Module 3 Discussion Reimbursement & Financing Issues

Reimbursement & Financing Issues

 

After studying Module 3: Lecture Materials & Resources, discuss the following:

  • As decisions are made to address changes in reimbursement in your work place, how are these changes shared with the nursing staff?
  • What suggestions do you have that could increase nurses’ awareness of health care financing issues?

Submission Instructions:

  • Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with support from at least 2 academic sources.

 

June 2016 | Issue Brief

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes

Peter Cunningham, Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University

Robin Rudowitz, Katherine Young, Rachel Garfield, and Julia Foutz, Kaiser Family Foundation

Executive Summary

Medicaid payments to hospitals and other providers play an important role in these providers’ finances, which

can affect beneficiaries’ access to care. Medicaid hospital payments include base payments set by states or

health plans and supplemental payments. Estimates of overall Medicaid payment to hospitals as a share of

costs vary but range from 90% to 107%. While base Medicaid payments are typically below cost, the use of

supplemental payments can increase payments above costs. Changes related to expanded coverage under the

Affordable Care Act (ACA) as well as other changes related to Medicaid supplemental payments could have

important implications for Medicaid payments to hospitals. This brief provides an overview of Medicaid

payments for hospitals and explores the implications of the ACA Medicaid expansion as well as payment policy

changes on hospital finances. Key findings include the following:

 Overall, hospitals have benefitted financially from the ACA coverage expansions and the increase in

Medicaid payments, especially in states that expanded Medicaid coverage. Analysis of the Medicare

Cost Report data for 2013 and 2014 shows overall declines in uncompensated care from $34.9 billion to

$28.9 billion in 2014 nationwide. Nearly all of this decline occurred in expansion states, where

uncompensated care costs were $10.8 billion in 2014, $5.7 billion or 35% less than in 2013.

 While hospitals expect to benefit financially from the Medicaid expansion, they expect some gains from

the reduction in uncompensated care to be offset by volume-generated increases in Medicaid payments

that may be lower than cost. The data is not reliable enough to support nationwide analysis of the

extent to which this has occurred, and the effect would vary across hospitals.

 Despite the decrease in uncompensated care, other changes to Medicaid payment policy (such as

required reductions to disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments and policy changes to limit the

use of other supplemental payments) are likely to have a more substantial effect on Medicaid hospital

payment and overall hospital financial performance in the future. Ultimately the impact of reductions in

supplemental payments will depend on decisions by state governments to offset reductions with

increases to Medicaid base rates paid to hospitals.

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 2

Introduction

Medicaid payments to hospitals and other providers play an important role in these providers’ finances, which

can affect beneficiaries’ access to care. States have a great deal of discretion to set payment Medicaid rates for

hospitals and other providers. Like other public payers, Medicaid payments have historically been (on average)

below costs, resulting in payment shortfalls.1 However, hospital payment rates are often bolstered by additional

supplemental payments in the form of Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments (DSH) and other

supplemental payments. After accounting for these payments, many hospitals receive Medicaid payments that

may be in excess of cost. Understanding how much Medicaid pays hospitals is difficult because there is no

publicly available data source that provides reliable information to measure this nationally across all hospitals.

Different data sources use different definitions of what counts as payments and costs, so estimates are sensitive

to these data limitations.

Understanding the components of Medicaid payment to hospitals and how much Medicaid pays hospitals is

important given the many policy changes taking place. First, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is leading to

changes in hospital payer mix, especially in states adopting the Medicaid expansion where studies have shown

a decline in self-pay discharges and a corresponding increase in Medicaid discharges.2,3,4 Second, the ACA calls

for reductions in DSH payments, and other federal policy changes are focused on limiting the use of

supplemental payments. These changes could have important implications for Medicaid payments to hospitals

at the same time that Medicaid is a growing share of hospital payer mix, especially among safety net hospitals

that serve a disproportionately high number of Medicaid and uninsured patients.

This brief provides an overview of how Medicaid pays hospitals and discusses changes related to the ACA and

supplemental payments that will have implications for hospital financing. It draws on existing literature and

published reports as well as information collected from semi-structured interviews with hospital associations

and federal agencies.5 Interviews focused on respondents’ perspectives of how hospitals were likely fare under

the ACA and changes in Medicaid payment policy. In addition, we used data from the 2013 and 2014 Medicare

cost reports to try to measure Medicaid payment and uncompensated care in 2013 and 2014.

Background

HOW DOES MEDICAID PAY HOSPITALS?

Hospital payment for a particular patient or service is usually different than the charge for that service (i.e.,

prices set by the hospital) or the cost to the hospital of providing the service (i.e., actual incurred expenses). In

Medicaid, payment rates, sometimes called the “base rate,” are set by state Medicaid agencies for specific

services used by patients. In addition, Medicaid also may make supplemental payments to hospitals (Figure 1).6

Base Payment. The base payment rates are reimbursed through fee-for-service or managed care

arrangements for services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. States have wide discretion in setting these rates.

As discussed below, base rates are often not reflective of charges or costs for services.

Supplemental Payments. Supplemental payments are payments beyond the base rate that may or may not

be tied to specific services. States often use Upper Payment Limits (UPL), Intergovernmental Transfers (IGT),

provider taxes, or waivers to finance and direct supplemental payments. UPL rules allow states to make up the

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 3

difference between a reasonable estimate of what Medicare would pay and Medicaid payments (in aggregate

within a type and class of provider). IGTs or provider taxes are often used to generate the non-federal share for

Medicaid payments that are then redistributed to providers as additional Medicaid payments. In addition,

Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments are made to hospitals serving high proportions of

Medicaid or low-income patients.

Nationally, all supplemental Medicaid payments combined amounted to 44 percent of Medicaid fee-for-service

payments to hospitals in 2014.7 Non-DSH supplemental payments (which includes UPL, IGT, and revenue

generated from provider taxes) alone accounted

for 15 percent of Medicaid fee-for-service

payments. Almost all states make Medicaid DSH

payments to hospitals, and most states also use

some other form of supplemental payments,

although both the amount of supplemental

payments and how they are distributed to

hospitals varies considerably across states.8

Supplemental payments as a proportion of total

Medicaid fee-for-service payments to hospitals

varies from a low of about 2 percent in North

Dakota, South Dakota, and Maine to more than

two-thirds in Vermont and Pennsylvania.9

HOW MUCH DOES MEDICAID PAY HOSPITALS?

Since payment rates are either negotiated (with health plans) or set by the federal government for Medicare or

state governments for Medicaid fee-for-service, payments that hospitals receive for patient care do not

necessarily reflect what hospitals charge for those services or the cost of providing those services;10 rather,

hospitals may receive payments above costs or below costs. Payments below costs would result in a “shortfall.”

Due to data challenges and differences in what is counted as a Medicaid cost and payment (see Appendix A),

estimates of Medicaid payments to hospitals vary. The American Hospital Association (AHA) estimated that

Medicaid payments to hospitals amounted to 90 percent of the costs of patient care in 2013, while Medicare

paid 88 percent of costs; by contrast, hospitals received considerable overpayment from private insurers,

amounting to 144 percent of costs.11,12 The most recent Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission

(MACPAC) report to Congress, based on the 2011 DSH audit reports, shows that DSH hospitals were paid an

average of 93 percent of total Medicaid costs, accounting for base Medicaid payments and non-DSH

supplemental payments. After DSH payments, hospitals received 107% of costs on average nationally but

ranged from 81 percent in the lowest paying state to 130 percent in the highest paying state.13 Our own analysis

of the Medicare Cost Reports finds that Medicaid payments covered 93% of costs in 2014.14 However, we find

great variation at the state or individual hospital level, indicating that hospitals may have very different

experiences of the extent to which Medicaid payment covers Medicaid costs.

Figure 1

*Includes UPL, IGT, provider taxes and 1115 Waiver payments. Note: Based on fee-for-service payments only. Data is for 2014. Source: Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. MACStats, Section 3, Exhibit 2. Medicaid Supplemental Payments to Hospital Providers by State, FY 2014, https://www.macpac.gov/publication/medicaid-supplemental-payments-to-hospital- providers-by-state/. .

Medicaid payment to hospitals consists of base payments as well as supplemental payments.

$49.8 Billion

$24.2 Billion

$89.3 Billion

$15.2 Billion

Base Payment DSH Supplemental Payments

Non-DSH Supplemental Payments*

Total Hospital Payment

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 4

How has the Medicaid expansion affected hospital finances?

Expanded health insurance coverage through the ACA (both Medicaid and private insurance) is

having a major impact on hospital payer mix for many hospitals. A number of reports show

increases in Medicaid discharges and declines in uninsured or self-pay discharges for hospitals located in states

that implemented the Medicaid expansion. In contrast, hospitals located in states that did not expand Medicaid

are not seeing these large shifts in payer mix. 15, 16, 17

One report that examined the nation’s largest not-for-profit hospital system (Ascension Health) was able to

examine not only changes in discharges but also changes in hospital revenues and costs. Like other studies,

data from Ascension Health hospitals showed that hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid experienced

larger increases in Medicaid discharge volumes and patient revenue from 2013 to 2014 compared to hospitals

in states that did not expand Medicaid. Ascension hospitals in expansion states also observed a much larger

decrease in uninsured/self-pay volumes as well as charity care.18 Overall, Ascension Health hospitals in

Medicaid expansion states observed a $35 million decrease in charity care between 2013 and 2014, but they

also saw Medicaid shortfall amounts rise by $23 million, resulting in a net decrease of $12 million in the costs

of care to the poor.19 Shortfalls grew as a result of both increases in Medicaid volume and payment rate

changes in some states. Replicating the Ascension analysis for hospitals nationally is difficult due to limited

reliable data.

The cost of uncompensated care has declined among hospitals in Medicaid expansion states,

while such costs have remained flat among hospitals in states that did not expand Medicaid.

Analysis of the Medicare Cost Report data for 2013 and 2014 shows overall declines in uncompensated care. In

2013, total uncompensated care costs for hospitals (including charity care costs and bad debt) were $34.9

billion, with hospitals in expansion states

incurring about $16.7 billion and hospitals in

non-expansion states incurring about $18.1

billion.20 In 2014, uncompensated care fell to

$28.9 billion nationwide, a $6 billion or 17%

drop, with nearly all of the decrease occurring in

expansion states (where uncompensated care

costs were $11 billion in 2014, $5.8 billion or

35% less than the year before). In non-

expansion states, the change in uncompensated

care was nearly flat between 2013 and 2014,

dropping just 1% (or $0.2 billion) to $17.9

billion in 2014 (Figure 2).

Unfortunately, we are not able to quantify how much of the decrease in hospital uncompensated care costs was

offset by increases in Medicaid shortfall amounts, because such data are not reliable in the Medicare Cost

Reports (i.e. supplemental Medicaid payments are likely to be under-reported). While the experience of the

Ascension Health system suggests that rising Medicaid shortfalls are offsetting the potential financial benefit of

lower uncompensated care costs, this outcome is likely to vary substantially across hospitals.

Figure 2

Source: KCMU analysis of the Medicare Cost Reports, 2013 and 2014.

Hospitals in expansion states saw a reduction in uncompensated care costs from 2013 to 2014. $ in billions

$34.9

$16.7 $18.1

$28.9

$11.0

$17.9

A l l N o n -F e d eral A cu te C ar e H o sp i t al s

Ex p an si o n S t at es N o n -Ex p an si o n S t ates

Total Uncompensated Care Cost, 2013 Total Uncompensated Care Cost, 2014

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 5

Whether hospitals come out ahead financially under the ACA will depend on numerous factors

– many of which are unrelated to Medicaid. The ACA included a number of restrictions on Medicare

payments for hospitals and expanded coverage has also resulted in markets shifts and new competition.

Hospitals also may see shifts in patient acuity, Medicaid payment rate changes or other changes in Medicaid

payment policy. In addition, hospitals are constantly implementing strategies to increase revenue (e.g. diversify

payer mix) and reduce the costs of providing services. Many safety net hospitals are trying to diversify their

payer mix by changing their “safety net image” in the community, competing more aggressively for privately

insured patients, retaining the privately insured patients they already have, and expanding services beyond

inner city service areas where they are typically located.21 Thus, Medicaid expansion is just one of many factors

that will influence hospitals’ financial viability in the future.

Given this variation and difficulties with underlying data, better data are needed to capture how hospital

finances are faring under the ACA, and specifically how Medicaid revenues and shortfalls are changing.

Stakeholders interviewed for this project thought that the Medicaid expansion would be a financial benefit to

hospitals, but payment levels were a concern; however, these concerns were secondary to broader concerns

about upcoming and potential changes to Medicaid supplemental payments.

What payment policy changes could affect Medicaid hospital

payments?

Hospitals are facing several policy changes that may affect Medicaid payments. Over time, state budget

pressures have resulted in an increasing reliance on supplemental payments (versus base payments) to finance

Medicaid hospital services. However, a number of upcoming policy changes, including reductions in DSH

payments and limits on other supplemental payments, will restrict the use of supplemental payments. Federal

officials believe that reform of Medicaid supplemental payments is needed to make payment more transparent,

targeted, and consistent with delivery system reforms that reduce health care costs, and increase quality and

access to care. However, these policy changes are causing concern among hospitals that have long been

dependent on Medicaid revenue for their financial viability.22,23,24 In addition, payment changes are occurring

against the backdrop of coverage expansions under the ACA, which are affecting payer mix for some hospitals.

CHANGES IN BASE PAYMENT RATES

Changes in state reimbursement rates for hospitals have a big effect on Medicaid hospital financing, especially

for safety net hospitals that serve a large number of Medicaid patients. Each year, states must balance their

budgets, and consideration of Medicaid payment rates for providers and managed care organizations factor in

to these discussions. In general, increases in base rates have lagged behind increases in costs during economic

downturns as states often restrict (freeze or reduce) provider rates. Even as the economy has recovered, in

fiscal years 2015 and 2016, there were more states restricting (freezing or cutting) rates for Medicaid hospital

inpatient care than there were states increasing rates.25 While the economy is improving and resources are not

as scarce as during a recession, states balance the need to increase Medicaid payment rates to ensure provider

participation and access with overall budget decisions.

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 6

CHANGES IN MEDICAID DSH FUNDING

In 2014, federal DSH allotments totaled $11.7 billion.26 Under current law, DSH spending is limited by annual

federal allotments and individual hospital limits (hospitals cannot receive DSH payments in excess of

uncompensated care costs). The ACA calls for reductions in Medicaid DSH payments, originally scheduled to

begin in 2014 but delayed until 2018.27 These reductions will amount to $43 billion between 2018 and 2025;

reductions start at $2 billion in FY 2018 and increase to $8 billion by FY 2025. The ACA requires the Secretary

of HHS to develop a methodology to allocate the reductions that must take into account certain factors that

would allocate larger percentage reductions on states with the lowest percentages of uninsured individuals and

states that do not target DSH payments to hospitals with high levels of uncompensated care. It is unclear if or

how HHS will adjust the DSH reductions to account for the fact that some states may have higher uninsured

rates because they have opted to not implement the Medicaid expansion. MACPAC analysis shows that current

state DSH allocations are not tied to a hospital’s share of Medicaid and other low-income patients, its

uncompensated care burden, and its delivery of essential community services.28

In general, many hospitals and hospital associations are skeptical that the increase in patient revenue under

the ACA will make up for the loss of Medicaid DSH funds, although the impact will vary depending on

hospitals’ prior dependence on Medicaid DSH funding as well as federal and state government decisions on

how the remaining DSH funds will be distributed across states and hospitals. Safety net hospitals are

particularly vulnerable because of their high dependence on Medicaid DSH funds, high numbers of uninsured,

few privately insured or Medicare patients, and generally weaker financial condition.29 An analysis of California

concluded that reductions in DSH payments to the state’s public hospitals would not be fully offset by

increased revenue from paying patients due to the high number of people who would remain uninsured, low

Medicaid reimbursement rates, and the rising costs of care.30 Analyses by the New York City Health and

Hospitals Corporation also estimated that DSH cuts will put a strain on hospitals, possibly leading to

reductions in hospital medical staff and services.31

CHANGES IN OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS

While states’ reliance on supplemental payments as a source of revenue for hospitals has increased, lack of data

and transparency on state’s use of supplemental payments makes federal oversight of these programs

difficult.32 Federal officials are working to reform how states use supplemental payments in managed care and

waivers, as well as the use of provider taxes.

Managed Care Rules. While UPL payments to hospitals have always been restricted to fee-for-service

payment only, some states have used pass-through mechanisms to direct supplemental payments to selected

hospitals through managed care plans. The Medicaid managed care rules originally proposed by the federal

government would have restricted states’ ability to direct supplemental payments to providers through

managed care plans.33 Under the Final Rule published in May 2016, these supplemental payments to hospitals

would be phased out over 10 years (2017-2027), by 10 percentage points each year. So, while still an area of

concerns, states and hospitals have more time to make rate adjustments over time.

