Objectives: Medically tailored meals (MTMs) reduce healthcare utilization among high-risk patients with complex diet-sensitive conditions. The potential impact of MTMs across 50 U.S. states, where many Medicaid and commercial plans' coverage decisions are made for MTM, remains unknown. Methods: We estimated the potential impact of MTMs in each state, based on restricted state-level 2010-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data representing 6.9M adults with one or more diet-sensitive conditions and limited activities of daily living, enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or private-payer insurance. The policy effect size was estimated by conducting a meta-analysis of published interventional studies offering an average of 10 meals/week for 8 months per year for one year. A population-based, open-cohort health policy simulation model estimated changes in annual program costs, hospitalizations, and healthcare expenditures, compared to the base scenario of without the MTMs. Results: California reported the largest eligible patient population for MTM treatment (n=888,387), while Arizona has the smallest (n=57,867 ). MTMs would avert from 1 hospitalization per 2.3 treated patients per year in Maryland to 1 per 7.1 in Colorado. Accounting for implementation costs, MTMs are projected to generate net cost savings across all states, with the largest savings per-patient treated in Pennsylvania ($4,280), followed by Massachusetts ($4,088), Connecticut ($3,783), and New York ($3,496); and lowest, in Oregon ($908) and Alabama ($227). Conclusions: MTM therapy for high-risk patients with chronic illnesses are projected to reduce hospitalizations and produce net savings in all 50 states, but with important variations which help inform state-level decision-makers on coverage for MTMs through Medicaid 1115 waivers, Medicare shared savings and Accountable Care Organization programs, and commercial plans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deng et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: