No abstract

As of 2016, Medicaid accounted for nearly 20% of state general fund budgets. Optional Medicaid services like podiatry are often subject to cost-cutting measures in periods of economic downturn, as was the case in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis. Although the cuts were intended as a cost-saving measure, research indicates they had the opposite effect. The restriction and limitation of these services during the Great Recession resulted in both poorer health outcomes for beneficiaries, and poorer financial outcomes for state Medicaid programs. With states citing record levels of unemployment as of April 2020 and projecting significant declines in annual revenue in 2021, the economic conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to rival those of the Great Recession. Given the historical precedent for restricting or eliminating optional Medicaid services as a cost-saving measure, it is likely that podiatric services will once again come under scrutiny. Previous efforts by state-level podiatric societies have proven successful in lobbying for the reinstatement of coverage under Medicaid by conveying evidence of the negative outcomes associated with elimination to stakeholders. The specialty must once again engage policymakers by drawing on evidence gleaned and lessons learned from past cuts of optional Medicaid services to avert counterproductive coverage restrictions intended to mitigate the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

Objectives: Medicaid provides health insurance for low-income people meeting specific eligibility requirements. It is funded and administered by both the federal and state governments; this decentralization leads to vastly different programs across the country. The objective of this legal surveillance project was to describe state-by-state differences in podiatric care coverage for nonelderly adults across Medicaid programs. Methods: We used policy surveillance, a form of advanced legal mapping. It is the systematic collection and analysis of written policies across jurisdictions. Policy surveillance captures the important features of law through a rigorous scientific process to turn these policies into structured, quantitative legal data that are suitable for further evaluation or modeling. Data for the 51 jurisdictions were current as of September 1, 2020. Results: The vast majority of jurisdictions (82%) covered podiatric services for all classes of Medicaid beneficiaries, but the rules, restrictions, and limitations around coverage differed. Twenty-five jurisdictions had no limits on the number of podiatric visits during a specified period; 26 jurisdictions indicated a cap. Ten jurisdictions had no explicit limitations on coverage of routine foot care, whereas 33 jurisdictions covered routine foot care only when medically necessary or with a triggering condition. Eight jurisdictions did not cover routine foot care at all, and 28 jurisdictions required prior authorizations. Conclusions: Podiatric care coverage, which is often preventive, varies greatly by state. This variability in coverage, which has not been previously tracked at the level of detail provided in our study, has implications for cost and health outcomes. The value of podiatric care is especially apparent in Medicaid populations. The compilation of these data can serve as a valuable resource for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

No abstract