DSRIP. The Delivery System Reform and Incentive Programs (DSRIP) allow states to use supplemental

payments for delivery system reforms in their Medicaid programs. These programs have been implemented

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 7

through Section 1115 waivers in eight states, including California, Texas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New

Mexico, Kansas, and New York.34,35 Supplemental payments through DSRIP are being used to achieve

particular goals, such as improved quality, outcomes, access to care and population health. In most states with

DSRIP programs, public hospitals are contributing all or most of the non-federal share of funding for these

programs.36 The DSRIP programs are temporary, with the expectation that states and providers can transform

their delivery systems so that they are more efficient, less costly, have lower use of hospital inpatient care, and

more use of primary and preventive care. While these payments are included under broad waivers that are

budget neutral to the federal government, the amount of funding allocated for DSRIP programs is significant

($3.3 billion in California, $6.6 billion in Texas, $6.4 billion in New York)37, and the phase-out of this funding

will have implications for states and providers. In renewing California’s DSRIP program in December 2015,

funding is scheduled to phase down by 10% in year four and by 15% in year five.38

Safety Net Care Pools. Federal policy makers also have been focused on reforming the use of Medicaid

Section 1115 demonstration waivers to fund state uncompensated care pools in nine states. Officials laid out

the principles for which such funds were to be used, including: (1) funds should not pay for the costs that would

be covered in a Medicaid expansion; (2) they should support services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries and

low-income uninsured individuals, and; (3) provider payment should promote provider participation and

access, and should support plans in managing and coordinating care.39 To the extent that this funding has been

used to supplement Medicaid base rates for certain hospitals, changes to these funding streams will affect

hospital finances. The agreement to renew Florida’s Low Income Pool – which reduced funds for the pool –

included a $400 million increase in base rates to providers. In May 2016, Texas received a 15 month extension

of their waiver; the letter states that if CMS and the state cannot reach agreement during this extension period,

CMS expects that the Uncompensated Care pool will not be renewed at the end of 2017 and that DSRIP will

decrease by 25% each year starting in 2018.40

Provider Taxes. Provider taxes are an integral source of Medicaid financing governed by long-standing

regulations. Currently, all but one state (Alaska) reported a provider tax in FY 2015.41 Often provider taxes are

used to bolster Medicaid payment rates for hospitals; however, these taxes can also be used to support state

general revenues. In Connecticut, the state has been retaining more of the provider tax to address state budget

deficits instead of supporting hospitals.42 The state hospital association estimates that this has effectively

decreased overall Medicaid payments from 50 percent of costs to 41 percent.43 In addition to state decisions

about how to use funding from provider taxes, Congress is currently considering proposals to limit the use of

provider taxes. This action would restrict states’ flexibility to finance their share of Medicaid and could

therefore shift additional costs to states or result in program cuts. Since states use provider taxes differently,

limits would have different effects across states.

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 8

Conclusion

At this point, it is unclear how recent and upcoming policy changes in Medicaid will affect the financial viability

of hospitals. Early analysis of the Medicare Care Report data show national declines in uncompensated care,

especially in expansion states, although the data do not permit reliable estimates of trends in Medicaid

payment amounts. However, hospital margins are influenced by numerous factors, the health care and policy

environment is in flux, and some hospitals will be better able to adapt to these changes than others. There is

much concern from hospitals – especially safety net hospitals – about the decrease in Medicaid DSH funds and

other changes in supplemental payments that they have depended on for years. Most stakeholders from the

hospital industry that we talked to thought that even after accounting for increases in Medicaid shortfall, the

Medicaid expansion was a financial benefit, but changes to supplemental payments could have a much larger

negative effect on hospital finances. The overall impact of changes to supplemental payments also will depend

on how much states adjust base payment rates to compensate for changes to supplemental payments. Better

data and monitoring of the effects of coverage changes as well as policy changes related to the supplemental

payments will help to better evaluate hospitals financial well-being and the ability of safety net hospitals to

serve Medicaid and uninsured persons.

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 9

Appendix A: Measuring Medicaid Payments to Hospitals

No data source consistently collects information on Medicaid costs and payment, and different estimates of

Medicaid payment as a share of costs use different definitions of Medicaid costs and payments. Thus, estimates

of Medicaid payment as a percent of costs are sensitive to the specific data source and definitions used to make

the estimates. For example, when measuring Medicaid hospital payments, some data sources include

supplemental payments, while others do not. In some data sources, these payment streams are not identified,

making it difficult to understand what is and is not included. Further, in some cases, Medicaid costs may be

defined to include only costs for Medicaid-covered services, while in others, the definition may include unpaid

costs for services provided to Medicaid patients when Medicaid was not the primary payer—for example, costs

for Medicare-funded services provided to people dually eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare.

Three main sources of estimating Medicaid payment relative to costs are the Medicare cost reports, the DSH

Audit Reports and the American Hospital Association survey. These sources vary in the data they collect and

the definitions of costs and payments that they enable. Each of these data sources may underreport other

Medicaid supplemental payments, which may understate total Medicaid payments, and the data likely does not

net out provider contributions towards the non-federal share, which are necessary to calculate net Medicaid

payments and may contribute to overstating total Medicaid payments.

Medicare Cost Reports. The Medicare Cost Reports (MCR) are annual reports that all Medicare-certified

institutional providers are required to submit to Medicare. It is the only publicly available source of detailed

financial data for most of the acute care hospitals in the U.S. These reports contain provider information such

as facility characteristics, utilization data, cost and charges by cost center (in total and for Medicare), Medicare

settlement data, and financial statement data that are used as part of the annual settlement between the federal

government and the provider.44 These cost reports are designed to collect data necessary for Medicare

reimbursement and thus do not verify or require Medicaid data, leading to questions about how reliable these

data are for Medicaid payment analyses. Hospitals are not required to report DSH payments separately, but

DSH payments are included as Medicaid revenues in these reports, and the reports only include costs for

Medicaid-covered services.

Medicaid DSH Audit Reports. The Medicaid DSH audit reports are required annual reports that states

must submit to the federal government describing DSH payments made to each DSH hospital.45 In these

reports, hospitals explicitly report DSH payments. DSH audits also include unpaid costs for services provided

to Medicaid patients when Medicaid was not the primary payer. The primary limitation of this data source is

that they exclude hospitals that do not receive DSH payments, which are likely to differ substantially from DSH

hospitals in the amount of overpayment or underpayment from Medicaid.

American Hospital Association Reports (AHA). The AHA uses data from their annual hospital survey

to provide an estimate of Medicaid (and Medicare) payments relative to costs. In their survey, AHA obtains

information on each hospitals’ net and gross Medicaid payments, DSH, and supplemental payments. They

calculate a cost-to-charge ratio and use this to determine the rate of underpayment for all hospitals. In their

underpayment calculation, they include all payment adjustments.46 While AHA publishes annual reports on

overall hospital uncompensated care costs, as well as Medicare and Medicaid underpayments, the detailed

financial data are not available on their public use files.

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 10

As a result of these differences, as well as limitations in the underlying data, estimates of Medicaid payment as

a share of cost vary (see Table A1). However, most estimates indicate that Medicaid payments cover most

(more than 90%) costs, with one estimate indicating that some hospitals (those that receive DSH payments)

receive Medicaid reimbursement in excess of costs.

Table A1: Estimates of Medicaid Payments as a Share of Costs

Source Data Year Estimate of

Medicaid

Payment as a

Share of

Medicaid Cost

Notes

American Hospital

Association (AHA) 47

 

AHA annual

survey

2013 90%  Includes non-federal, acute care hospitals

 Payments include supplemental payments

and DSH

 Cost data reflect payments for Medicaid

beneficiaries for Medicaid-covered services

Medicaid and CHIP

Payment and

Access Commission

(MACPAC) 48

 

DSH Audit

Reports

2011 93% excluding

DSH and 107%

including DSH

 Includes only hospitals that receive DSH

payments

 Payments include DSH, but these payments

are reported separately

 Cost data includes cost of services for

Medicaid patients for which Medicaid is not

primary payer

Authors’ analysis Medicare

Cost Reports

2014 93%  Includes non-federal, acute care hospitals

 Payments include DSH

 Cost data reflect payments for Medicaid

beneficiaries for Medicaid-covered services

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 11

Endnotes

1

American Hospital Association, “Table 4.4: Aggregate Hospital Payment-to-cost Ratios for Private Payers, Medicare,” in Trendwatch Chartbook 2015 (Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association, 2015), http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/chartbook/2015/table4- 4.pdf.

2

Deborah Bachrach, Patricia Boozang, and Mindy Lipson, The Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Uncompensated Care Costs: Early Results and Policy Implications for States (Princeton, NJ: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, State Health Reform Assistance Network, June 2015), http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2015/06/the-impact-of-medicaid-expansion-on-uncompensated- care-costs.html.

3

Robin Rudowitz and Rachel Garfield, New Analysis Shows States with Medicaid Expansion Experienced Declines in Uninsured Hospital Discharges (Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, September 2015), http://kff.org/health- reform/issue-brief/new-analysis-shows-states-with-medicaid-expansion-experienced-declines-in-uninsured-hospital-discharges.

4

Sayeh Nikpay, Thomas Buchmueller, and Helen G. Levy, “Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion Reduced Uninsured Hospital Stays In 2014,” Health Affairs. 35, no. 1 (2016): 106-10, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/35/1/106.abstract.

5

Organizations interviewed for this report included the American Hospital Association, America’s Essential Hospitals, the Connecticut Hospital Association, the California Public Hospital Association, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

6

Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, “Examining the Policy Implications of Medicaid Non-Disproportionate Share Hospital Supplemental Payments,” chap. 6 in March 2014 Report to the Congress on Medicaid and CHIP (Washington, DC: March 2014), 183-209, https://www.macpac.gov/publication/report-to-the-congress-on-medicaid-and-chip-314/.

7

Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, “Medicaid Supplemental Payments to Hospital Providers by State, FY 2014” Exhibit 23 in December 2015 MACStats: Medicaid and CHIP Data Book. https://www.macpac.gov/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/EXHIBIT-23.-Medicaid-Supplemental-Payments-to-Hospital-Providers-by-State-FY-2014-millions.pdf

8

Ibid.

9

Ibid.

10

Uwe Reinhardt, “The pricing of U.S. hospital services: Chaos behind a veil of secrecy,” Health Affairs, 25, no. 1 (2006): 57-69, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/1/57.full.pdf+html.

11

American Hospital Association, “Table 4.4: Aggregate Hospital Payment-to-cost Ratios for Private Payers, Medicare,” in Trendwatch Chartbook 2015 (Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association, 2015), http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/chartbook/2015/table4- 4.pdf.

12

AHA estimates that in 2014, Medicare paid 89 percent of costs for Medicare patients and Medicaid paid 90 percent of costs ofr Medicaid patients. See: American Hospital Association, “Underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid Fact Sheet: Underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid Fact Sheet,” (Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association, 2016) http://www.aha.org/content/16/medicaremedicaidunderpmt.pdf

13

MACPAC’s analysis showed similar findings using the Medicare Cost Reports (from among a subset of hospitals with complete data from both sources). Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, “Improving Data as the First Step to a More Targeted Disproportionate Share Hospital Policy,” chap. 3, March 2016 Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP, (Washington, DC: March 2016), 56-73, https://www.macpac.gov/publication/improving-data-as-the-first-step-to-a-more-targeted-disproportionate-share- hospital-policy/.

14

Using data from Worksheet S-10 in the 2013 and 2014 Medicare Costs Reports, we calculated revenue over costs as net Medicaid revenue divided by the product of Medicaid charges and the cost to charge ratio. We restricted the data to just non-federal acute care hospitals that had both 2013 and 2014 data. We adjusted spending amounts to reflect the entire year. We treated blanks in the data as missing data, and did not include them in the rate. Worksheet S-10 (“Hospital Uncompensated and Indigent Care Data”), 2013 and 2014 Medicare Cost Reports, https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Downloadable-Public-Use-Files/Cost- Reports/Cost-Reports-by-Fiscal-Year.html.

15

Bachrach et al., op. cit.

16

Rudowitz and Garfield, op. cit.

17

Nikpay, Buchmueller, and Levy, op. cit.

18

Peter Cunningham, Rachel Garfield, and Robin Rudowitz, How are Hospitals Faring under the Affordable Care Act? Early Experiences from Ascension Health. (Washington DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, October 2014), http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/how-are-hospitals-faring-under-the-affordable-care-act-early-experiences-from-ascension- health/

19

Ibid., Table 5.

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding Medicaid Hospital Payments and the Impact of Recent Policy Changes 12

20

Using the Worksheet S-10 data from the 2013 and 2014 Medicare Cost Reports, we calculated uncompensated care by summing bad debt costs and charity care costs. As we did when calculating the revenue over costs, we restricted the data to non-federal acute care hospitals that had both 2013 and 2014 data. We also adjusted spending to reflect the entire year. By linking the Medicare Cost Report data to the American Hospital Association Hospital Data, available through the AHA Data Viewer, we identified the location of each hospital. We categorized all states that had expanded by December 31, 2014 as “expansion states” and all others as “non-expansion states.”

21

Teresa Coughlin, Sharon Long, Rebecca Peters, Robin Rudowitz, and Rachel Garfield, Evolving Picture of Nine Safety-Net Hospitals: Implications of the ACA and Other Strategies (Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, April 2015), http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/evolving-picture-of-nine-safety-net-hospitals-implications-of-the-aca-and-other-strategies/.

22

America’s Essential Hospitals, “Our View: Essential Hospitals Rely on Medicaid Supplemental Payments,” (Washington DC: America’s Essential Hospitals, March 2016) http://essentialhospitals.org/policy/essential-hospitals-rely-on-supplemental-payments/.

23

Christopher Weaver, “Hospitals Expected More of a Boost From Health Law,” Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/hospitals-expected-more-of-a-boost-from-health-law-1433304242.

24

Kentucky Hospital Association, “Code Blue: Many Kentucky Hospitals Struggling Financially Due to Health System changes,” (Louisville, KY: Kentucky Hospital Association, April 2015) http://www.new- kyha.com/Portals/5/NewsDocs/Code%20Blue%20Report%20Web.pdf.

25

Vernon Smith, Kathleen Gifford, Eileen Ellis, Robin Rudowitz, Laura Snyder, and Elizabeth Hinton, Medicaid Reforms to Expand Coverage, Control Costs and Improve Care. Results from a 50-State Medicaid Budget Survey for State Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016. (Kaiser Family Foundation and National Association of Medicaid Directors, October 2015) http://kff.org/medicaid/report/medicaid- reforms-to-expand-coverage-control-costs-and-improve-care-results-from-a-50-state-medicaid-budget-survey-for-state-fiscal-years- 2015-and-2016/.

26

79 Fed. Reg. 11436 – 11445 (February 28, 2014), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/28/2014- 04032/medicaid-program-preliminary-disproportionate-share-hospital-allotments-dsh-for-fiscal-year-fy-2014.

27

42 U.S.C. § 1396r-4(f)(7). See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1396r-4 .

28

Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, “Analysis of Current and Future Disproportionate Share Hospital Allotments,” chap. 2, March 2016 Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP, (Washington, DC: March 2016), 21-54, https://www.macpac.gov/publication/analysis-of-current-and-future-disproportionate-share-hospital-allotments/.

29

Evan Cole, Daniel Walker, Arthur Mora, Mark Diana, “Identifying Hospitals That May Be at Most Financial Risk from Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment Cuts,” Health Affairs, 33, no. 11 (2014): 2025-2033, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/11/2025.abstract.

30

Katherine Neuhausen, Anna Davis, Jack Needleman, Robert Broook, David Zingmond, and Dylan Roby. “Disproportionate-Share Hospital Payment Reductions May Threaten the Financial Stability of Safety-Net Hospitals.” Health Affairs, 33, no. 6 (2014): 988-996, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/6/988.abstract.

31

Office of the New York City Comptroller, Holes in the Safety Net: Obamacare and the Future of New York City’s Health and Hospitals Corporation, (New York, NY: Office of the New York City Comptroller, May 2015), http://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp- content/uploads/documents/Holes_in_the_Safety_Net.pdf.

32

Government Accountability Office, “Medicaid: Improving Transparency and Accountability of Supplemental Payments and State Financing Methods,” (Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, November 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16- 195T.

33

Moira Forbes and Chris Park, “Issues in Medicaid Managed Care Rate Setting,” (Washington DC: Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, May 2015) https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Issues-in-Medicaid-Managed-Care-Rate- Setting.pdf.

34

Alexandra Gates, Robin Rudowitz and Jocelyn Guyer, An Overview of Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) Waivers (Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, September 2014), http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/an- overview-of-delivery-system-reform-incentive-payment-waivers/.

35

Jocelyn Guyer, Naomi Shine, Robin Rudowitz, and Alexandra Gates, Key Themes From Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) Waivers in 4 States (Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, April 2015), http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/key-themes-from-delivery-system-reform-incentive-payment-dsrip-waivers-in-4-states/.

36

Gates, Rudowitz and Guyer, op. cit.

37

Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, June 2015 Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP, (Washington, DC: June 2015), https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/June-2015-Report-to-Congress-on-Medicaid-and-CHIP.pdf

38

Letter from CMS to Mari Cantwell, Chief Deputy Director Department of Health Care Services, California. (Washington, DC: CMS, December 30, 2015). https://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/ca/medi- cal-2020/ca-medi-cal-2020-ca.pdf

 

 

 

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Headquarters: 2400 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 | Phone 650-854-9400 Washington Offices and Barbara Jordan Conference Center: 1330 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 | Phone 202-347-5270

www.kff.org | Email Alerts: kff.org/email | facebook.com/KaiserFamilyFoundation | twitter.com/KaiserFamFound

Filling the need for trusted information on national health issues, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in Menlo Park, California.

39 Letter from CMS to Justin Senior, Deputy Secretary for Medicaid, State of Florida, (Washington, DC: CMS, May 21, 2015), https://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/fl/Managed-Medical- Assistance-MMA/fl-medicaid-reform-lip-ltr-05212015.pdf.

40 Letter from CMS to Gary Jessee, Associate Commissioner for Medicaid/CHIP, State of Texas. (Washington, DC: CMS, May 2016). https://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/tx/tx-healthcare- transformation-ca.pdf

41 Smith, Gifford, Ellis, Rudowitz, Snyder, and Hinton, op. cit.

42 Arielle Levin Becker, “CT Hospitals Say Obamacare Hasn’t Cut Uncompensated Care,” CT Mirror, September 29, 2014, http://ctmirror.org/2014/09/29/ct-hospitals-say-obamacare-hasnt-cut-uncompensated-care/.

43 Interview with Connecticut Hospital Association.

44 “Cost Reports,” CMS, https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Downloadable-Public-Use-Files/Cost-Reports/ and “Healthcare Cost Report Information System,” ResDAC, https://www.resdac.org/cms-data/files/hcris.

45 “Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments,” CMS, https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program- information/by-topics/financing-and-reimbursement/medicaid-disproportionate-share-hospital-dsh-payments.html.

46 American Hospital Association, “Underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid Fact Sheet,” op. cit.

47 Ibid. Telephone conversation with Caroline Steinberg from the AHA Policy Division provided additional information used in notes.

48 Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, March 2016 Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP, (Washington, DC: March 2016), https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/March-2016-Report-to-Congress-on-Medicaid-and-CHIP.pdf.

