Health Insurance Mandates for Nonpharmacological Pain Treatments in 7 US States

Taylor Nadine Onstott,Samantha Hurst,Richard Kronick,An-Chi Tsou,Erik Groessl,Sara B. McMenamin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5737
2024-04-11
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:There has been recent interest by legislative bodies in increasing access to nonpharmacological pain therapies as a nonopioid alternative for pain. Prominent clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of nonpharmacological pain treatments such as acupuncture, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychotherapy, chiropractic care, massage, osteopathic manipulation, and physical therapy. 1 -4 Despite these recommendations, health insurance coverage for nonpharmacological pain treatments among both commercial and public plans, such as Medicare and Medicaid, is inconsistent. 5 This study (1) documents the extent to which states have introduced or enacted mandates for coverage of nonpharmacological pain treatments and (2) describes and characterizes variation in such mandates. The findings from this study may help inform policy makers and relevant stakeholders considering legislation related to nonpharmacological pain treatments at the state and federal level. This cross-sectional study used systematic document collection and performed qualitative analysis. Two online legislative tracking websites (PoliticoPro and LegiScan) were searched in November 2022 and again in August 2023 to identify legislation that either (1) encouraged or mandated coverage of nonpharmacological pain treatments or (2) specified the terms of coverage (eg, cost sharing, prior authorization, reimbursable clinicians) for nonpharmacological pain treatments (eAppendix in Supplement 1). We characterized relevant policies according to 2 characteristics identified a priori: (1) coverage and (2) coverage limitations and 3 new codes that arose from the analysis: (1) types of pain, (2) evidence-based coverage, and (3) essential health benefits (EHB)–related provisions. These study methods followed the STROBE reporting guideline. Institutional review board approval and informed consent were not required because the research did not involve human participants as defined by 45 CFR §46.102. Statistical analysis was performed using Excel version 16.83 (Microsoft) from January 2023 to March 2023. This study's search yielded 13 policies introduced in 7 different US states between January 2019 and August 2023, of which 2 were enacted, 3 were in progress, 1 was vetoed, and 7 were not enacted (Table 1). Five states proposed legislation mandating coverage of nonpharmacological pain treatments, yet none enacted such legislation. California enacted legislation to encourage (but not require) coverage. Only 1 state (Kentucky) included Medicaid enrollees in their proposed coverage mandate legislation. Five states also proposed legislation related to permitted limitations to nonpharmacological pain treatment coverage, with 4 proposing and 1 (Colorado) enacting legislation requiring cost-sharing for such coverage to be at parity with primary care visits. Other elements of proposed coverage varied. Acupuncture and chiropractic care were the treatments most consistently mandated; in addition, 4 states required evidence-based coverage, 3 states included EHB-related provisions to protect states from incurring additional cost, and 2 states included language that limited coverage to chronic pain (Table 2). Recent and ongoing efforts to increase access to, and utilization of, nonopioid alternatives for the treatment of pain have resulted in the introduction of legislation regarding nonpharmacological pain treatments in 7 states. Five recommendations for future legislation to create meaningful and accessible coverage for nonpharmacological pain treatments emerged: (1) include coverage for Medicaid enrollees to advance health equity in access to nonpharmacological pain treatments, (2) require cost-sharing at parity with other primary care visits, (3) cover nonpharmacologic treatments for acute pain in accordance with clinical practice guidelines, 4 (4) include reference to clinical practice guidelines to ensure consistent and up-to-date coverage, and (5) include language protecting the state from cost liability should the mandate be deemed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to exceed EHBs. 6 Limitations to this study include the potential that relevant legislation was missed due to search term specification error or introduction after August 2023. These findings suggest that states considering enactment of nonpharmacological pain treatment benefit mandates should carefully consider the specificity of the policy language and indicated covered populations to maximize policy effectiveness. Accepted for Publication: February 10, 2024. Published: April 10, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5737 Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Onstott TN et al. JAMA Network Open . Corresponding Author: Sara B. McMenamin, PhD, MPH, UC San Diego -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal
What problem does this paper attempt to address?