuary needs to make assumptions. The Washington
State study provides several good examples.
Under the Washington health care reform plan, coverage is to be extended to
currently uninsured low-income families. Little is known regarding utilization
by this group, since there is no insurance company to keep track of billings
and these families are not eligible for medicaid. Their lack of current health
insurance coverage probably discourages them from seeking care, so any data
from other sources are suspect. In this case, the State's actuary initially
proposed assuming that utilization will be 15 percent higher than the rate for
currently insured families, because uninsured families are younger (hence
closer to the mean age of chemical dependency patients), poorer (hence more
likely to be chemically dependent), and more likely to post pone seeking
admission because of cost (hence creating pent-up demand) than currently
insured populations are. Washington State officials were very concerned that
the assumed 15-percent increase might be too low. If the State adopted a plan
based on such an assumption and utilization was dramatically higher than the
forecast, the legislature might terminate chemical dependency coverage to
control costs. The State and its actuary needed as accurate an estimate as
possible for utilization by currently uninsured persons.
Also of concern was the possibility that currently uninsured persons may
have been postponing needed treatment, but would suddenly show up once coverage
is extended. This pent-up demand, or "woodwork effect," could raise
treatment admissions dramatically, particularly over the short term.
Washington had received a contract from the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment to conduct a prevalence study statewide. Part of that study was a
household survey of adults, which included a chemical dependency scale. The
State also asked respondents whether they were currently insured and whether
they had entered chemical dependency treatment in the past year. With these
data, the State could estimate prevalence of chemical dependency among
currently uninsured families and could compare that figure with estimated
prevalence among insured families. Although prevalence (the rate of chemical
dependency) is different from utilization (the rate of admission to treatment),
it is reasonable to assume that the number of persons who enter treatment from
any group (utilization) is a constant proportion of the number of persons who
need treatment (prevalence). This implies that the ratio of utilization by
uninsureds to utilization by insureds would be about the same as the ratio of
prevalence among uninsureds to prevalence among insureds. Washington could
replace the 15-percent assumption about increased utilization with the
following formula:
| uninsured
prevalence | X | insured utilization | | |
|
= | uninsured
utilization | | insured prevalence | | | |
The State hoped to use the prior treatment data to refine its assumptions
about pent-up demand among the currently uninsured group. Pent-up demand is
created by lack of access, and the household survey's measurement of different
rates of access to treatment over the past year by insured and uninsured groups
could help the State infer the rate at which persons in the uninsured group
might have wanted treatment but have been unable to access it. Unfortunately,
the number of completed surveys was too small at the time to measure
differences in prior-year utilization between chemically dependent insureds and
chemically dependent uninsureds. The State and the actuary still needed to
guess at the rate of pent-up demand. The final loading factor chosen for
pent-up demand was 25 percent for each of the first 2 years, with no load
thereafter. Since the prevalence survey had already included pent-up demand as
"current need," the 25-percent loading factor was converted into a
reduction in demand after the exhaustion of pent-up demand (after 2 years). The
computed equivalent reduction is 20 percent.
Washington's final utilization estimates for the currently uninsured group
were 6.7 admissions per 1,000 uninsureds per year for the first 2 years and 5.4
per 1,000 thereafter (Table 5A). The estimate for the first 2 years was
53 percent higher than the actuary's initial proposal of 115 percent of the
utilization rate for insureds.
Medicaid posed different problems. The Washington Medicaid Management
Information System has demographic data on each medicaid enrollee, whether he
or she seeks chemical dependency treatment or not. Medicaid data bases are very
similar in design and function to insurance company data bases, so reliability,
completeness, and validity are comparable. Utilization rates for medicaid
enrollees can be reliably calculated for any services included in (and billed
separately in) the medicaid benefit package. In short, medicaid offers what
seems to be an ideal data base.
The drawbacks came from restrictions on medicaid benefits. Medicaid pays
for hospital-based care and for outpatient treatment, but not for nonhospital
residential care. This posed problems if residential care was to be part of the
benefit package under health care reform.
In Washington, hospital-based substance abuse treatment is available only
to pregnant chemically dependent women. Under managed care, nonpregnant persons
could be admitted to hospital-based substance abuse treatment services, but it
seemed reasonable to assume that cost containment concerns would hold overall
hospital utilization to about the same level.
Medicaid data for outpatient treatment utilization could not be accepted
with the same confidence. Due to funding limitations, the State instituted
policies restricting access to medicaid-funded outpatient treatment. Although
the level of funding changed nearly 2 years before the actuarial study was
initiated, lags in implementation and in billing for medicaid services resulted
in incomplete data reflecting the cost controls being available for actuarial
analysis.
Use of the medicaid data base for the actuarial study was precluded when
the State's medicaid program managers reported that it would take several
months to generate the necessary reports. Such a delay would mean that the
Health Services Commission would have to make its decision without the
actuarial study. The combination of questionable data and delayed availability
led the State to look for other means of generating
net-cost-per-person-per-month estimates for the medicaid population. The State
decided to use the method outlined above for the uninsured population to
generate estimates for the medicaid population.
Medicare posed still different problems. Prevalence of chemical dependency
in the medicare population is low, and Washington State had completed too few
surveys in the household study to get a reliable estimate. Medicare utilization
data are available in insurance data bases, but reported admission rates are
extremely low. The State believed the low reported utilization was due to lower
need for chemical dependency treatment compared with younger adults, to poor
diagnoses by practitioners, and to a desire to shield elderly patients and
their families from a chemical dependency diagnosis. Prevalence studies from
other States provided an estimated prevalence of chemical dependency in the
elderly population of between 25 and 60 percent of the rate among the general
adult population.1 Taking the upper prevalence estimate and
assuming that the ratio of utilization to need is the same as that for insured
adults generally, Washington would expect a utilization rate of 1.7 per 1,000,
or about 45 percent of the general utilization rate. Expecting that some of the
misdiagnosis and reluctance to refer would still remain despite health care
reform, the State and the actuary reduced the assumed utilization for
medicare-aged population to 1.5 per 1,000, equal to 40 percent of the rate for
the entire insured population.
Table 5A.Current and Projected
Utilization by Insureds and Uninsureds
| Number per 1,000 | |
| | Utilization category | Insured | Uninsured |
| | Current need (from prevalence study) | 16.6 | 29.1 |
| Initial utilization (from insurance data | 3.8 | 6.7 | | Long-term utilization (pent-up demand backed out) | 3.8 | 5.4 |
1 The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study (see Norman S. Miller,
Beth M. Belkin, and Mark S. Gold, "Alcohol and Drug Dependence Among the
Elderly: Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Treatment,"
Comprehensive Psychiatry 32, No. 2 (1991): 15365). Although the
study did not include a Washington site, a similar study in Spokane, found a
prevalence rate equal to 60 percent of the general population rate (see Martin
J. Jinks and Raymond Raschko, "A Profile of Alcohol and Prescription Drug
Abuse in a High Risk Community Based Elderly Population,"
DICP, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 24, No. 10 (1990): 97175).
Previous | Table
of Contents |
Next Top of Page

Last Updated 11-7-02
|