 

NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3110

H OSPITALS IN THE U.S. FACE ongoing challenges as they strive to achieve their missions. They are

struggling to operate in a turbulent healthcare environment, consist- ing of uninsured and underin- sured patients (Grant, Colello, Riehle, & Dende, 2010), changing reimbursement policies, broaden- ing regulatory requirements, and increasing emphasis on quality care outcomes (Parsons & Cornett, 2011). Despite the challenging operating environments, hospitals are trying to survive and maintain delivery of high-quality healthcare services. Maintaining financial

viability, hospitals are employing operational strategies to provide distinct advantages and differenti- ate themselves from other com- petitors, potentially providing opportunities to increase revenue either through market share or reimbursement. One way a hospi- tal can distinguish itself is by sig- naling the underlying quality of its products and services.

Signals are used to reduce information symmetry, which is defined as an imbalance of infor- mation between two parties, where one side has more informa- tion than another (Connelly, 2011). Signals are used in health

George M. Holmes Cheryl B. Jones

Elizabeth K. Woodard

Saleema A. Karim George H. Pink Kristin L. Reiter

The Effect of the Magnet Recognition® Signal on Hospital

Reimbursement and Market Share

SALEEMA A. KARIM, PhD, MBA, MHA, is Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.

GEORGE H. PINK, PhD, is Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

KRISTIN L. REITER, PhD, is Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

GEORGE M. HOLMES, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

CHERYL B. JONES, PhD, is Professor and Chair, School of Nursing, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

ELIZABETH K. WOODARD, PhD, is a Director, Nursing Research and Evidence-Based Practice, WakeMed Health & Hospitals, Raleigh, NC.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Magnet Recognition® is a quali- ty designation granted by the American Nurses Credentialing Center. If patients and payers interpret the Magnet Recognition desig- nation as a signal of high- quality care, then demand for Magnet hospitals should increase and lead to an increase in market share and revenue. This study examines the effects of the Magnet Recognition sig- nal on both hospital and patient reimbursement. Using a difference-in-difference model with hospital fixed- effects, results indicate Magnet Recognition signal does not affect either patient reimburse- ment or market share of desig- nated hospitals compared to non-designated hospitals. While Magnet Recognition has been associated with various positive benefits for patients, nurses, and the organization, hospital executives and policy- makers should carefully consid- er the financial resources dedi- cated to publicizing the Magnet Recognition designation.

 

 

111NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3

care to communicate the underly- ing quality of a hospital’s products and services to its stakeholders. Signals such as corporate name changes, quality designations, product branding, advertising expenditures, and management quality communicate the commit- ment of resources to differentiation and emphasize the organization’s commitment to quality. The infor- mation contained in the signal per- mits consumers to make informed decisions and distinguish between high-quality and low-quality prod- ucts. Some hospitals communicate directly, using public reporting of quality of care information (Faber, Bosch, Wollersheim, Leatherman, & Grol, 2009), such as Hospital Compare (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS], 2015). Others communicate indirectly, or signal, unobservable information to consumers by attaining an expen- sive quality designation, which the consumer can interpret as the firm’s commitment of resources to quality management (Boulding & Kirmani, 1993). The quality infor- mation conveyed by the signal then leads consumers to update their perceptions (Connelly, 2011) about product and service quality within the context of market conditions.

The Magnet Recognition® (MR) designation is an example of a sig- nal employed by hospitals. This signal communicates to patients, providers, and payers the hospital’s dedication and commitment to both healthcare quality and quality management via nursing service excellence (Hader, 2010; O’Neill & Largey, 1998), which in today’s competitive marketplace is an important hospital characteristic (Bumgarner & Beard, 2003; Everhart, Neff, Al-Amin, Nogle, & Weech-Maldonado, 2013). MR is a quality designation given by the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) to hospitals and long-term care facilities (Gerhardt & VanKuiken, 2008) to recognize organizations as centers of nursing excellence (Trinkoff et al., 2010). Pursuing and sustaining MR

requires a commitment of time and investment of substantial human and financial resources by the hos- pital (Parsons & Cornett, 2011; Rich & Barnsteiner, 2007). The designa- tion has gained widespread atten- tion in both research (Hill, 2011) and practice (Lewis, 2008; Stimpfel, Rosen, & McHugh, 2014).

MR is considered to be a sym- bol of distinction (Parsons & Cornett, 2011) and has been theo- rized to signal the hospital’s dedica- tion and commitment to quality patient care to patients, payers, and healthcare providers (Jenkins & Fields, 2011). This in turn leads to increased volume of patients and corresponding increases in hospital market share (Gaguski, 2006; Stimpfel, Sloane, McHugh, & Aiken, 2016) and revenue (Smith, 2007a). MR has been associated with better patient outcomes (Hess, DesRoches, Donelan, Norman, & Buerhaus, 2011; Ulrich, Buerhaus, Donelan, Norman, & Dittus, 2009), increases in quality care (Drenkard, 2010), and increases in nurse-to-patient ratios (Kelly, McHugh, & Aiken, 2011). Patients are expected to inter- pret the MR signal and respond by seeking care at, or referring family and friends to designated hospitals. Patients may also respond by remaining loyal to the designated facility through repeated visits. Providers (physicians) are expected to interpret the MR signal by refer- ring patients to designated hospitals where they will receive quality care. Payers (government and insurers) are expected to understand the MR signal and respond by steering patients to designated hospitals to receive quality patient care (Lash & Munroe, 2005) or adjusting reim- bursement for health services accordingly (Smith, 2007b). These combined actions of patients, providers, and payers in response to the signal are expected to increase the volume of patients to MR-desig- nated hospitals (Gaguski, 2006; Stimpfel et al., 2016) and increase reimbursement (Jayawardhana, Wel ton, & Lindrooth, 2014; Smith, 2007c).

Given the endorsements and increasing interest in the MR pro- gram, despite the lack of evidence on its ability to be an indicator of quality distinction, there is a notable gap in knowledge that is highly relevant to the hospital marketplace. This study evaluates the efficacy of the MR signal by examining its effect on two dimensions of hospital financial performance: reimbursement and market share. The purpose of this research study was twofold: (a) Investigate the impact of the MR signal on hospital reimbursement; and (b) Examine the impact of the MR signal on hospital market share.

The outcomes of this research will inform managers and policy- makers about the effectiveness of the MR signal on changing hospi- tal reimbursement and market share, and thus its utility as a potential strategy to improve the hospital’s marketability and finan- cial health, especially in highly competitive market areas.

Research Design The study applied a pre-post

research design to measure the effect of the MR signal on hospital reimbursement and market share. The hospital observations were divided into two groups. The treatment group, referred to as MR hospitals, included hospitals that achieved MR anytime during the study period; and the control group, referred to as never-MR hospitals, included hospitals that never achieved MR before, during, or after the study period.

The MR hospitals were con- ceptualized as experiencing three phases: pre-recognition, imple- mentation, and post-recognition. The pre-recognition phase was the period before a hospital was actively pursuing MR, defined as the 2 years before the hospital was seeking MR designation. The implementation phase was the period when a hospital was actively engaged in preparing for MR, defined as the 2 years before

 

 

NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3112

obtaining initial MR designation. The post-recognition phase was the immediate period after the ini- tial MR designation, described as 2 years after receiving the initial MR designation.

Data Sources The hospital data for the analy-

sis were obtained from Medicare’s Hospital Cost Report Information System (CMS, 2014), American Hospital Association (1997) Annual Survey of Hospitals, Area Resource File (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004), and ANCC website (2014). These four data sets were merged using both a year and a hospital identifier.

Study Sample The study sample was a longi-

tudinal, unbalanced panel of MR hospitals and never-MR hospitals located in urban areas in the United States covering 2000-2010. The initial data set consisted of 3,421 hospitals (31,163 hospital- year observations). Study exclu- sions included hospital-year observations with fewer than 330 days in the Medicare cost report period, hospitals with fewer than 8 hospital-year observations, hos- pitals that did not have a hospital- year observation in the year 2000, and hospitals that received MR before 2004 or after 2009 were excluded from the dataset. In addition, to remain in the final study sample, each MR hospital must have had hospital-year observations for all three phases of the MR designation process: 4 consecutive years of data prior to MR designation (2 years for pre- recognition phase and 2 years for implementation phase), and 2 consecutive years of data follow- ing MR designation (post-recogni- tion phase), for a total of 6 hospi- tal-year observations. After these exclusions, 2,199 hospitals were eligible for the study: 1,968 never- MR hospitals and 231 MR hospi- tals.

Since some hospitals have specific characteristics that pre-

dispose them to become an MR hospital, propensity score analysis was used to control for this selec- tion bias. Using hospital data from the year 2000, each MR hospital was matched to a maximum of four never-MR hospitals in the year 2000 using propensity scores. The matched hospitals from the year 2000 served as the matches for the remainder of the study period. The final matched study sample consisted of 231 hospital groups for a total of 1,155 hospi- tals (231 MR hospitals and 924 never-MR hospitals).

Variables and Measurements Dependent variables. Net pa –

tient revenue per adjusted patient day was used to measure hospital reimbursement. The adjusted pa – tient day was defined as the sum of inpatient days and the equivalent patient days attributed to outpatient services. To account for inflation, reimbursement was adjusted to 2010 U.S. dollars using the Medical Care Services Consumer Price Index. Since net patient revenue per adjusted patient day is not normally distributed, the variable was trans- formed using the natural log to pro- vide a percentage interpretation of the coefficients.

Hospital market share, a meas- ure of the amount of hospital com- petition in the market area, was measured as the hospital’s dis- charges as a percentage of the total discharges in a hospital’s market area (McCue, McCall, Hurley, Wyttenback, & White, 2001). The hospital’s market area was defined as the county in which the hospital is located.

Independent variables: Main explanatory variable. The MR des- ignation variable identified hospi- tals as either MR or never-MR. The MR status variable identified the three phases as either pre-recogni- tion, implementation, or post- recognition during the 6-year peri- od each hospital was observed.

Independent variables: Control variables. Hospital characteristics are structural factors and processes

that can influence hospital opera- tions, marketability, and ability to earn revenues (Whiteis, 1992). Variables include hospital size (measured by the total number of beds), which is known to be associ- ated with higher economies of scale, lower cost per unit, and more successful strategic activity. System affiliation indicates whether a hos- pital is owned by a larger system. Such affiliations can result in increased efficiency, lower risk, bet- ter financial outcomes, more seam- less care, greater control over refer- rals, and greater economies of scale (Kim, 2010).

Payer mix for Medicare and Medicaid were calculated separate- ly as the percentage of total inpa- tient days attributed to Medicare and Medicaid, respectively. These measures indicated the hospital’s patient mix (Trussel, Patrick, DelliFraine, & Davis, 2010) and its overall payer mix (Bazzoli & Andes, 1995). An increased dependence on government payers, such as Medi – care and Medicaid, is likely associ- ated with lower patient revenue because these payers typically do not pay the full average cost of care (Trussel et al., 2010). Teaching affil- iation indicated hospitals affiliated with academic institutions that train physicians, residents, nurses, or other health professionals, which are known to have higher costs than non-teaching hospitals (Rosko, 2004). Ownership status (for-profit, not-for-profit, or government) was included in analyses to account for related internal pressures aimed at reducing costs (Nedelea & Fannin, 2012).

Market characteristics. A hos- pital’s operating environment and market demand for healthcare services can also influence hospi- tal financial performance and mar- ket share (Whiteis, 1992). Total population in the market, market population density, and percent of the population age 65 and over describe the demand for hospital services in the market area (coun- ty). The average per capita income, unemployment rate, and

 

 

113NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3

poverty rate (percentage of fami- lies or persons in poverty) meas- ure a community’s financial abili- ty to purchase healthcare services (NORC Walsh Center for Rural Health Analysis, 2004). The likeli- hood of a resident to bypass a hos- pital and seek services at another facility is proxied by the average distance from a patient’s residence to the next closest hospital, calcu- lated as the average distance in miles between residence ZIP code centroid of each Medicare dis- charge and hospital (McCue & Nayar, 2009). Patients may decide to bypass local facilities due to the perceived quality of care at desig- nated hospitals, but may be deterred due to higher fees and long distances. Hospital competi- tion evaluates the number of hos- pitals physically located in a mar- ket area and is a measure of sup- pliers of healthcare services. There is a large variation in the location of MR hospitals. Region controls for the effect of hospital location. Annual unmeasured fac- tors affecting hospital reimburse- ment and market share over time are accounted for using year indi- cators.

Analysis Descriptive statistics were

used to summarize the data. To mitigate the effect of outliers, dependent variables were win- sorized at the 1st and 99th per- centiles. Bivariate analysis was used to test for differences between the subgroup means for MR hospi- tals versus never-MR hospitals. The differences between the group mean on each measure were ana- lyzed for direction and statistical significance using t-tests for contin- uous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at a=0.05 for all analyses. Correlation analysis was completed to identify poten- tial multicollinearity among the independent variables. A differ- ence-in-difference model with hos- pital fixed effects was used to esti- mate the effects of MR on both

reimbursement and hospital mar- ket share. The analysis was con- ducted using Stata 11.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results Bivariate statistics. Descriptive

statistics comparing MR hospitals and never-MR hospitals are shown in Table 1. Results show MR hospi- tals received higher reimburse- ment and have higher market share than never-MR hospitals. The net patient revenue per adjust- ed patient day for MR hospitals was $3,518 vs. $3,118 for never- MR hospitals (p=0.000) and the hospital market share for MR was 19.5% vs. 18% for never MR hos- pitals (p=0.045).

Multivariate statistics. Differ – ence-in-difference estimates of the effect of the MR signal on hospital reimbursement and market share, controlling for hospital and market characteristics and including hos- pital fixed effects, is shown in Table 2. The interaction of MR and the post-recognition phase is a measure of the net effect of the MR signal on reimbursement and hos- pital market share after full imple- mentation of MR. This effect is defined as the difference in the outcome (reimbursement and hos- pital market share) between MR and never-MR hospitals and between post-recognition and pre- recognition attributed to the MR signal. Results indicate the rela- tionship between the MR signal and both reimbursement and hos- pital market share is modest (1.7% increase in revenue and a 0.21 per- centage point increase in market share) but neither is statistically significant. The results also indi- cate reimbursements are 11% higher for for-profit hospitals than for government hospitals and 3.3% lower for teaching-affiliated hospitals compared to nonteach- ing-affiliated hospitals. Medicare payer mix, population density, percent of population age 65 and over, hospital competition, and year variables are significantly associated with hospital market

share. All the year variables (2001- 2010) are associated with a signifi- cant increase in hospital market share compared to the year 2000, suggesting increasing market share over the 11-year period. This can be attributed to an increase in the total number of discharges per hos- pital per year potentially due to population growth in the hospi- tal’s market area. Hospital-level factors that are static (some beds and region) are not included because hospital fixed effects sub- sume those factors.

Discussion Hospitals pursue MR for a vari-

ety of reasons. These reasons may include, but are not limited to, dis- tinguishing themselves in the mar- ketplace (Smith, 2007b; Stimpfel et al., 2014), increasing market share (Gaguski, 2006; Stimpfel et al., 2016), and negotiating better reim- bursement rates with payers (Smith, 2007b; Stimpfel et al., 2014), all of which may result in potential increases in revenues (Shetty, 1993). The relationship between reasons for pursuing MR and possible increases in revenues and market share is rationalized through the reputation effect of MR, which is conceptualized here to be a marker of distinction. The designation provides an opportuni- ty to promote the institution’s suc- cess and serves as a signal to the public that it is recognized as a place to receive high-quality care (Aiken, Havens, & Sloane, 2000). Also, the designation acknowl- edges that nursing care makes a positive contribution to patient outcomes (Grindel & Roman, 2005), thus attracting patients.

Despite these firmly held beliefs about the reputational effects of MR, and in contrast to findings from previous descriptive studies (Smith, 2007b), the results of this analysis indicate that the MR signal does not have an effect on either hospital reimbursement or hospital market share. Increases in patient volume, which increases hospital market share, are influ-

 

 

NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3114

Ta bl e 1.

Su m m ar y St at is tic s of D ep en de nt a nd In de pe nd en t V

ar ia bl es (N

=6 ,5 81 H os pi ta l Y ea r O

bs er va tio ns ) f ro m 2 00 0- 20 10

Al l H

os pi ta ls

(N =6 ,5 81 h os pi ta l y ea r

ob se rv at io ns &

1, 15 5 ho sp ita ls )

Ne ve r-M

ag ne t R

ec og ni tio n

Ho sp ita ls (N

=5 ,2 46 h os pi ta l

ye ar o bs er va tio ns &

92 4 ho sp ita ls )

M ag ne t R

ec og ni tio n Ho

sp ita ls

(N =1 ,3 35 h os pi ta l

ye ar o bs er va tio ns &

23 1 ho sp ita ls )

p- Va lu e

M ea n

St an da rd

De vi at io n

M ea n

St an da rd

De vi at io n

M ea n

St an da rd

De vi at io n

De pe nd en t V ar ia bl e

Re im bu rs em en t*

3, 20 3. 72

1, 05 1. 92

3, 11 7. 64

1, 00 6. 67

3, 51 8. 54

1, 14 9. 75

0. 00 0

Ho sp ita l m ar ke t s ha re (% )

18 .3 0

24 .3 0

18 .0 0

24 .4 0

19 .5 0

23 .9 0

0. 04 5

M ag ne t H

os pi ta l R

ec og ni tio n St at us

Pr e- re co gn itio n (% )

33 .1 0

– 33 .1 0

– 33 .0 0

– 0. 89 5

Im pl em en ta tio n (% )

34 .5 0

– 34 .5 0

– 34 .4 0

– 0. 92 4

Po st -re co gn itio n (% )

32 .4 0

– 32 .3 0

– 32 .7 0

– 0. 81 8

Ho sp ita l C

ha ra ct er is tic s

Ho sp ita l s ize (t ot al b ed s)

44 5. 00

33 3. 00

43 9. 00

34 0. 00

46 6. 00

30 2. 00

0. 08 0

Sy st em a ffil ia tio n (% )

29 .7 0

– 29 .7 0

– 29 .6 0

– 0. 94 8

M ed ica re p ay er m ix (% )

38 .5 0

14 .3 0

38 .3 0

15 .0 0

39 .0 0

11 .3 0

0. 09 4

M ed ica id p ay er m ix (% )

11 .9 0

9. 70

12 .0 0

10 .1 0

11 .5 0

7. 83

0. 09 0

No t-f or -p ro fit h os pi ta l ( % )

86 .1 0

– 86 .0 0

– 86 .2 0

– 0. 84 4

Fo r-p ro fit h os pi ta l ( % )

4. 30

– 4. 40

– 4. 00

– 0. 50 5

G ov er nm en t h os pi ta l ( % )

9. 60

– 9. 60

– 9. 80

– 0. 82 0

Te ac hi ng a ffil ia tio n (% )

66 .6 0

– 66 .5 0

– 67 .2 0

– 0. 66 2

M ar ke t C

ha ra ct er is tic s

Po pu la tio n (1 ,0 00 s)

3, 58 8. 04

4, 78 2. 68

3, 57 1. 45

4, 80 0. 64

3, 65 3. 22

4, 71 2. 57

0. 57 7

Po pu la tio n de ns ity

72 6. 00

73 7. 00

72 2. 00

74 2. 00

74 2. 00

71 8

0. 37 6

Pe rc en t o f p op ul at io n 65 a nd o ve r ( % )

12 .0 0

2. 45

12 .0 0

2. 48

12 .1 0

2. 35

0. 42 2

In co m e

37 ,1 92 .0 5

7, 13 7. 81

37 ,1 39 .1 8

7, 10 4. 58

37 ,3 99 .7 9

7, 26 5. 89

0. 23 4

Un em pl oy m en t r at e (% )

5. 29

1. 79

5. 30

1. 79

5. 25

1. 79

0. 32 7

Po ve rty ra te

11 .5 0

2. 52

11 .5 0

2. 55

11 .6 0

2. 43

0. 07 5

Di st an ce fr om re sid en ce to h os pi ta l ( m ile s)

16 .6 0

8. 56

16 .7 0

8. 61

16 .2 0

8. 35

0. 04 6

Ho sp ita l c om pe tit io n

10 .3 0

14 .5 0

10 .2 0

14 .6 0

10 .9 0

14 .1

0. 13 5

co nt

in ue

d on

n ex

t p ag

e

 

 

115NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3

Ta bl e 1. (c on tin ue d)

Su m m ar y St at is tic s of D ep en de nt a nd In de pe nd en t V

ar ia bl es (N

=6 ,5 81 H os pi ta l Y ea r O

bs er va tio ns ) f ro m 2 00 0- 20 10

Al l H

os pi ta ls

(N =6 ,5 81 h os pi ta l y ea r

ob se rv at io ns &

1, 15 5 ho sp ita ls )

Ne ve r-M

ag ne t R

ec og ni tio n

Ho sp ita ls (N

=5 ,2 46 h os pi ta l

ye ar o bs er va tio ns &

92 4 ho sp ita ls )

M ag ne t R

ec og ni tio n Ho

sp ita ls

(N =1 ,3 35 h os pi ta l

ye ar o bs er va tio ns &

23 1 ho sp ita ls )

p- Va lu e

M ea n

St an da rd

De vi at io n

M ea n

St an da rd

De vi at io n

M ea n

St an da rd

De vi at io n

Re gi on W es t

14 .7 0

– 15 .1 0

– 13 .3 0

– 0. 10 5

M id we st

31 .5 0

– 31 .1 0

– 33 .4 0

– 0. 09 8

No rth ea st

19 .4 0

– 19 .0 0

– 21 .0 0

– 0. 08 9

So ut h

34 .3 0

– 34 .9 0

– 32 .0

– 0. 06 8

Ye ar 20 00 (% )

3. 90

– 3. 90

– 3. 90

– 0. 95 8

20 01 (% )

6. 60

– 6. 60

– 6. 60

– 0. 99 6

20 02 (% )

9. 00

– 9. 00

– 9. 00

– 0. 97 5

20 03 (% )

10 .8 0

– 10 .8 0

– 10 .9 0

– 0. 92 4

20 04 (% )

12 .7 0

– 12 .7 0

– 12 .6 0

– 0. 91 3

20 05 (% )

13 .9 0

– 14 .0 0

– 13 .9 0

– 0. 98 4

20 06 (% )

13 .4 0

– 13 .4 0

– 13 .3 0

– 0. 94 9

20 07 (% )

10 .7 0

– 10 .7 0

– 10 .7 0

– 0. 98 3

20 08 (% )

8. 20

– 8. 20

– 8. 30

– 0. 85 3

20 09 (% )

6. 40

– 6. 40

– 6. 30

– 0. 92 0

20 10 (% )

4. 40

– 4. 40

– 4. 50

– 0. 86 1

*A dj us te d fo r 2 01 0 do lla rs a cc or di ng to th e C on su m er P ric e In de x.

 

 

NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3116

Ta bl e 2.

Di ffe

re nc e- in -D iff er en ce R eg re ss io n w ith H os pi ta l-F ix ed E ffe

ct s

De pe nd en t V

ar ia bl e

In (R

ei m bu rs em

en t)

Ho sp ita l M

ar ke t S

ha re (%

) Co

ef fic ie nt

Ro bu st S Es

Co ef fic ie nt

Ro bu st S Es

Ho sp ita l I nt er ve nt io n

M ag ne t R ec og ni tio n H os pi ta la, f

– –

– –

M ag ne t R

ec og ni tio n Ho

sp ita l S

ta tu s

Im pl em en ta tio nb

-0 .0 11

0. 00 59

-0 .1 8*

0. 08 3

Po st -re co gn iti on

b -0 .0 10

0. 00 88

-0 .2 4

0. 14

M ag ne t R ec og ni tio n im pl em en ta tio n*

0 .0 03 7

0. 01 0

0 .3 1

0. 17

M ag ne t R ec og ni tio n po st -re co gn iti on *

0 .0 17

0. 01 1

0 .2 1

0. 22

Ho sp ita l C

ha ra ct er is tic s

H os pi ta l s iz ef

– –

– –

Sy st em a ffi lia tio n

-0 .0 08 4

0. 00 74

-0 .0 31

0. 09 9

M ed ic ar e pa ye r m ix

0 .0 02 0

0. 00 12

0 .0 58 **

0. 01 6

M ed ic ai d pa ye r m ix

-0 .0 01 8

0. 00 08 4

-0 .0 05 1

0. 01 1

N ot -fo r-p ro fit h os pi ta le

0 .0 46

0. 03 8

-0 .0 04 2

0. 22

Fo r-p ro fit h os pi ta le

0 .1 1*

0. 05 2

0 .3 6

0. 50

Te ac hi ng a ffi lia tio n

-0 .0 33 *

0. 01 3

0 .4 8

0. 40

M ar ke t C

ha ra ct er is tic s

Po pu la tio n (1 ,0 00 s)

0 .0 00 02 1

0. 00 00 75

0 .0 00 53

0. 00 07 9

Po pu la tio n de ns ity

0 .0 00 23

0. 00 04 4

-0 .0 18 **

0. 00 61

Pe rc en t o f p op ul at io n 65 a nd o ve r

0 .0 29 5

0. 01 68

-0 .7 0*

0. 29

In co m e

0 .0 00 00 12

0. 00 00 02 3

-0 .0 00 05 3

0. 00 00 52

U ne m pl oy m en t r at e

0 .0 00 20

0. 00 37

-0 .1 1

0. 07 7

Po ve rty ra te

0 .0 00 17

0. 00 24

0 .0 25

0. 07 3

D is ta nc e fro m re si de nc e to h os pi ta l ( m ile s)

-0 .0 02 5

0. 00 26

-0 .0 99

0. 05 6

H os pi ta l c om pe tit io n

0 .0 02 7

0. 00 25

-0 .1 3* *

0. 03 2

 

 

117NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3

Ta bl e 2. (c on tin ue d)

Di ffe

re nc e- in -D iff er en ce R eg re ss io n w ith H os pi ta l-F ix ed E ffe

ct s

De pe nd en t V

ar ia bl e

In (R

ei m bu rs em

en t)

Ho sp ita l M

ar ke t S

ha re (%

) Co

ef fic ie nt

Ro bu st S Es

Co ef fic ie nt

Ro bu st S Es

Re gi on

N or th ea st d, f

– –

– –

M id w es td, f

– –

– –

So ut hd ,f

– –

– –

Ti m e Ye ar 2 00 1c

-0 .0 09 1

0. 01 2

0. 27 *

0. 13

Ye ar 2 00 2c

0 .0 03 9

0. 01 5

0. 55 *

0. 25

Ye ar 2 00 3c

0 .0 21

0. 01 7

0. 71 *

0. 32

Ye ar 2 00 4c

0 .0 26

0. 02 0

1. 03 *

0. 41

Ye ar 2 00 5c

0 .0 25

0. 02 2

1. 13 *

0. 51

Ye ar 2 00 6c

0 .0 28

0. 02 7

1. 41 *

0. 64

Ye ar 2 00 7c

0 .0 27

0. 03 1

1. 84 *

0. 73

Ye ar 2 00 8c

0 .0 01 5

0. 03 7

2. 65 **

0. 87

Ye ar 2 00 9c

0 .0 20

0. 04 4

3. 31 **

0. 97

Ye ar 2 01 0c

0 .0 38

0. 04 9

3. 81 **

1. 08

C on st an t

7 .3 0* *

0. 34

3 9. 48 **

6. 37

N um be r o f H os pi ta l Y ea r O bs er va tio ns

6 ,1 54

6, 42 8

N um be r o f H os pi ta ls

1 ,0 98

1, 13 6

F St at is tic

(2 8, 1 ,0 97 ) = 3 .7 2

p= 0. 00 0

(2 8, 1 ,1 35 ) = 2 .3 8

p= 0. 00 0

a R ef er en ce is n ev er -M ag ne t h os pi ta ls ; b R ef er en ce is th e pr e- re co gn iti on p er io d; c R ef er en ce is y ea r 2 00 0; d R ef er en ce is w es t; e R ef er en ce is g ov er nm en t h os –

pi ta ls ; f T im e in va ria nt v ar ia bl es .

*S ta tis tic al ly s ig ni fic an t a t t he 5 % le ve l. ** St at is tic al ly s ig ni fic an t a t t he 1 % le ve l.

Fi xe d ef fe ct s ar e at th e ho sp ita l l ev el .

 

 

NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3118

enced by various intermediate fac- tors, such as employers, insurers, managed care organizations, and referring physicians (Goldstein, 2002). All of these factors may over- ride the overall effect of the MR sig- nal on hospital market share. Regarding hospital reimbursement, the significant payers include both the government and private health insurers. Government payers reim- burse hospitals using prospective payment systems and may be less responsive to adjusting reimburse- ment rates for MR hospitals. In con- trast, private health insurers and managed care organizations may be more agreeable to negotiating reim- bursement rates with these hospi- tals. However, any potential in – creases in reimbursement rates by private health insurers may be diminished by limited increases or reductions in reimbursement by government payers.

Implications Hospital market share. Hos –

pitals publicize their MR designa- tion to raise community awareness of their commitment to quality and to market themselves to patients, nurses, and the community (Lewis & Matthews, 1998). Hospitals have used full-page newspaper adver- tisements, billboards, websites, and television spots (Havens & Aiken, 1999) to communicate to the public that the hospital is recognized as a place to receive high-quality care and that nursing services make pos- itive contributions to patient out- comes (Grindel & Roman, 2005). Hospitals incur enormous costs in the promotion of MR.

Despite the use of costly advertisements and promotional materials, the study results indi- cate the MR signal does not appear to have an effect on hospital mar- ket share. This may have numer- ous implications for both the MR program and hospitals. From the perspective of the MR program, both the validity and interpretabil- ity of the MR signal may be debat- able; specifically, the signal’s abil- ity to attract patients and increase

hospital market share. The ambi- guity of the MR signal may have undesirable consequences for the MR program in terms of promot- ing the designation as a mecha- nism to increase hospital market share.

The results may also prompt hospital chief financial officers (CFOs) and chief executive officers (CEOs) to re-evaluate the resources allocated to the promotion and advertising of MR. Furthermore, the marketing strategy used when pro- moting the MR signal may need to be reviewed and perhaps revised. There may be weaknesses in the MR signal that may explain the study results. For instance, the benefits of MR may not be in the message car- ried by the MR signal. Although MR hospitals are acknowledged as cen- ters of nursing excellence and the gold standard for nursing care, these accolades and honors may not be communicated by the MR signal. The MR signal may also not be inter- preted by the stakeholders. Patients and providers may either not associ- ate quality or nursing excellence with the MR designation or under- stand the importance of nursing services to the delivery of patient care. Lastly, the MR signal may not be eliciting the expected response to the signal. While the MR signal may be recognized and interpreted, patients, payers, and providers may not be responding for various rea- sons. These reasons may include a lack of urgency to respond and lim- ited control in decision making for a hospital visit. For instance, in the case of an emergency, when a patient needs to visit a hospital, the patient will have limited decision- making control; the decision will be determined either by the physician, paramedics, or the location of the nearest facility that meets the needs of patient and provider.

This study’s findings indicate the MR signal does not appear to have an effect on hospital market share, which suggests the signal- ing effect of MR may be limited. These results may prompt hospi- tal CFOs and CEOs to re-evaluate

the resources allocated to the pro- motion and advertising of MR. Alternatively, hospitals may bene- fit from being more selective in targeting their marketing efforts to groups that are likely to receive, believe, and act on the signal.

Hospital reimbursement. Hos – pitals and payers try to negotiate reimbursement rates that are fair to both parties. To gain leverage when negotiating reimbursement rates, hospitals often use quality metrics that demonstrate the hospital is achieving high-quality standards. Quality metrics emphasize the hos- pital’s commitment to quality man- agement and may even give hospi- tals an added advantage in negotia- tions.

Regardless of the many positive outcomes for nurses, patients, and organizations associated with MR (Hess et al., 2011; Ulrich et al., 2009) and the emphasis on quality and safety in patient care (Drenkard, 2010), this study indicates MR sig- nal does not have an effect on hos- pital reimbursement. From the per- spective of hospitals, CFOs and CEOs may not be leveraging MR sig- nal as a means to highlight their quality accomplishments to negoti- ate better reimbursement rates from payers.

However, MR may not signify differential quality because many hospitals have this designation. With an increase in the number of hospitals with MR or an increase in other signals used by hospitals, the MR signal may lose its distinc- tiveness and become weakened in the presence of other signals. In this case, hospitals are no longer able to differentiate themselves as centers of excellence in nursing care.

Limitations There are a few limitations

associated with this study. First, several variables of interest were not included in the analysis due to inaccessibility of the data, poten- tially resulting in biased parame- ter estimates. However, use of fixed effects regression was

 

 

119NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3

intended to control for unmea- sured fixed hospitals characteris- tics which may be time invariant. Second, although the analysis attempted to match MR hospitals to never-MR hospitals, no two hospitals are similar in all aspects respects. Propensity scores only control for observed variables and do not consider the effect of unob- served variables in the decision of hospitals to seek MR. This non- random decision to seek MR could result in biased parameter esti- mates of the likelihood of MR. Lastly, although the ANCC web- site lists the current MR-designat- ed hospitals, it does not provide information on hospitals that applied for MR but were unsuc- cessful, hospitals transforming to become MR, or hospitals that had their MR status rescinded due to noncompliance with the pro- gram’s requirements. As a result, the never-MR comparators could include hospitals that had at one time engaged in the MR program.

Conclusion MR is not intended to improve

hospital reimbursement or hospital market share. However, the MR sig- nal is promoted as a means to inform payers, patients, and providers about the hospital’s com- mitment to quality and patient care, consequently leading to increases in market share and increases in reim- bursement. However, the results from this study indicate MR signal has no effect on these outcomes. Possible explanations may include the strength of the MR signal, mes- sage carried by the MR signal, inter- pretation of the message in the MR signal, and response or action after receiving the MR signal. All of these components that determine a sig- nal’s effectiveness may have con- tributed to the results found in this study.

The pursuit of MR is an essen- tial organizational decision that results in substantial modifications to the organization’s structures and processes and requires a consider- able investment of time and

resources, initially and ongoing as the process continues. Knowledge of the limited benefit of the MR sig- nal on hospital reimbursement and hospital market share may per- suade CEOs and CFOs of MR hos- pitals to consider being more strategic, cautious, and reserved in their allocation of advertising and marketing resources to other areas that may be positively impacted by the MR signal. The MR signal may be better positioned to increase the reputational benefits by continuing to educate payers, patients, and providers about the positive impacts of MR on hospital quality and patient outcomes. Knowledge of the limited benefit of the MR sig- nal on hospital reimbursement and hospital market share may cause CEOs and CFOs of MR hospitals to re-evaluate the advertising and market resources dedicated to pro- moting and signaling the designa- tion to patients, providers, and payers. Resources may be allocated to other pathways that are positive- ly impacted by the MR signal. $

REFERENCES Aiken, L.H., Havens, D.S., & Sloane, D.M.

(2000). Magnet nursing services recognition programme. Nursing Standard, 14(25), 41-47.

American Hospital Association. (1997). Annual survey of hospitals. Chicago, IL: Author.

American Nurses Credentialing Center. (2014). Find a Magnet hospital. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Bazzoli, G., & Andes, S. (1995). Consequences of hospital financial distress. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 40(4), 472-495.

Boulding, W., & Kirmani, A. (1993). A con- sumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: Do consumers perceive warranties as signals of qual- ity? Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 111-123.

Bumgarner, S.D., & Beard, E.L., Jr. (2003). The Magnet application: Pitfalls to avoid. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(11), 603-606.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2015). Hospital Compare. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2014). Cost reports. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Connelly, B.B.L. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.

Drenkard, K. (2010). The business case for Magnet. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 40(6), 263-271.

Everhart, D., Neff, D., Al-Amin, M., Nogle, J., & Weech-Maldonado, R. (2013). The effects of nurse staffing on hospital financial performance: Competitive versus less competitive markets. Health Care Management Review, 38(2), 146.

Faber, M., Bosch, M., Wollersheim, H., Leatherman, S., & Grol, R. (2009). Public reporting in health care: How do consumers use quality-of-care information?: A systematic review. Medical Care, 47(1), 1-8.

