The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
A bipartisan group of state health policymakers from both the executive and legislative branches who are focused on improving population health.
Networks of state officials, advocates, and others aiming to invest in and transform primary care.
A program dedicated to advancing state-based efforts to make health care more affordable for residents, employers, and states.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
A leadership development program for early and mid-career state government officials who are committed to improving the health of all people in their communities.
A leadership program for senior state government officials who are committed to improving population health.
The Fund focuses on creating an affordable health care system built on strong primary care and partnerships that improve health outcomes for all.
Improving state leaders’ ability to enact and implement evidence-based health policies.
Advancing policies that create a more prevention- and primary care-oriented health system.
Improving population health through policies that contain health care cost growth.
Our state health policy resources offer relevant data analysis and best practices.
The Fund publishes reports, issues briefs, and case studies on state health policy issues.
Short takes on health policy issues from Milbank staff and guest authors.
Insights from Milbank President Debra Lubar on state health policymaking.
Reported articles and Q&As on timely health policy issues, as well as foundation updates.
Milbank Memorial Fund and Milbank Quarterly webinars featuring state health policymakers and researchers.
Updates and expert contact information for reporters.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is a private foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
June 2026 (Volume 104)
Quarterly Article
Sage R. Feltus
Christina M. Andrews
Lauren Peterson
Colleen Grogan
Amanda J. Abraham
Olivia M. Hinds
Maureen T. Stewart
Aug 19, 2026
Jun 1, 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Medicaid is the largest payer of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in the United States. Managed care plays an important role, administering benefits for more than 80% of Medicaid enrollees. While state governments have enacted coverage requirements for SUD treatment medications that managed care plans must follow, the extent to which managed care coverage policies align with these rules remains largely unknown.
Methods: We linked a national survey of state Medicaid officials regarding state requirements for SUD medication benefits in 2021 with data on SUD medication coverage and management from all 167 Medicaid managed care plans in 2021. We assessed the extent to which plans aligned with state requirements—overall, and by the dominant voter political lean in the state in which the plans were embedded.
Findings: In 2021, the proportion of Medicaid managed care plans aligned with state coverage requirements for alcohol use disorder treatment medications was slightly higher than that for opioid use disorder treatment medications. Alignment for coverage was more common than alignment with prior authorization prohibitions. Democratic-leaning states were more likely to require coverage of alcohol and opioid use disorder medications, except in the case of methadone. In Republican-leaning states, most managed care plans did not align with requirements to cover disulfiram and acamprosate and 45.4% did not align with methadone coverage requirements. Plans in Republican-leaning states were less likely to align with prior authorization bans on every SUD treatment medication.
Conclusions: Medicaid managed care plans located in Republican-leaning states were less likely to be subject to state requirements governing coverage and prior authorization of SUD treatment medications, with the exception of methadone, and were also less likely to align with requirements when imposed by states.