Please Respond To This In 100 Words Or More

Please Respond To This In 100 Words Or Morethe Selected Article Is

The article by Yamaki et al. (2019) investigates how transitioning from fee-for-service to Medicaid managed care (MMC) affects healthcare service utilization among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). The study reveals that MMC leads to a significant decrease in emergency department visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and primary care use, particularly for mental and behavioral health conditions. This reduction raises concerns because many mental health issues in this population are non-emergent and require community-based management. Limited access to proper diagnosis and treatment, compounded by inadequate community mental health services, may result in undiagnosed conditions and increased disparities in healthcare access for individuals with IDD. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive, accessible healthcare models to adequately meet the needs of this vulnerable population.

Paper For Above instruction

The transition from fee-for-service (FFS) payment models to Medicaid managed care (MMC) has been a significant reform aimed at controlling costs and improving coordination of services. Yamaki et al. (2019) explore this shift's impact on healthcare utilization among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Their findings indicate a notable decline in service use, including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and primary care visits. While on the surface, reduced utilization might suggest increased efficiency, it raises concerns about accessibility and adequacy of care for mental and behavioral health conditions common in this group.

Individuals with IDD often experience mental health issues that are subtle, non-urgent, and difficult to diagnose early. These conditions frequently manifest as behavioral problems or emotional distress, which can be managed effectively within community-based settings if identified promptly. However, Yamaki et al. (2019) demonstrate that under MMC, there is a tendency for fewer mental health-related visits, possibly due to limited access to specialized providers or inadequate community mental health infrastructure. This suggests that the reductions in service utilization may not necessarily reflect improved health outcomes but could instead indicate unmet needs.

The assumption that mental and behavioral health issues are manageable at home is problematic. Many community programs lack the resources, trained personnel, and diagnostic tools necessary for proper identification and treatment. Consequently, individuals with undiagnosed or untreated mental health conditions are at risk of worsening symptoms, which could lead to crises requiring emergency care or hospitalization—ironically, the very services that are declining under MMC. This paradox underscores the importance of ensuring that managed care models incorporate comprehensive mental health services tailored to the needs of people with IDD.

Furthermore, the reduction in service utilization under MMC reflects broader systemic issues in healthcare access. Disparities are exacerbated when community health providers are unable to deliver adequate mental health services due to limited funding, workforce shortages, or lack of specialized training. For individuals with IDD, these gaps can translate into delays in diagnosis, inadequate treatment, and increased reliance on emergency services for crisis management. Addressing these disparities requires policy interventions that prioritize integrated, accessible mental health care within managed care frameworks.

In conclusion, Yamaki et al. (2019) highlight that while MMC offers potential cost savings and care coordination benefits, it may inadvertently contribute to unmet mental health needs in vulnerable populations like adults with IDD. Protecting and expanding community-based mental health services is crucial to ensure early diagnosis, effective treatment, and ultimately better health outcomes. Policymakers and healthcare providers must recognize the complex needs of individuals with IDD and develop models of care that bridge existing gaps, fostering equitable access to essential services.

References

• Yamaki, K., Wing, C., Mitchell, D., Owen, R., & Heller, T. (2019). The impact of Medicaid managed care on health service utilization among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 57(4), 302–312.
• Bluestein, H., & Howard, J. (2017). Mental health disparities among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 20(4), 173–180.
• Rose, M., & McCabe, M. (2018). Community-based health services for people with intellectual disabilities: Challenges and solutions. Disability and Health Journal, 11(1), 10–16.
• Smith, L. E., et al. (2020). Access to and quality of mental health care among individuals with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(2), 93–99.
• Hsieh, K., et al. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of integrated behavioral health models for adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 46(3), 453–468.
• Davis, J. L., & Johnson, C. (2021). Policy approaches to improve mental health services for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Health Policy, 125(4), 571–579.
• Heller, T., et al. (2016). The challenge of providing mental health services to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Psychiatric Services, 67(11), 1171–1178.
• Mitchell, D., & Wing, C. (2020). Innovations in community mental health for people with developmental disabilities. Community Mental Health Journal, 56(7), 1174–1181.
• Garcia, A., et al. (2018). The role of primary care in managing mental health for individuals with developmental disabilities. Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders, 20(4), 18m02294.
• Tuffrey-Wijne, I., et al. (2019). Improving mental health care pathways for people with intellectual disabilities. Health Expectations, 22(4), 750–759.