Gaguski, M. (2006). Magnet status – what’s the attraction? ONS News / Oncology Nursing Society, 21(3), 1, 4-6.

Gerhardt, W.E., & VanKuiken, D. (2008). Assessing Magnet readiness using the nursing work index-revised survey. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 38(10), 429-434.

Goldstein, S.M. (2002). Empirical support for the Baldrige Award framework in US hospitals. Health Care Management Review, 27(1), 62.

Grant, B., Colello, S., Riehle, M., & Dende, D. (2010). An evaluation of the nurs- ing practice environment and suc- cessful change management using the new generation Magnet model. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(3), 326-331.

Grindel, C., & Roman, M. (2005). The med- ical-surgical nurse: being a Magnet for excellence. MEDSURG Nursing, 4(Suppl), 34.

Hader, R. (2010). Magnet® recognition – excellence is the standard. Nursing Management, 41(6), 6.

Havens, D.S., & Aiken, L.H. (1999). Shaping systems to promote desired outcomes. The Magnet hospital model. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 29(2), 14-20.

Hess, R., DesRoches, C., Donelan, K., Norman, L., & Buerhaus, P.I. (2011). Perceptions of nurses in Magnet® hos- pitals, non-Magnet hospitals, and hos- pitals pursuing Magnet status. Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(7/8), 315-323

Hill, K.S. (2011). Magnet hospitals: Recruiting and retaining nurses. The Nursing Clinics of North America, 46(1), xiii-xiv.

Jayawardhana, J., Welton, J.M., & Lindrooth, R.C. (2014). Is there a busi- ness case for Magnet hospitals? Estimates of the cost and revenue implications of becoming a Magnet. Medical Care, 52(5), 400-406.

Jenkins, M., & Fields, B. (2011). Pursuing Magnet® designation as a system or as individual entities: What is the right decision? The Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(4), 172-178.

 

 

NURSING ECONOMIC$/May-June 2018/Vol. 36/No. 3120

Kelly, L.A., McHugh, M.D., & Aiken, L.H. (2011). Nurse outcomes in Magnet® and non-Magnet hospitals. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(10), 428-433.

Kim, T.H. (2010). Factors associated with financial distress of nonprofit hospi- tals. The Health Care Manager, 29(1), 52-62.

Lash, A.A., & Munroe, D.J. (2005). Magnet recognition program 2005: An update. MEDSURG Nursing, 14(5), 325-328.

Lewis, C. (2008). Magnet status applica- tion. Journal of Vascular Nursing, 26(3), 65-66.

Lewis, C.K., & Matthews, J.H. (1998). Magnet program designates excep- tional nursing services. The American Journal of Nursing, 98(12), 51-52.

McCue, M.J., McCall, N., Hurley, R.E., Wyttenbach, M., & White, M. (2001). Financial performance and participa- tion in Medicaid and Medi-Cal man- aged care. Health Care Financing Review, 23(2), 69-81

McCue, M.J., & Nayar, P. (2009). A financial ratio analysis of for-profit and non-prof- it rural referral centers. The Journal of Rural Health, 25(3), 314-319.

Nedelea, C., & Fannin, J. (2012). Efficiency analysis of rural hospitals: Parametric and semi-parametric approaches. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Birmingham, AL.

NORC Walsh Center for Rural Health Analysis, (2004). Financially distress rural hospitals in four states. Policy Analysis Brief, 2.

O’Neill, C., & Largey, A. (1998). The role of quality standards-accreditation in redressing asymmetry of information in health care markets. Health Policy, 45(1), 33-45.

Parsons, M.L., & Cornett, P.A. (2011). Sustaining the pivotal organizational outcome: Magnet recognition. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(2), 277- 286.

Rich, V.L., & Barnsteiner, J.H. (2007). Achieving Magnet designation. The Pennsylvania Nurse, 62(3), 25-26.

Rosko, M.D. (2004). Performance of US teaching hospitals: A panel analysis of cost inefficiency. Health Care Management Science, 7(1), 7-16.

Shetty, Y.K. (1993). The quest for quality excellence: lessons from the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award. Advanced Management Journal, 58(2), 34.

Smith, A.P. (2007a). Paving and resurfacing the road to Magnet: Part III – unique organizational characteristics. MED- SURG Nursing, 16(1), 35-37.

Smith, A.P. (2007b). Paving and resurfac- ing the road to Magnet: Devil in the details – part II. MEDSURG Nursing, 16(1), 32-34.

Smith, A. (2007c). Paving and resurfacing the road to Magnet: The perspective and wisdom of Magnet-designated coordinators – part I. MEDSURG Nursing, 16(1), 29-31, 37.

Stimpfel, A.W., Sloane, D.M., McHugh, M.D., & Aiken, L.H. (2016). Hospitals known for nursing excellence associ- ated with better hospital experience

for patients. Health Services Research, 51(3), 1120-1134.

Stimpfel, A.W., Rosen, J.E., & McHugh, M. D. (2014). Understanding the role of the professional practice environment on quality of care in Magnet® and non-Magnet hospitals. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 44(1), 10-16.

Trinkoff, A.M., Johantgen, M., Storr, C.L., Han, K., Liang, Y., Gurses, A.P., & Hopkinson, S. (2010). A comparison of working conditions among nurses in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 40(7-8), 309-315.

Trussel, J., Patrick, P., DelliFraine, J., & Davis, L. (2010). Rural hospital finan- cial conditions: Evaluating financial distress in rural Pennsylvania hospi- tals & an analysis of rural hospital financial conditions. Harrisburg, PA: Center For Rural Pennsylvania.

Ulrich, B.T., Buerhaus, P.I., Donelan, K., Norman, L., & Dittus, R. (2009). Magnet status and registered nurse views of the work environment and nursing as a career. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(7-8, Suppl), S54-62.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Area resource file (ARF). Rockville, MD: Health Resources and Services Administration.

Whiteis, D.G. (1992). Hospital and commu- nity characteristics in closures of urban hospitals, 1980-87. Public Health Reports, 107(4), 409-416.

 

 

Copyright of Nursing Economic$ is the property of Jannetti Publications, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 7

Nursing Economic$

Presently, the United States is in the midst of a major, unprecedented public health opioid epidemic that traverses race, ethnicity, gender, age, health status, and socioeconomic level (Brinkley- Rubinstein et al., 2018; Chimbar & Moleta, 2018; Cox & Naegle, 2019). The opioid epidemic, now a crisis in America, reflects the deadliest in history with pre- dictions the death toll will con- tinue to escalate in years to come (Bennet et al., 2018). Despite billions of dollars allo- cated to address the opioid epi- demic, the crisis has worsened, with more deadly outcomes (Johnson, 2018). More opioid- related deaths occur per year than mortality from recent wars, motor vehicle accidents, gun violence, and human immuno – deficiency virus (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019a; Siegel, 2018; Velander, 2018). In 2016, the national death rate from opioid overdose was 21.7 deaths per 100,000, reflecting a dramatic increase since 2013 when the U.S. rate was 7.6 deaths per 100,000 (National Institute of Drug Abuse, 2019).

Recognizing that nurses are the most trusted of health pro- fessionals, account for the largest number of healthcare providers, and have the most frequent interpersonal contact with patients and families, the important role of nurses in com- batting the opioid crisis has been recognized (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2019a; American Nurses Association, 2016). The purpose of this inte- grative review is to examine the economic burden of the opioid epidemic based on published evidence to inform practice, education, research, and policy development in nursing to com- bat this escalating crisis.

Method

In this integrative review, the authors used interprofession- al academic and federal analysis literature published in English between 2013 and 2019. Seven electronic databases were used to identify relevant published articles and included Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCOhost, Elsevier, Google Scholar, ProQuest Document,

The Economic Impact of the Opioid Use Disorder Epidemic in America: Nurses’ Call to Action Kathleen Neville Marie Foley

The unprecedented public health opioid epidemic in America has created a tremendous economic burden. Exorbitant costs from premature mortality, criminal justice, childcare and family assistance, lost productivity, and healthcare services are skyrocketing. Given the escalating economic burden of this national crisis, nurses as frontline providers are called to action to combat the opioid epidemic through the provision of comprehensive, cost-effective, humanistic levels of prevention, including primary, secondary, and tertiary care.

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 18

PubMed, and Science Direct. Key terms for these sites includ- ed cost opioid, cost opioid crisis, history opioid cost, opioid epi- demic cost, opioid cost individ- ual, and opioid cost family.

The last search identified approximately 70 potential arti- cles; 60 abstracts were reviewed based on inclusion criteria, and eight were excluded because they were not fully relevant to the research topic of economics and the opioid epidemic. This literature review resulted in 52 articles that had the most recent data related to the cost of opi- oid use disorder (OUD) in the United States.

Background

OUDs are so prevalent in the United States that a national emergency to address this pub- lic health crisis was declared in 2017 (Broglio & Matzo, 2018; Hedegaard, Warner, & Minino, 2017). According to CDC data, there were 42,249 opioid-related deaths in 2016 (CDC, 2019b), accounting for more than 66% of all overdose deaths (CDC, 2018). Every day 115 Americans die from opioid overdoses (CDC, 2019a). The mortality rate has increased to 130 deaths per day (AACN, 2019b). More than 1,000 people are treated in emergency departments for mis- using prescription opioids (CDC, 2017). “From 1999 to 2016, greater than 630,000 individuals died from a drug overdose, with opioid-related overdoses increasing five times since 1999” (Fornili, 2018, p. 215).

The current opioid epidemic involves the misuse and abuse

of both prescription drugs and illegal drugs such as heroin and fentanyl. While it is not the first drug crisis in America, it is the deadliest and most costly in terms of lives lost, decreased life expectancy, lost productivity, crime, violence, and the devas- tating impact of addiction on families and communities. In earlier epidemics, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the liberal use of laudanum to treat pain and the influx of opium dens from Chinese immigrants in America created a state of alarm, and physicians began addiction management with the use of opioids (Velander, 2018). It was not until the Harrison Act of 1914 that restrictions of opioids for pain management existed. Similar to current, albeit hope- fully changing views, the Harrison Act depicted opioid dependence as criminal activity, representing a moral weakness, and was not viewed as a med- ical condition (Velander, 2018). Under this act, the use of opi- oids for addiction treatment was prohibited and 30,000 physi- cians were then prosecuted for unlawful use of prescribing opi- oids.

It was not until the 1970s that methadone became a legal opioid to treat addiction man- agement in the United States and was authorized to be dis- pensed in federally designated clinics (Velander, 2018). Buprenorphine, an opioid par- tial agonist, was developed in the 1970s as an alternative to methadone. Buprenorphine pre- vents withdrawal symptoms and cravings, prevents abuse of other opioids, and requires less

federal regulations for dispens- ing (can be prescribed in office settings) than methadone. In 2000, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) author- ized physicians via a DATA waiver to prescribe medication- assisted treatment (MAT) for OUDs. Upon obtaining a DATA waiver, legislation has expanded buprenorphine prescribing prac- tices for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for initial treatment of 30 patients, fol- lowed by 100 patients annually (Cadet & Tucker, 2019). In sum- mary, from a historical perspec- tive, “opioid addiction has been recognized as a difficult prob- lem to treat with low recovery rates” (Velander, 2018, p. 1), and remains so today.

This current escalating epi- demic has its origins beginning in the 1980s when pharmaceuti- cal companies misinformed physicians that addiction from narcotic use was unlikely. A let- ter on the risk of opioid addic- tion published in 1980 in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that addic- tion was indeed rare when long-term opioids were pre- scribed for pain management (Leung et al., 2017). Additionally, Purdue Pharma extensively marketed Oxycontin® (oxycodone) to physicians, providing lucrative incentives for increased pre- scription use (Macy, 2018). “In 2000, throughout the pharma- ceutical industry, $4.04 billion was spent on direct marketing to physicians” (Macy, 2018, p. 32). However, in 2007, “the manufacturers of Oxycontin, along with senior executives

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 9

pled guilty to misleading regula- tors, physicians and patients regarding the risks of addiction with Oxycontin” (Leung et al., 2017, p. 2194).

Other major factors respon- sible for this escalating crisis relate to practice changes that occurred in the 1990s. In response to the need to more effectively treat pain, pain assessment as a fifth vital sign became a standard nursing prac- tice initiative in acute care set- tings, followed by the liberal use of prescribing narcotics to treat patient-reported pain. What followed was a dramatic increase in opioid prescription use, accompanied by highly publicized false security and the myth opioid addiction was not probable and highly unlikely when used for pain manage- ment. It is now well known that addiction can occur quickly, even with short-term use; the possibility exists that some indi- viduals can become addicted with only one opioid prescrip- tion (Barnett et al., 2017). Consequently, along with increased prescription use came significantly increased mortality affecting children, teens, adults, and even newborns, who were exposed to opioids in utero and born suffering from neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Especially vulnerable to the risks of opioid use are the elder- ly, who due to opioid-sedating effects, may succumb to falls, fractures, and other potentially life-threatening events as well as addiction (Barnett et al., 2017). Young adults, equally prevalent among males and females, rep- resent the largest numbers of

heroin users (Cicero et al., 2014; Fogger & McGuiness, 2015). However, the greatest mortality due to opioid-analgesia has occurred in the 55-64 age group (Chen et al., 2014). Between the years 1999 and 2013, the mortal- ity rate from opioid use for anal- gesia resulted in a nearly quadrupled overdose rate (Sofer, 2019; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2019a). Over the last 3 years, there has been a decline in the rate of opioid prescriptions, a 19% reduction since 2006 (Sofer, 2019). However, this decrease in prescribing has not significantly impacted opioid use and related overdoses.

Additional factors fueling the epidemic are illicit drugs. These drugs include the influx of hero- in from Mexico, as well as the rise of extremely potent synthet- ic opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil, which is 10,000 times more potent than mor- phine, and tramadol (CDC, 2019c; Velander, 2018). Once prescription drugs became unat- tainable, a typical pattern result- ed in illicit street drug use, con- sisting of predominantly heroin, but frequently combined with additional potentially lethal sub- stances resulting in an increased mortality rate from overdose since 2010 (CDC, 2017).

The Economic Consequences of the Opioid Epidemic

The opioid crisis in America has created a tremendous eco- nomic burden. According to the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA, 2017), “in 2015, the eco- nomic cost of the opioid crisis was $504.0 billion or 2.8% of the gross domestic product” (p. 1) and has risen substantially (see Table 1). Since 2001, fig- ures reflect the costs exceeding $1 trillion (Rhyan, 2017). These figures may reasonably be underestimated, predominantly due to underreporting of fatali- ties due to heroin and other illicit drug use, as well as the associated incidence of suicide.

In 2018, the estimated costs to the U.S. economy from the opioid epidemic rose to $631 billion (Siegel, 2019). Critical components of this financial burden and estimates of per- centage of specific expenditures are as follows: health care (33%), premature death (40%), criminal justice (6%), child and family assistance and education- al programs (6%), and lost pro- ductivity (15%) (see Table 2).

The cost of premature fatali- ties is due to lost potential earn- ings. It is estimated by the “value of a statistical life” (CEA, 2017, p. 3), which is age-depen-

Nursing Economic$

Table 1. U.S. Economic Cost of the Opioid Epidemic

Year

2015 2018

Cost $504 billion $631 billion

Source: Siegel, 2019.

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 110

dent and can range from $221.6 billion to $549.8 billion. It was estimated the total cost of non- fatal opioid use as a result of lost productivity, health care, and criminal justice system costs were $72.7 billion in 2015 (CEA, 2017) and an estimated overall societal cost of $78.5 billion in 2016 (Leslie et al., 2019). Lost productivity, specifically, absen- teeism and work impairment, involves not only the abuser, but also family members, close friends, and associates.

Criminal Justice Costs A substantial cost related to

nonfatal consequences involves the criminal justice system, which consists of the following components: police protection, legal and adjudication, correc- tional facilities, and property loss due to crimes (Florence et al., 2016; Rhyan, 2017). Crime and violence as a sequela to opioid use is a significant cost and involves both the abusers and the victims. It is estimated the opioid epidemic has increased criminal justice costs in America by $7.8 billion (Florence et al., 2016), and a more recent finding reveals the current cost to be $8 billion (Ropero-Miller & Speaker, 2019).

Healthcare Costs The opioid epidemic has

fueled an excessive financial burden to the nation, including federal, state, and local govern- ments as well as private health- care plans and society at large. Between the years of 2001 and 2017, U.S. healthcare expendi- tures topped $215.7 billion (Litton, 2018). Federal costs (Medicare, Medicaid, SAMHSA, and CHAMPVA) accounted for 14% of the financial burden related to the epidemic. Combined with the criminal jus- tice costs, this accounts for 25% of the total economic weight funded by society (Florence et al., 2016). Additionally, health- care plans have endured signifi- cant financial burdens. Two fed- eral laws, the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, expanded behavioral health plans and provision of services, and eliminated lifetime mone- tary limits, substantially increas- ing the use of services.

Concomitantly with the opi- oid epidemic, new drug treat- ment programs developed nationwide, some of which engaged in unscrupulous and unethical practices to increase revenue (Johnson, 2018). In

many cases, these private treat- ment programs were out of net- work, and individuals and fami- lies incurred excessively high financial costs. Similar to the pharmaceutical industry, these private treatment programs uti- lized skillful marketing tech- niques to attract vulnerable patients with financial resources.

Rates and costs of opioid- related admissions have increased dramatically and the escalation in numbers, and costs of hospitalizations indicate a threat to the financial solvency of U.S. hospitals (Hsu et al., 2017). These costs stem primari- ly from emergency services, emergency room visits to man- age overdoses, hospital admis- sions, and the increased costs of associated illnesses (Litton, 2018). In comparison to treat- ment costs for other illnesses such as diabetes or renal disease (range $3,560-$5,624), MAT for OUDs reflects substantially high- er costs ($5,980-$14,112) per year (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2016).

International Opioid Epidemic

While OUDs exist world- wide, the United States is facing a substantially larger epidemic. While the United States repre- sents 4% of the world’s popula- tion, 27% of the world’s mortali- ty from drug overdose occurs in the United States (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016). Residents in the United States consume more opioids than any other popula- tion in the world. For example, in France and Italy, the inci-

Nursing Economic$

Table 2. Financial Burden of Opioid Epidemic

Expenditures Costs from 2015-2018

Health care $205 billion Premature deaths $253 billion Criminal justice $39 billion Childcare/Family assistance $39 billion Lost productivity $96 billion

Source: Managed Healthcare Executive Staff, 2019; Siegel, 2019.

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 11

dence of chronic pain is similar to the per capita rate in America. Yet, consumption of opioids in the United States is six to eight times greater (Humphreys, 2018). Nearly 100% of hydrocodone and 81% of oxycontin are consumed by Americans and are prescribed

for pain management. Another contributing factor related to over-prescription in the United States is that fewer regulations exist for drug manufacturers and distributors, as compared to other developing nations (Humphreys, 2018).

An additional factor con-

tributing to the increase in opi- oid use in the United States is related to the healthcare indus- try’s focus on addressing patient needs and satisfaction, which has resulted in health profes- sionals’ liberal overprescribing and often resulting in unused medications including opioids.

Nursing Economic$

Table 3. Call to Action: Advocacy in Nursing

Policy 1. Endorse organizational initiatives and advocate for policy development to address the opioid epidemic through local, regional, state, and national development of OUD programs.

Education 1. Develop and implement curricula based on best practice for treatment of OUDs in undergraduate and graduate nursing programs nationwide.

2. Introduce a new paradigm of OUD as a chronic neuropsychobiological disease capable of recovery to decrease stigma.

3. Increase the number of nurse practitioners to prescribe medication-assisted treatment.

Nurse leaders 1. Design and provide continuing education programs for practicing nurses to treat individuals with OUDs with best evidence interventions.

2. Foster assimilation of the new paradigm of OUD as a disease with recovery, rather than moral defect.

3. Establish health economics competencies to manage exorbitant costs of OUD treatment.

Research 1. Engage in the conduct of diverse research methodologies to expand broad body of nursing knowledge in humanistic treatment of OUDs, including psychosocial aspects of treatment.

2. Conduct research investigations on stigma, and development of interventions to mitigate stigma among individuals, families, communities, societal, and healthcare professionals.

Practice: Levels of prevention 1. Primary Prevention a. Protect the public through education on risks, challenges, and need for

support/community services for those in recovery from OUDs. b. Provide education to mitigate stigma to improve access to treatment for

individuals with OUDs. 2. Secondary Prevention

a. Facilitate early detection and intervention for those at risk (biophysical, psychological, or social determinants) for all subgroups of population in all healthcare settings.

3. Tertiary Prevention

a. Provision of nursing services to maximize health states, despite living with a chronic illness.

b. Provide supportive services to reduce long-term sequelae of OUDs.

OUD = opioid use disorder

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 112

These unused opioids, available in household medicine cabinets nationwide, have facilitated increased recreational use of opioids by patients, family members, and friends (diver- sion); thereby, furthering the escalation of opioid addiction in the United States.

Nurses’ Call to Action

Because nurses represent the largest number of healthcare providers, are the most trusted among health professionals, have the greatest interaction with patients and families, and deliver comprehensive, excel- lent, cost-effective care, nurses are ideally suited to engage in action to address the opioid epi- demic in America. To combat the opioid epidemic, there is a call to action for nurses in all settings, including academia and practice at all levels of preven- tion, to engage and advocate for change to advance science, poli- cy, education, and practice (see Table 3).

Policy Recognizing the severity and

magnitude of the opioid epi- demic, national healthcare organizations from diverse disci- plines have joined forces to identify solutions for this public health crisis. The National Academy of Medicine’s Action Collaborative on Countering the U.S. Opioid Epidemic along with the AACN and 55 private and federal participating net- work organizations have engaged in partnerships to develop solutions to the opioid crisis and to ultimately improve

individual, family, and commu- nity outcomes for those impact- ed by the opioid crisis (AACN, 2019b). Through policy, AACN has focused on workforce development and further access to MAT for individuals with OUD. Goals include increasing healthcare professional educa- tion and training; advancing research and adoption of evi- dence-based substance use dis- order (SUD) treatment, provid- ing safe guidelines for prescrib- ing opioids for acute and chron- ic pain, and increasing outreach to disseminate the urgent need to address this growing epidem- ic (AACN, 2019b).

The American Nurses Association (ANA) has communicated similar goals as AACN, including expanded access to MAT and prescriber education and training. Additionally, ANA (2016) has called for further prevention research, increased utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs, and increased availability of naloxone (Narcan®), an opioid antagonist used to counter the effects of opioid overdose, for first responders, family, friends, and caregivers of individuals with OUD. All nurses in practice and academia need to endorse these initiatives and advocate for policies to support these services at the local, regional, state, and national levels to improve outcomes for individuals with OUD.

Education The need to educate nurses

in practice and academia to treat individuals with OUD with inter-

ventions based on best evidence is well documented (ANA, 2016; American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 2016; Klimas, 2017; Livingston et al., 2011; Martello et al., 2018; Neville & Roan, 2014). The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM, 2015) has advocated for a change in perspective in how society and healthcare providers view individuals with OUD; transitioning from the negative perception of moral weakness to a treatable chronic neuropsy- chobiological disease. In essence, ASAM addresses the need to decrease stigma and use best scientific evidence to treat patients with OUD using the most humanistic approach to confront this disease. Through this changed perspective, educa- tion focusing on treating SUDs and OUD as a disease will ulti- mately result in lessening stig- ma, more positive healthcare professional attitudes, and improved recovery rates (van Boekel et al., 2013).

In academia, the call to action is to impart knowledge of best practice for treatment of individuals with OUD. This encompasses knowledge acqui- sition of OUD risk factors, etiol- ogy, psychosocial components, and treatment modalities, using the framework of OUD as a chronic condition, characterized by exacerbation, remission, and recovery. Nurse faculty need to embrace this new paradigm supportive of recovery, and develop and implement curricu- la in undergraduate and gradu- ate nursing programs. An imper- ative call to action is for nurse faculty nationwide to compre-

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 13

hensively integrate OUD content into nursing curricula.

Research To advance science, nurses

should engage in research using diverse methodologies to expand the body of knowledge in OUD. A shortage of literature exists related to the role of nurs- es in the care and treatment of individuals with OUD. Further inquiry regarding barriers, inter- ventions to reduce stigma, and the design and efficacy of com- prehensive nursing interven- tions, including the use of MAT, along with psychosocial support services, is needed.

Practice Nurses, as frontline practi-

tioners, are ideally situated to address the opioid epidemic through their close interactions with patients and families in community and healthcare set- tings. However, consistent with public stigma, many healthcare professionals have negative atti- tudes toward working with patients with SUDs, including perceptions of aggression, manipulation, and lack of moti- vation as factors that impede effective care delivery (van Boekel et al., 2013). Furthermore, van Boekel and colleagues substantiate that healthcare professionals are unable to empathize, and report dissatisfaction when caring for patients with SUDs, ultimately resulting in suboptimal care. Literature supports that many nurses have condemnatory atti- tudes and negative beliefs such as distrust, powerlessness, anger, futility, and intolerance when

working with patients with SUDs and OUD (Tierney, 2016). Neville and Roan (2014) report- ed nurses perceived patients with addictions as “manipula- tive, rude, aggressive and unsafe” (p. 344). However, these practicing nurses also identified being unprepared to care for this population and a need for increased education.

In healthcare agencies, there is a call to action for nurse lead- ers to address this epidemic. Based on the identified factors of stigma and need for further education, nurse leaders should advocate for continuing educa- tion, providing state of the art best evidence to guide practice to improve outcomes for indi- viduals with OUD. Additionally, the creation and monitoring of a therapeutic milieu to support nurses during the transition toward the adoption of this par- adigm of recovery is vital.

In addition to the need for nurses to provide excellent care to individuals with OUD, nurse leaders need to be aware of costs related to OUD treatment. Recently, Platt and colleagues (2019) identified the importance for nurses to gain understanding of economics in health care to promote cost-effective delivery of care. Given the tremendous economic burden the opioid epi- demic has created nationwide, health economics competency is of paramount importance for nurses, especially nurse leaders.

Levels of Prevention Nurses promote and maxi-

mize health states across the lifespan and health and well- being continuum, including pri-

mary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Nurses in primary care, community health, and school settings can be key advo- cates in protecting the public by education on the risks of sub- stance abuse, as well as the challenges and need for support of individuals in recovery, the changing perception of individu- als with OUD, and the impor- tance of mitigating public and health professionals stigma to facilitate individuals with OUD to seek and receive adequate treatment to prevent relapse.

Nurse educators in the com- munity can serve as highly valu- able resources in the prevention of drug misuse, as well as pro- vide naloxone training and edu- cation to first responders, teach- ers, family members, and care- givers. Additionally, nurses can provide extensive education to teachers, counselors, coaches, and students on prevention and identification of risk and individ- uals confronting this disease.

In secondary prevention, knowledge and recognition of persons with OUD should not be confined to mental health professionals but should include education for all healthcare pro- fessionals. Early detection and intervention must be available to identify those at risk (biophysi- cal, psychological, or social determinants) for all subgroups within the population across all ages and in all types of health- care settings. Increased efforts to promote safe prescribing prac- tices are underway, and pre- scriber and clinician education on safe opioid use and detec- tion of potential misuse is essen- tial (Salmond & Allread, 2019).

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 114

In tertiary prevention, nurses have a vital role in helping indi- viduals with OUD maximize health despite living with a chronic disease. In the past, drug dependence was character- ized by individuals from lower socioeconomic classes and was considered a sign of moral weakness. It is now imperative that a change in perception by society and, importantly, by health professionals must occur. Stigma, associated with negative attitudes, can dramatically impact treatment, recovery, and ultimately relapse. Recognizing that addiction is a brain disease, individuals with OUD must be treated with respect and com- passion as a patient with a dis- ease, without judgment and not viewed as morally deficient.

Although multiple treatments are available, evidence reveals that only an approximate 11% receive specialty care in treat- ment centers (Busch et al., 2017). Based on the escalating opioid misuse crisis, there is a dire need to educate practition- ers on MAT, the safest and most effective treatment for OUD. MAT efficacy is increased with a holistic approach, including therapeutic counseling and other behavioral therapies (Moore, 2018; SAMHSA, 2019b). According to Moore (2018), sur- vival rates are improved, patients remain in treatment longer, have increased levels of employment, and have improved overall quality of life with MAT. While deemed the most effective treatment for OUD, MAT underutilization con- tinues to exist predominantly due to the inadequate number

of providers and lack of OUD education among healthcare professionals.

To address the need for increased providers, in 2016 the U.S. Congress, through the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, facilitated expan- sion of prescriptive privileges for nurse practitioners to pro- vide MAT (SAMHSA, 2019b). Through education, increased numbers of nurse practitioners who can treat individuals with OUD will dramatically assist in combatting the opioid epidemic.

Conclusion

The need to address this unprecedented opioid epidemic is increasingly being recognized. Finding ways to treat OUD has become a national priority (Mumba et al., 2018). OUD affects individuals across the lifespan, including those of diverse ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds, in rural, urban, and suburban set- tings throughout the country. As frontline providers of care, it is imperative nurses take compre- hensive action to combat this epidemic to improve outcomes as well as to mitigate the rising healthcare costs associated with this crisis. $ Kathleen Neville, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and

Research Seton Hall University College of Nursing Nutley, NJ Marie Foley, PhD, RN Dean and Professor Seton Hall University College of Nursing Nutley, NJ

References Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

(2016). Mean expenses for person with care for selected conditions by type of service: United States, 2014. Medical expenditure panel survey household component data.

American Association of Colleges Nursing (AACN). (2019a). Commitment state- ment on countering the US opioid epi- demic. https://nam.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/AACN_Com mitment_Statement_on_Countering.pdf

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2019b). AACN joins action col- laborative countering the U.S. opioid epidemic. https://www.aacnnursing. org/News-Information/News/View/ ArticleId/23550/action-collaborative- opioids

American Nurses Association (ANA). (2016). Nursing’s role in addressing nation’s opioid crisis. https://www.nursing- world.org/~4ae212/globalassets/docs/ ana/ana_nursings-role-in-opioid- crisis_2016.pdf

American Psychiatric Nurses Association. (2016). American Psychiatric Nurses Association introduces new education to combat opioid epidemic. https://www.apna.org/i4a/pages/index. cfm?pageID=6089

American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). (2015). Patients with addiction need treatment – not stigma. https://www.asam.org/resources/publi- cations/magazine/read/article/2015/12/ 15/patients-with-a-substance-use-disor- der-need-treatment—-not-stigma

Barnett, M., Olenski, A., & Jena, A. (2017). Opioid-prescribing patterns of emer- gency physicians and risk of long-term use. The New England Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 663-673.

Bennet, J., Kingsbury, K., Appelbaum, B., Cottle, M., Gay, M., Giacomo, C., … & Fox, N. (2018). An opioid crisis foretold. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2018/04/21/opinion/an- opioid-crisis-foretold.html

Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., Zaller, N., Martino, S., Cloud, D.H., McCauley, E., Heise, A., & Seal, D. (2018). Criminal justice continu- um for opioid user at risk of overdose. Addictive Behaviors, 86, 104-110.

Broglio, K., & Matzo, M. (2018). Perspectives on palliative nursing: Acute pain man- agement for people with opioid use dis- order. American Journal of Nursing, 118(10), 42-56.

Busch, S., Fiellin, D., Charwarski, M., Owens, P., Pantalon, M., Hawk, K., Bernstein, S., O’Connor, P., & D’Onofrio, G.

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 15

(2017). Cost-effectiveness of emer- gency department- initiated treatment for opioid dependence. Addiction, 112(11), 2002-2010.

Cadet, M., & Tucker, L. (2019). NP roles in medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. American Nurse Today, 14(1), 8-13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017). Addressing the prescrip- tion opioid crisis. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/rxawareness/pdf/ Overview-Rx-Awareness-Resources.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018). U.S. drug overdose deaths continue to rise; increase fueled by synthetic opioids. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20 18/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019a). Accidents or uninten- tional injuries. https://www.cdc.gov/ nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019b). Opioid overdose. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/dat a/statedeaths.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019c). Understanding the epi- demic. Retrieved https://www.cdc.gov/ drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html

Chen, L.H., Hedegaard, H., & Warner, M. (2014). Drug-poisoning deaths involving opioid analgesics: United States, 1999- 2011. NCHS Data Brief, 166, 1-8.

Chimbar, L., & Moleta, Y. (2018). Naloxone effectiveness: A systematic review. Journal of Addiction Nursing, 29(30), 157-171.

Cicero, T., Ellis, M., Surratt, H., Kurtz, (2014). The changing face of heroin use in the United States: A retrospective analysis of the past 50 years, JAMA Psychiatry, 7(71), 821-826.

Council of Economic Advisers (U.S.), Executive Office of the President of the United States. (CEA). (2017). The under- estimated cost of the opioid crisis. Retrieved from https://www.white house.gov/briefings-statements/cea- report-underestimated-cost-opioid- crisis/

Cox, K., & Naegle, M. (2019). Presidents Message: The opioid crisis. Nursing Outlook, 67(1), 3-5.

Florence, C.S., Zhou, C., Luo, F., & Xu, L. (2016). The economic burden of pre- scription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence in the United States, 2013. Medical Care, 54(10), 901-906.

Fogger, S., & McGuinness, T. (2015). Adolescents at risk: Pain pills to heroin: Part II. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing

and Mental Health Services, 53(2), 27- 30.

Fornili, K. (2018). The opioid crisis, suicides, and related conditions: Multiple clus- tered syndemics, not singular epi- demics. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(3), 214-220.

Hedegaard, H., Warner, M., & Minino, A.M. (2017). Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 1999-2015. NCHS Data Brief, 273. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/databriefs/db273.pdf

Hsu, D.J., McCarthy, E.P., Stevens, J.P., & Mukamal, K.J. (2017). Hospitalizations, costs and outcomes associated with heroin and prescription opioid overdos- es in the United States 2001- 12. Addiction,112(9), 1558-1564.

Humphreys, K. (2018). Americans take more pain pills-but not because they’re in more pain. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news /wonk/wp/2018/03/23/americans-take- more-pain-pills-but-not-because-theyre- in-more-pain/?utm_term=.be20005 e9ba4

Johnson, A. (2018). Curbing the high cost of opioid abuse treatment. Benefits Magazine, 14-19.

Klimas, J. (2017). Better medical education: One solution to the opioid crisis. http://theconversation.com/better- medical-education-one-solution-to-the- opioid-crisis-81019

Leslie, D. L., Djibril, M., Agbese, E., Xueyi, A., & Guodong, L. (2019). The economic burden of the opioid epidemic on states: The case of Medicaid. American Journal of Managed Care. https:// www.ajmc.com/journals/supplement/ 2019/deaths-dollars-diverted- resources-opioid-epidemic/the- economic-burden-opioid-epidemic-on- states-case-of-medicaid

Leung, P., MacDonald, E., Stanbrook, M., Dhalla, I., & Juurlink, D. (2017). A 1980 letter on the risk of opioid addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 376, 2194-2195.

Litton, S. (2018). Economic toll of opioid cri- sis in U.S. Exceeded $1 trillion since 2001. Altarum. https://altarum.org/ news/economic-toll-opioid-crisis-us- exceeded-1-trillion-2001

Livingston, J.D., Milne, T., Fang, M.L., & Amari, E. (2011). The effectiveness of interventions for reducing stigma related to substance use disorders: A system- atic review. Addiction, 107(1), 39-50.

Macy, B. (2018). Dopesick: Dealers, doctors and the drug company that addicted America. Little, Brown & Company.

Managed Healthcare Executive Staff. (2019). The financial burden of the opioid epi-

demic. Managed Healthcare Executive. https://www.managedhealthcareexecu tive.com/news/financial-burden-opioid- epidemic

Martello, J., Cassidy, B., & Mitchell, A. (2018). Evaluating emergency department opi- oid prescribing behaviors after educa- tion about mandated use of the educa- tion prescription drug monitoring pro- gram. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(3), 196-202.

Moore, D.J. (2018). A nurse practitioner’s perspective on prescribing Suboxone for opioid use disorder. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(3), 226-229.

Mumba, M.N., Findlay, L.J., & Snow, D. E. (2018). Treatment options for opioid use disorders. A review of the relevant litera- ture. Journal of Addiction Nursing, 29(3), 221-225.

National Institute of Drug Abuse. (2019). Opioid-related overdose deaths. Retrieved from https://www.drug abuse.gov/opioid-summaries-by- state/new-jersey-opioid-summary

Neville, K., & Roan, N. (2014). Challenges in nursing practice: Nurses’ perceptions in caring for hospitalized medical-surgical patients with substance abuse/depen dence. Journal of Nursing Administration, 44(6), 339-346.

Platt, M., Kwasky, A., McDonald, D., and Spetz, J. (2019). Exploring health eco- nomics course competencies’ value for nurse administrators. Nursing Outlook, 67(3), 270-279.

Ropero-Miller, J.D., & Speaker, P.J. (2019). The hidden costs of the opioid crisis and the implications for financial man- agement in the public sector. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, 227- 238.

Rhyan, C.N. (2017). The potential societal benefit of eliminating opioid overdoses, deaths, and substance abuse disorders exceeds $95 billion per year. Altarum. https://altarum.org/publications/poten tial-societal-benefit-eliminating-opioid- crisis-exceeds-95-billion-year

Salmond, S., & Allread, V. (2019). A popula- tion health approach to America’s opi- oid epidemic. Orthopaedic Nursing, 38(2), 95-108.

Siegel, E. (2018). Opioid epidemic so danger- ous, says CDC, it’s finally killing as many Americans as guns. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith abang/2018/03/20/opioid-epidemic-so- dangerous-says-cdc-its-finally-killing-as- many-americans-as-guns/#3448b fa6c21

continued on page 51

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 51

Nurses Call to Action continued from page 15 Siegel, R. (2019). Opioid crises cost U.S. economy at least $631 bil-

lion, study finds. The Washington Post. https://www.washington- post.com/business/2019/10/17/opioid-crisis-cost-us-economy- least-billion-study-finds/

Sofer, D. (2019). America’s problem with opioid abuse takes its toll on nursing, too. American Journal of Nursing, 119(4), 17-18.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMH- SA). (2019a). Apply for a practitioner waiver. https://www.samh- sa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/training-materials- resources/buprenorphine-waiver

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMH- SA). (2019b). Medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment

Tierney, M. (2016). Improving nurses’ attitudes toward patients with substance abuse disorders. American Nurse Today, 11(11), 1- 16.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. (2016). World drug report 2016. https://www.unodc.org/doc/wdr2016/WORLD_DRUG_REPORT _2016_web.pdf

U.S. Congress. (2016). S.524 – Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th- congress/senate-bill/524/text

van Boekel, L., Brouwers, E., van Weeghel, J., & Garretson, H. (2013). Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: Systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(1-2), 23-35.

Velander, J. (2018). Suboxone: Rationale, science, misconceptions. The Ochsner Journal, 18(1), 23-29.

 

 

Copyright of Nursing Economic$ is the property of Jannetti Publications, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 7

Nursing Economic$

Presently, the United States is in the midst of a major, unprecedented public health opioid epidemic that traverses race, ethnicity, gender, age, health status, and socioeconomic level (Brinkley- Rubinstein et al., 2018; Chimbar & Moleta, 2018; Cox & Naegle, 2019). The opioid epidemic, now a crisis in America, reflects the deadliest in history with pre- dictions the death toll will con- tinue to escalate in years to come (Bennet et al., 2018). Despite billions of dollars allo- cated to address the opioid epi- demic, the crisis has worsened, with more deadly outcomes (Johnson, 2018). More opioid- related deaths occur per year than mortality from recent wars, motor vehicle accidents, gun violence, and human immuno – deficiency virus (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019a; Siegel, 2018; Velander, 2018). In 2016, the national death rate from opioid overdose was 21.7 deaths per 100,000, reflecting a dramatic increase since 2013 when the U.S. rate was 7.6 deaths per 100,000 (National Institute of Drug Abuse, 2019).

Recognizing that nurses are the most trusted of health pro- fessionals, account for the largest number of healthcare providers, and have the most frequent interpersonal contact with patients and families, the important role of nurses in com- batting the opioid crisis has been recognized (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2019a; American Nurses Association, 2016). The purpose of this inte- grative review is to examine the economic burden of the opioid epidemic based on published evidence to inform practice, education, research, and policy development in nursing to com- bat this escalating crisis.

Method

In this integrative review, the authors used interprofession- al academic and federal analysis literature published in English between 2013 and 2019. Seven electronic databases were used to identify relevant published articles and included Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCOhost, Elsevier, Google Scholar, ProQuest Document,

The Economic Impact of the Opioid Use Disorder Epidemic in America: Nurses’ Call to Action Kathleen Neville Marie Foley

The unprecedented public health opioid epidemic in America has created a tremendous economic burden. Exorbitant costs from premature mortality, criminal justice, childcare and family assistance, lost productivity, and healthcare services are skyrocketing. Given the escalating economic burden of this national crisis, nurses as frontline providers are called to action to combat the opioid epidemic through the provision of comprehensive, cost-effective, humanistic levels of prevention, including primary, secondary, and tertiary care.

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 18

PubMed, and Science Direct. Key terms for these sites includ- ed cost opioid, cost opioid crisis, history opioid cost, opioid epi- demic cost, opioid cost individ- ual, and opioid cost family.

The last search identified approximately 70 potential arti- cles; 60 abstracts were reviewed based on inclusion criteria, and eight were excluded because they were not fully relevant to the research topic of economics and the opioid epidemic. This literature review resulted in 52 articles that had the most recent data related to the cost of opi- oid use disorder (OUD) in the United States.

Background

OUDs are so prevalent in the United States that a national emergency to address this pub- lic health crisis was declared in 2017 (Broglio & Matzo, 2018; Hedegaard, Warner, & Minino, 2017). According to CDC data, there were 42,249 opioid-related deaths in 2016 (CDC, 2019b), accounting for more than 66% of all overdose deaths (CDC, 2018). Every day 115 Americans die from opioid overdoses (CDC, 2019a). The mortality rate has increased to 130 deaths per day (AACN, 2019b). More than 1,000 people are treated in emergency departments for mis- using prescription opioids (CDC, 2017). “From 1999 to 2016, greater than 630,000 individuals died from a drug overdose, with opioid-related overdoses increasing five times since 1999” (Fornili, 2018, p. 215).

The current opioid epidemic involves the misuse and abuse

of both prescription drugs and illegal drugs such as heroin and fentanyl. While it is not the first drug crisis in America, it is the deadliest and most costly in terms of lives lost, decreased life expectancy, lost productivity, crime, violence, and the devas- tating impact of addiction on families and communities. In earlier epidemics, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the liberal use of laudanum to treat pain and the influx of opium dens from Chinese immigrants in America created a state of alarm, and physicians began addiction management with the use of opioids (Velander, 2018). It was not until the Harrison Act of 1914 that restrictions of opioids for pain management existed. Similar to current, albeit hope- fully changing views, the Harrison Act depicted opioid dependence as criminal activity, representing a moral weakness, and was not viewed as a med- ical condition (Velander, 2018). Under this act, the use of opi- oids for addiction treatment was prohibited and 30,000 physi- cians were then prosecuted for unlawful use of prescribing opi- oids.

It was not until the 1970s that methadone became a legal opioid to treat addiction man- agement in the United States and was authorized to be dis- pensed in federally designated clinics (Velander, 2018). Buprenorphine, an opioid par- tial agonist, was developed in the 1970s as an alternative to methadone. Buprenorphine pre- vents withdrawal symptoms and cravings, prevents abuse of other opioids, and requires less

federal regulations for dispens- ing (can be prescribed in office settings) than methadone. In 2000, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) author- ized physicians via a DATA waiver to prescribe medication- assisted treatment (MAT) for OUDs. Upon obtaining a DATA waiver, legislation has expanded buprenorphine prescribing prac- tices for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for initial treatment of 30 patients, fol- lowed by 100 patients annually (Cadet & Tucker, 2019). In sum- mary, from a historical perspec- tive, “opioid addiction has been recognized as a difficult prob- lem to treat with low recovery rates” (Velander, 2018, p. 1), and remains so today.

This current escalating epi- demic has its origins beginning in the 1980s when pharmaceuti- cal companies misinformed physicians that addiction from narcotic use was unlikely. A let- ter on the risk of opioid addic- tion published in 1980 in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that addic- tion was indeed rare when long-term opioids were pre- scribed for pain management (Leung et al., 2017). Additionally, Purdue Pharma extensively marketed Oxycontin® (oxycodone) to physicians, providing lucrative incentives for increased pre- scription use (Macy, 2018). “In 2000, throughout the pharma- ceutical industry, $4.04 billion was spent on direct marketing to physicians” (Macy, 2018, p. 32). However, in 2007, “the manufacturers of Oxycontin, along with senior executives

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 9

pled guilty to misleading regula- tors, physicians and patients regarding the risks of addiction with Oxycontin” (Leung et al., 2017, p. 2194).

Other major factors respon- sible for this escalating crisis relate to practice changes that occurred in the 1990s. In response to the need to more effectively treat pain, pain assessment as a fifth vital sign became a standard nursing prac- tice initiative in acute care set- tings, followed by the liberal use of prescribing narcotics to treat patient-reported pain. What followed was a dramatic increase in opioid prescription use, accompanied by highly publicized false security and the myth opioid addiction was not probable and highly unlikely when used for pain manage- ment. It is now well known that addiction can occur quickly, even with short-term use; the possibility exists that some indi- viduals can become addicted with only one opioid prescrip- tion (Barnett et al., 2017). Consequently, along with increased prescription use came significantly increased mortality affecting children, teens, adults, and even newborns, who were exposed to opioids in utero and born suffering from neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Especially vulnerable to the risks of opioid use are the elder- ly, who due to opioid-sedating effects, may succumb to falls, fractures, and other potentially life-threatening events as well as addiction (Barnett et al., 2017). Young adults, equally prevalent among males and females, rep- resent the largest numbers of

heroin users (Cicero et al., 2014; Fogger & McGuiness, 2015). However, the greatest mortality due to opioid-analgesia has occurred in the 55-64 age group (Chen et al., 2014). Between the years 1999 and 2013, the mortal- ity rate from opioid use for anal- gesia resulted in a nearly quadrupled overdose rate (Sofer, 2019; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2019a). Over the last 3 years, there has been a decline in the rate of opioid prescriptions, a 19% reduction since 2006 (Sofer, 2019). However, this decrease in prescribing has not significantly impacted opioid use and related overdoses.

Additional factors fueling the epidemic are illicit drugs. These drugs include the influx of hero- in from Mexico, as well as the rise of extremely potent synthet- ic opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil, which is 10,000 times more potent than mor- phine, and tramadol (CDC, 2019c; Velander, 2018). Once prescription drugs became unat- tainable, a typical pattern result- ed in illicit street drug use, con- sisting of predominantly heroin, but frequently combined with additional potentially lethal sub- stances resulting in an increased mortality rate from overdose since 2010 (CDC, 2017).

The Economic Consequences of the Opioid Epidemic

The opioid crisis in America has created a tremendous eco- nomic burden. According to the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA, 2017), “in 2015, the eco- nomic cost of the opioid crisis was $504.0 billion or 2.8% of the gross domestic product” (p. 1) and has risen substantially (see Table 1). Since 2001, fig- ures reflect the costs exceeding $1 trillion (Rhyan, 2017). These figures may reasonably be underestimated, predominantly due to underreporting of fatali- ties due to heroin and other illicit drug use, as well as the associated incidence of suicide.

In 2018, the estimated costs to the U.S. economy from the opioid epidemic rose to $631 billion (Siegel, 2019). Critical components of this financial burden and estimates of per- centage of specific expenditures are as follows: health care (33%), premature death (40%), criminal justice (6%), child and family assistance and education- al programs (6%), and lost pro- ductivity (15%) (see Table 2).

The cost of premature fatali- ties is due to lost potential earn- ings. It is estimated by the “value of a statistical life” (CEA, 2017, p. 3), which is age-depen-

Nursing Economic$

Table 1. U.S. Economic Cost of the Opioid Epidemic

Year

2015 2018

Cost $504 billion $631 billion

Source: Siegel, 2019.

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 110

dent and can range from $221.6 billion to $549.8 billion. It was estimated the total cost of non- fatal opioid use as a result of lost productivity, health care, and criminal justice system costs were $72.7 billion in 2015 (CEA, 2017) and an estimated overall societal cost of $78.5 billion in 2016 (Leslie et al., 2019). Lost productivity, specifically, absen- teeism and work impairment, involves not only the abuser, but also family members, close friends, and associates.

Criminal Justice Costs A substantial cost related to

nonfatal consequences involves the criminal justice system, which consists of the following components: police protection, legal and adjudication, correc- tional facilities, and property loss due to crimes (Florence et al., 2016; Rhyan, 2017). Crime and violence as a sequela to opioid use is a significant cost and involves both the abusers and the victims. It is estimated the opioid epidemic has increased criminal justice costs in America by $7.8 billion (Florence et al., 2016), and a more recent finding reveals the current cost to be $8 billion (Ropero-Miller & Speaker, 2019).

Healthcare Costs The opioid epidemic has

fueled an excessive financial burden to the nation, including federal, state, and local govern- ments as well as private health- care plans and society at large. Between the years of 2001 and 2017, U.S. healthcare expendi- tures topped $215.7 billion (Litton, 2018). Federal costs (Medicare, Medicaid, SAMHSA, and CHAMPVA) accounted for 14% of the financial burden related to the epidemic. Combined with the criminal jus- tice costs, this accounts for 25% of the total economic weight funded by society (Florence et al., 2016). Additionally, health- care plans have endured signifi- cant financial burdens. Two fed- eral laws, the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, expanded behavioral health plans and provision of services, and eliminated lifetime mone- tary limits, substantially increas- ing the use of services.

Concomitantly with the opi- oid epidemic, new drug treat- ment programs developed nationwide, some of which engaged in unscrupulous and unethical practices to increase revenue (Johnson, 2018). In

many cases, these private treat- ment programs were out of net- work, and individuals and fami- lies incurred excessively high financial costs. Similar to the pharmaceutical industry, these private treatment programs uti- lized skillful marketing tech- niques to attract vulnerable patients with financial resources.

Rates and costs of opioid- related admissions have increased dramatically and the escalation in numbers, and costs of hospitalizations indicate a threat to the financial solvency of U.S. hospitals (Hsu et al., 2017). These costs stem primari- ly from emergency services, emergency room visits to man- age overdoses, hospital admis- sions, and the increased costs of associated illnesses (Litton, 2018). In comparison to treat- ment costs for other illnesses such as diabetes or renal disease (range $3,560-$5,624), MAT for OUDs reflects substantially high- er costs ($5,980-$14,112) per year (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2016).

International Opioid Epidemic

While OUDs exist world- wide, the United States is facing a substantially larger epidemic. While the United States repre- sents 4% of the world’s popula- tion, 27% of the world’s mortali- ty from drug overdose occurs in the United States (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016). Residents in the United States consume more opioids than any other popula- tion in the world. For example, in France and Italy, the inci-

Nursing Economic$

Table 2. Financial Burden of Opioid Epidemic

Expenditures Costs from 2015-2018

Health care $205 billion Premature deaths $253 billion Criminal justice $39 billion Childcare/Family assistance $39 billion Lost productivity $96 billion

Source: Managed Healthcare Executive Staff, 2019; Siegel, 2019.

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 11

dence of chronic pain is similar to the per capita rate in America. Yet, consumption of opioids in the United States is six to eight times greater (Humphreys, 2018). Nearly 100% of hydrocodone and 81% of oxycontin are consumed by Americans and are prescribed

for pain management. Another contributing factor related to over-prescription in the United States is that fewer regulations exist for drug manufacturers and distributors, as compared to other developing nations (Humphreys, 2018).

An additional factor con-

tributing to the increase in opi- oid use in the United States is related to the healthcare indus- try’s focus on addressing patient needs and satisfaction, which has resulted in health profes- sionals’ liberal overprescribing and often resulting in unused medications including opioids.

Nursing Economic$

Table 3. Call to Action: Advocacy in Nursing

Policy 1. Endorse organizational initiatives and advocate for policy development to address the opioid epidemic through local, regional, state, and national development of OUD programs.

Education 1. Develop and implement curricula based on best practice for treatment of OUDs in undergraduate and graduate nursing programs nationwide.

2. Introduce a new paradigm of OUD as a chronic neuropsychobiological disease capable of recovery to decrease stigma.

3. Increase the number of nurse practitioners to prescribe medication-assisted treatment.

Nurse leaders 1. Design and provide continuing education programs for practicing nurses to treat individuals with OUDs with best evidence interventions.

2. Foster assimilation of the new paradigm of OUD as a disease with recovery, rather than moral defect.

3. Establish health economics competencies to manage exorbitant costs of OUD treatment.

Research 1. Engage in the conduct of diverse research methodologies to expand broad body of nursing knowledge in humanistic treatment of OUDs, including psychosocial aspects of treatment.

2. Conduct research investigations on stigma, and development of interventions to mitigate stigma among individuals, families, communities, societal, and healthcare professionals.

Practice: Levels of prevention 1. Primary Prevention a. Protect the public through education on risks, challenges, and need for

support/community services for those in recovery from OUDs. b. Provide education to mitigate stigma to improve access to treatment for

individuals with OUDs. 2. Secondary Prevention

a. Facilitate early detection and intervention for those at risk (biophysical, psychological, or social determinants) for all subgroups of population in all healthcare settings.

3. Tertiary Prevention

a. Provision of nursing services to maximize health states, despite living with a chronic illness.

b. Provide supportive services to reduce long-term sequelae of OUDs.

OUD = opioid use disorder

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 112

These unused opioids, available in household medicine cabinets nationwide, have facilitated increased recreational use of opioids by patients, family members, and friends (diver- sion); thereby, furthering the escalation of opioid addiction in the United States.

Nurses’ Call to Action

Because nurses represent the largest number of healthcare providers, are the most trusted among health professionals, have the greatest interaction with patients and families, and deliver comprehensive, excel- lent, cost-effective care, nurses are ideally suited to engage in action to address the opioid epi- demic in America. To combat the opioid epidemic, there is a call to action for nurses in all settings, including academia and practice at all levels of preven- tion, to engage and advocate for change to advance science, poli- cy, education, and practice (see Table 3).

Policy Recognizing the severity and

magnitude of the opioid epi- demic, national healthcare organizations from diverse disci- plines have joined forces to identify solutions for this public health crisis. The National Academy of Medicine’s Action Collaborative on Countering the U.S. Opioid Epidemic along with the AACN and 55 private and federal participating net- work organizations have engaged in partnerships to develop solutions to the opioid crisis and to ultimately improve

individual, family, and commu- nity outcomes for those impact- ed by the opioid crisis (AACN, 2019b). Through policy, AACN has focused on workforce development and further access to MAT for individuals with OUD. Goals include increasing healthcare professional educa- tion and training; advancing research and adoption of evi- dence-based substance use dis- order (SUD) treatment, provid- ing safe guidelines for prescrib- ing opioids for acute and chron- ic pain, and increasing outreach to disseminate the urgent need to address this growing epidem- ic (AACN, 2019b).

The American Nurses Association (ANA) has communicated similar goals as AACN, including expanded access to MAT and prescriber education and training. Additionally, ANA (2016) has called for further prevention research, increased utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs, and increased availability of naloxone (Narcan®), an opioid antagonist used to counter the effects of opioid overdose, for first responders, family, friends, and caregivers of individuals with OUD. All nurses in practice and academia need to endorse these initiatives and advocate for policies to support these services at the local, regional, state, and national levels to improve outcomes for individuals with OUD.

Education The need to educate nurses

in practice and academia to treat individuals with OUD with inter-

ventions based on best evidence is well documented (ANA, 2016; American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 2016; Klimas, 2017; Livingston et al., 2011; Martello et al., 2018; Neville & Roan, 2014). The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM, 2015) has advocated for a change in perspective in how society and healthcare providers view individuals with OUD; transitioning from the negative perception of moral weakness to a treatable chronic neuropsy- chobiological disease. In essence, ASAM addresses the need to decrease stigma and use best scientific evidence to treat patients with OUD using the most humanistic approach to confront this disease. Through this changed perspective, educa- tion focusing on treating SUDs and OUD as a disease will ulti- mately result in lessening stig- ma, more positive healthcare professional attitudes, and improved recovery rates (van Boekel et al., 2013).

In academia, the call to action is to impart knowledge of best practice for treatment of individuals with OUD. This encompasses knowledge acqui- sition of OUD risk factors, etiol- ogy, psychosocial components, and treatment modalities, using the framework of OUD as a chronic condition, characterized by exacerbation, remission, and recovery. Nurse faculty need to embrace this new paradigm supportive of recovery, and develop and implement curricu- la in undergraduate and gradu- ate nursing programs. An imper- ative call to action is for nurse faculty nationwide to compre-

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 13

hensively integrate OUD content into nursing curricula.

Research To advance science, nurses

should engage in research using diverse methodologies to expand the body of knowledge in OUD. A shortage of literature exists related to the role of nurs- es in the care and treatment of individuals with OUD. Further inquiry regarding barriers, inter- ventions to reduce stigma, and the design and efficacy of com- prehensive nursing interven- tions, including the use of MAT, along with psychosocial support services, is needed.

Practice Nurses, as frontline practi-

tioners, are ideally situated to address the opioid epidemic through their close interactions with patients and families in community and healthcare set- tings. However, consistent with public stigma, many healthcare professionals have negative atti- tudes toward working with patients with SUDs, including perceptions of aggression, manipulation, and lack of moti- vation as factors that impede effective care delivery (van Boekel et al., 2013). Furthermore, van Boekel and colleagues substantiate that healthcare professionals are unable to empathize, and report dissatisfaction when caring for patients with SUDs, ultimately resulting in suboptimal care. Literature supports that many nurses have condemnatory atti- tudes and negative beliefs such as distrust, powerlessness, anger, futility, and intolerance when

working with patients with SUDs and OUD (Tierney, 2016). Neville and Roan (2014) report- ed nurses perceived patients with addictions as “manipula- tive, rude, aggressive and unsafe” (p. 344). However, these practicing nurses also identified being unprepared to care for this population and a need for increased education.

In healthcare agencies, there is a call to action for nurse lead- ers to address this epidemic. Based on the identified factors of stigma and need for further education, nurse leaders should advocate for continuing educa- tion, providing state of the art best evidence to guide practice to improve outcomes for indi- viduals with OUD. Additionally, the creation and monitoring of a therapeutic milieu to support nurses during the transition toward the adoption of this par- adigm of recovery is vital.

In addition to the need for nurses to provide excellent care to individuals with OUD, nurse leaders need to be aware of costs related to OUD treatment. Recently, Platt and colleagues (2019) identified the importance for nurses to gain understanding of economics in health care to promote cost-effective delivery of care. Given the tremendous economic burden the opioid epi- demic has created nationwide, health economics competency is of paramount importance for nurses, especially nurse leaders.

Levels of Prevention Nurses promote and maxi-

mize health states across the lifespan and health and well- being continuum, including pri-

mary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Nurses in primary care, community health, and school settings can be key advo- cates in protecting the public by education on the risks of sub- stance abuse, as well as the challenges and need for support of individuals in recovery, the changing perception of individu- als with OUD, and the impor- tance of mitigating public and health professionals stigma to facilitate individuals with OUD to seek and receive adequate treatment to prevent relapse.

Nurse educators in the com- munity can serve as highly valu- able resources in the prevention of drug misuse, as well as pro- vide naloxone training and edu- cation to first responders, teach- ers, family members, and care- givers. Additionally, nurses can provide extensive education to teachers, counselors, coaches, and students on prevention and identification of risk and individ- uals confronting this disease.

In secondary prevention, knowledge and recognition of persons with OUD should not be confined to mental health professionals but should include education for all healthcare pro- fessionals. Early detection and intervention must be available to identify those at risk (biophysi- cal, psychological, or social determinants) for all subgroups within the population across all ages and in all types of health- care settings. Increased efforts to promote safe prescribing prac- tices are underway, and pre- scriber and clinician education on safe opioid use and detec- tion of potential misuse is essen- tial (Salmond & Allread, 2019).

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 114

In tertiary prevention, nurses have a vital role in helping indi- viduals with OUD maximize health despite living with a chronic disease. In the past, drug dependence was character- ized by individuals from lower socioeconomic classes and was considered a sign of moral weakness. It is now imperative that a change in perception by society and, importantly, by health professionals must occur. Stigma, associated with negative attitudes, can dramatically impact treatment, recovery, and ultimately relapse. Recognizing that addiction is a brain disease, individuals with OUD must be treated with respect and com- passion as a patient with a dis- ease, without judgment and not viewed as morally deficient.

Although multiple treatments are available, evidence reveals that only an approximate 11% receive specialty care in treat- ment centers (Busch et al., 2017). Based on the escalating opioid misuse crisis, there is a dire need to educate practition- ers on MAT, the safest and most effective treatment for OUD. MAT efficacy is increased with a holistic approach, including therapeutic counseling and other behavioral therapies (Moore, 2018; SAMHSA, 2019b). According to Moore (2018), sur- vival rates are improved, patients remain in treatment longer, have increased levels of employment, and have improved overall quality of life with MAT. While deemed the most effective treatment for OUD, MAT underutilization con- tinues to exist predominantly due to the inadequate number

of providers and lack of OUD education among healthcare professionals.

To address the need for increased providers, in 2016 the U.S. Congress, through the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, facilitated expan- sion of prescriptive privileges for nurse practitioners to pro- vide MAT (SAMHSA, 2019b). Through education, increased numbers of nurse practitioners who can treat individuals with OUD will dramatically assist in combatting the opioid epidemic.

Conclusion

The need to address this unprecedented opioid epidemic is increasingly being recognized. Finding ways to treat OUD has become a national priority (Mumba et al., 2018). OUD affects individuals across the lifespan, including those of diverse ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds, in rural, urban, and suburban set- tings throughout the country. As frontline providers of care, it is imperative nurses take compre- hensive action to combat this epidemic to improve outcomes as well as to mitigate the rising healthcare costs associated with this crisis. $ Kathleen Neville, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and

Research Seton Hall University College of Nursing Nutley, NJ Marie Foley, PhD, RN Dean and Professor Seton Hall University College of Nursing Nutley, NJ

References Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

(2016). Mean expenses for person with care for selected conditions by type of service: United States, 2014. Medical expenditure panel survey household component data.

American Association of Colleges Nursing (AACN). (2019a). Commitment state- ment on countering the US opioid epi- demic. https://nam.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/AACN_Com mitment_Statement_on_Countering.pdf

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2019b). AACN joins action col- laborative countering the U.S. opioid epidemic. https://www.aacnnursing. org/News-Information/News/View/ ArticleId/23550/action-collaborative- opioids

American Nurses Association (ANA). (2016). Nursing’s role in addressing nation’s opioid crisis. https://www.nursing- world.org/~4ae212/globalassets/docs/ ana/ana_nursings-role-in-opioid- crisis_2016.pdf

American Psychiatric Nurses Association. (2016). American Psychiatric Nurses Association introduces new education to combat opioid epidemic. https://www.apna.org/i4a/pages/index. cfm?pageID=6089

American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). (2015). Patients with addiction need treatment – not stigma. https://www.asam.org/resources/publi- cations/magazine/read/article/2015/12/ 15/patients-with-a-substance-use-disor- der-need-treatment—-not-stigma

Barnett, M., Olenski, A., & Jena, A. (2017). Opioid-prescribing patterns of emer- gency physicians and risk of long-term use. The New England Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 663-673.

Bennet, J., Kingsbury, K., Appelbaum, B., Cottle, M., Gay, M., Giacomo, C., … & Fox, N. (2018). An opioid crisis foretold. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2018/04/21/opinion/an- opioid-crisis-foretold.html

Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., Zaller, N., Martino, S., Cloud, D.H., McCauley, E., Heise, A., & Seal, D. (2018). Criminal justice continu- um for opioid user at risk of overdose. Addictive Behaviors, 86, 104-110.

Broglio, K., & Matzo, M. (2018). Perspectives on palliative nursing: Acute pain man- agement for people with opioid use dis- order. American Journal of Nursing, 118(10), 42-56.

Busch, S., Fiellin, D., Charwarski, M., Owens, P., Pantalon, M., Hawk, K., Bernstein, S., O’Connor, P., & D’Onofrio, G.

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 15

(2017). Cost-effectiveness of emer- gency department- initiated treatment for opioid dependence. Addiction, 112(11), 2002-2010.

Cadet, M., & Tucker, L. (2019). NP roles in medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. American Nurse Today, 14(1), 8-13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017). Addressing the prescrip- tion opioid crisis. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/rxawareness/pdf/ Overview-Rx-Awareness-Resources.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018). U.S. drug overdose deaths continue to rise; increase fueled by synthetic opioids. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20 18/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019a). Accidents or uninten- tional injuries. https://www.cdc.gov/ nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019b). Opioid overdose. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/dat a/statedeaths.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019c). Understanding the epi- demic. Retrieved https://www.cdc.gov/ drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html

Chen, L.H., Hedegaard, H., & Warner, M. (2014). Drug-poisoning deaths involving opioid analgesics: United States, 1999- 2011. NCHS Data Brief, 166, 1-8.

Chimbar, L., & Moleta, Y. (2018). Naloxone effectiveness: A systematic review. Journal of Addiction Nursing, 29(30), 157-171.

Cicero, T., Ellis, M., Surratt, H., Kurtz, (2014). The changing face of heroin use in the United States: A retrospective analysis of the past 50 years, JAMA Psychiatry, 7(71), 821-826.

Council of Economic Advisers (U.S.), Executive Office of the President of the United States. (CEA). (2017). The under- estimated cost of the opioid crisis. Retrieved from https://www.white house.gov/briefings-statements/cea- report-underestimated-cost-opioid- crisis/

Cox, K., & Naegle, M. (2019). Presidents Message: The opioid crisis. Nursing Outlook, 67(1), 3-5.

Florence, C.S., Zhou, C., Luo, F., & Xu, L. (2016). The economic burden of pre- scription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence in the United States, 2013. Medical Care, 54(10), 901-906.

Fogger, S., & McGuinness, T. (2015). Adolescents at risk: Pain pills to heroin: Part II. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing

and Mental Health Services, 53(2), 27- 30.

Fornili, K. (2018). The opioid crisis, suicides, and related conditions: Multiple clus- tered syndemics, not singular epi- demics. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(3), 214-220.

Hedegaard, H., Warner, M., & Minino, A.M. (2017). Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 1999-2015. NCHS Data Brief, 273. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/databriefs/db273.pdf

Hsu, D.J., McCarthy, E.P., Stevens, J.P., & Mukamal, K.J. (2017). Hospitalizations, costs and outcomes associated with heroin and prescription opioid overdos- es in the United States 2001- 12. Addiction,112(9), 1558-1564.

Humphreys, K. (2018). Americans take more pain pills-but not because they’re in more pain. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news /wonk/wp/2018/03/23/americans-take- more-pain-pills-but-not-because-theyre- in-more-pain/?utm_term=.be20005 e9ba4

Johnson, A. (2018). Curbing the high cost of opioid abuse treatment. Benefits Magazine, 14-19.

Klimas, J. (2017). Better medical education: One solution to the opioid crisis. http://theconversation.com/better- medical-education-one-solution-to-the- opioid-crisis-81019

Leslie, D. L., Djibril, M., Agbese, E., Xueyi, A., & Guodong, L. (2019). The economic burden of the opioid epidemic on states: The case of Medicaid. American Journal of Managed Care. https:// www.ajmc.com/journals/supplement/ 2019/deaths-dollars-diverted- resources-opioid-epidemic/the- economic-burden-opioid-epidemic-on- states-case-of-medicaid

Leung, P., MacDonald, E., Stanbrook, M., Dhalla, I., & Juurlink, D. (2017). A 1980 letter on the risk of opioid addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 376, 2194-2195.

Litton, S. (2018). Economic toll of opioid cri- sis in U.S. Exceeded $1 trillion since 2001. Altarum. https://altarum.org/ news/economic-toll-opioid-crisis-us- exceeded-1-trillion-2001

Livingston, J.D., Milne, T., Fang, M.L., & Amari, E. (2011). The effectiveness of interventions for reducing stigma related to substance use disorders: A system- atic review. Addiction, 107(1), 39-50.

Macy, B. (2018). Dopesick: Dealers, doctors and the drug company that addicted America. Little, Brown & Company.

Managed Healthcare Executive Staff. (2019). The financial burden of the opioid epi-

demic. Managed Healthcare Executive. https://www.managedhealthcareexecu tive.com/news/financial-burden-opioid- epidemic

Martello, J., Cassidy, B., & Mitchell, A. (2018). Evaluating emergency department opi- oid prescribing behaviors after educa- tion about mandated use of the educa- tion prescription drug monitoring pro- gram. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(3), 196-202.

Moore, D.J. (2018). A nurse practitioner’s perspective on prescribing Suboxone for opioid use disorder. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(3), 226-229.

Mumba, M.N., Findlay, L.J., & Snow, D. E. (2018). Treatment options for opioid use disorders. A review of the relevant litera- ture. Journal of Addiction Nursing, 29(3), 221-225.

National Institute of Drug Abuse. (2019). Opioid-related overdose deaths. Retrieved from https://www.drug abuse.gov/opioid-summaries-by- state/new-jersey-opioid-summary

Neville, K., & Roan, N. (2014). Challenges in nursing practice: Nurses’ perceptions in caring for hospitalized medical-surgical patients with substance abuse/depen dence. Journal of Nursing Administration, 44(6), 339-346.

Platt, M., Kwasky, A., McDonald, D., and Spetz, J. (2019). Exploring health eco- nomics course competencies’ value for nurse administrators. Nursing Outlook, 67(3), 270-279.

Ropero-Miller, J.D., & Speaker, P.J. (2019). The hidden costs of the opioid crisis and the implications for financial man- agement in the public sector. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, 227- 238.

Rhyan, C.N. (2017). The potential societal benefit of eliminating opioid overdoses, deaths, and substance abuse disorders exceeds $95 billion per year. Altarum. https://altarum.org/publications/poten tial-societal-benefit-eliminating-opioid- crisis-exceeds-95-billion-year

Salmond, S., & Allread, V. (2019). A popula- tion health approach to America’s opi- oid epidemic. Orthopaedic Nursing, 38(2), 95-108.

Siegel, E. (2018). Opioid epidemic so danger- ous, says CDC, it’s finally killing as many Americans as guns. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith abang/2018/03/20/opioid-epidemic-so- dangerous-says-cdc-its-finally-killing-as- many-americans-as-guns/#3448b fa6c21

continued on page 51

Nursing Economic$

 

 

January/February 2020 | Volume 38 Number 1 51

Nurses Call to Action continued from page 15 Siegel, R. (2019). Opioid crises cost U.S. economy at least $631 bil-

lion, study finds. The Washington Post. https://www.washington- post.com/business/2019/10/17/opioid-crisis-cost-us-economy- least-billion-study-finds/

Sofer, D. (2019). America’s problem with opioid abuse takes its toll on nursing, too. American Journal of Nursing, 119(4), 17-18.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMH- SA). (2019a). Apply for a practitioner waiver. https://www.samh- sa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/training-materials- resources/buprenorphine-waiver

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMH- SA). (2019b). Medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment

Tierney, M. (2016). Improving nurses’ attitudes toward patients with substance abuse disorders. American Nurse Today, 11(11), 1- 16.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. (2016). World drug report 2016. https://www.unodc.org/doc/wdr2016/WORLD_DRUG_REPORT _2016_web.pdf

U.S. Congress. (2016). S.524 – Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th- congress/senate-bill/524/text

van Boekel, L., Brouwers, E., van Weeghel, J., & Garretson, H. (2013). Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: Systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(1-2), 23-35.

Velander, J. (2018). Suboxone: Rationale, science, misconceptions. The Ochsner Journal, 18(1), 23-29.

 

 

Copyright of Nursing Economic$ is the property of Jannetti Publications, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.