Uncertainty for Marketplace Affordability as Congress Continues to Debate Reconciliation Bill
/in Health Coverage and Access, Policy California, Colorado, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, New York, Vermont Blogs, Featured News Home State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP StaffFederal and State Special Enrollment Periods Increase Access to Insurance Coverage
/in Policy California, Colorado, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington Blogs, Featured News Home Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, State Insurance Marketplaces /by Christina CousartInfographic: State Team-Based Care Strategies for Medicaid-Eligible Women
/in Policy District Of Columbia, Minnesota, Montana Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs, Infant Mortality, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration /by Eddy FernandezFor more information, please click the program titles and read NASHP’s State Medicaid Quality Measurement Activities for Women’s Health.
Acknowledgement: Thank you to the officials in Washington, DC, Montana, and Minnesota for reviewing their respective highlighted strategies. This infographic is a publication of the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP). This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services HHS under the Supporting Maternal and Child Health Innovation in States Grant No. U1XMC31658; $398,953. This information, content, and conclusions are those of the authors’ and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS, or the US government.
Webinar: So You Think You Want a State-based Marketplace? Here’s How!
/in Policy District Of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Nevada Webinars Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Medicaid Expansion, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP StaffFriday, May 10
2-3 p.m. (ET)
State-based health insurance marketplaces (SBMs) outperform those using the federal platform – achieving lower premium rate hikes and providing more competition and plan choices. As a result, some states are thinking about converting to an SBM, but what does it take for a state to make the switch? During this webinar, SBM executives from Washington, DC, Idaho, and Massachusetts will share lessons in how to build effective SBMs based on their years of experience.
Nevada Health Link Executive Director Heather Korbulic will share how her state’s transition to an SBM, for the 2020 open enrollment period, is faring.
Read this NASHP Q&A with Heather Korbulic: Nevada’s Insurance Exchange Director Talks about Transitioning to a State-based Marketplace and Saving Millions, April 2018
NASHP Insurance Marketplace Resources
/in Policy District Of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Jersey Toolkits Eligibility and Enrollment, Featured Policy Home, Health Coverage and Access, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP StaffState-based health insurance marketplaces (SBMs) have emerged as successful models in delivering health insurance to consumers. They consistently outperform other states that use the federal platform in areas of enrollment, affordability, and increased plan offerings and competition. Their flexible structure allows SBMs to focus marketing and outreach efforts and promote policies that generate more health coverage choices at lower costs. The resources below explore the SBM model and how recent state and federal actions are impacting state insurance markets.
Tools
SBM Performance
State-Based Health Insurance Marketplace Performance, June 30, 2020. This slideshow details data about current state-based marketplace models, enrollment trends, premium growth, and impacts of reinsurance.
State-based Marketplace Leaders Share their Success and Growth with Federal Leaders September 23, 2019 SBM executives came to Washington DC to share how they are succeeding, sustainable, and growing in number.
Slideshow: State Marketplaces Outperform the Federal Marketplace, April 1, 2019. This slideshows examines how state-based marketplaces outperform the federal marketplace model based on enrollment, affordability, and plan competition.
Chart: Individual Enrollment in Federal and State Health Insurance Marketplaces 2018-2019, April 1, 2019. This chart illustrates how the three marketplace models performed in every state between 2018 and 2019.
Blog: Is New Jersey’s Conversion to a State-based Insurance Exchange a Harbinger?, April 1, 2019. This blog explores why states like New Jersey are considering converting to a state-based marketplace model.
Blog: State-based Exchange Directors Share their Marketplace Success with Congress, March 11, 2019. This blog explores topics shared by marketplace executives with Congressional leaders during a series of meetings in Washington, DC.
State-based Marketplace Resource List, March 6, 2019. State-based marketplace (SBM) resources highlight strategies to support market stability and affordability, the 2019 enrollment period, and how state flexibility enables their success.
Blog: State-based Marketplaces Open for Business, Dec. 19, 2018. This blog describes how SBMs are still at work, even in light of a federal district court ruling striking down aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Includes information on enrollment deadlines for each state.
Blog: How Massachusetts SHOP-ed for a New Small Group Marketplace, May 1, 2017. This blog describes how Massachusetts leveraged Washington, DC’s marketplace technology to create a joint platform for its Small business Health Options Program (SHOP).
Transitioning to an SBM
New Jersey and Pennsylvania Approve Legislation to Launch State-Based Insurance Marketplaces July 9, 2019 This blog recaps recently enacted legislation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to transition the states to the SBM model.
Blog: So You Want to Build a State-based Marketplace? Here’s How! — Advice from Marketplace Leaders, May 21, 2019. This blog highlights advice from state-based marketplace (SBM) leaders about how to transition to the SBM model.
Webinar: So You Want to Build a State-based Marketplace? Here’s How! May 10, 2019. During this webinar, state-based marketplace (SBM) leaders from Idaho, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington, DC discuss what states should know if they’re considering transition to the SBM model.
Blog: Is New Jersey’s Conversion to a State-based Insurance Exchange a Harbinger?, April 1, 2019. This blog explores why states like New Jersey are considering converting to a state-based marketplace model.
Q&A Nevada’s Insurance Director Talks about Transitioning to a State-based Marketplace and Saving Millions, April 24, 2018. Q & A with Heather Korbulic, Executive Director of Nevada’s Marketplace, about the decisions driving Nevada’s conversion to the SBM model.
Blog: How Massachusetts SHOP-ed for a New Small Group Marketplace, May 1, 2017. This blog describes how Massachusetts leveraged Washington, DC’s marketplace technology to create a joint platform for its Small business Health Options Program (SHOP).
Issue Brief: Building a More Efficient Marketplace: Lessons from DC Health Link’s Experience with Open Source Code, March 21, 2016. Issue brief detailing the savings and efficiencies generated from Washington DC’s conversion to an open source system for its marketplace.
Federal Impact on Markets
State Officials Fear Final Public Charge Rule Could Deter Health Coverage Enrollment September 10, 2019 This blog reviews the Administration’s recently enacted “public charge” rule and how the rule may impact enrollment in coverage programs including Medicaid, CHIP and health insurance marketplaces.
Changes to Poverty Measure Could Disqualify Thousands from State and Federal Programs June 17, 2019 This blog examines a proposal issued by the Office of Management and Budget that could impact the annual poverty measure used to assess eligibility for several state and federal programs.
Blog: Annual Federal Insurance Rule Includes Proposals to Address Prescription Drug Cost, Feb. 11, 2019. This blog details the ways the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters proposes to address prescription drug costs through changes in benefit requirements and limits on coupons for prescription drugs.
Chart: Deadline Looms for State Comments on Fed’s Latest Insurance Rules, Jan. 29, 2019. This chart contains details of all the federal changes to insurance market regulations proposed under the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters.
Blog: New Federal Health Reimbursement Proposal Adds New Variables to State Health Insurance Markets, November 6, 2018. This blog describes how proposed regulations grant additional flexibility over the administration of Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs).
Blog: Administration Proposes Significant Policy Changes for State Insurance Markets through New 1332 Waiver Guidance, Oct. 23, 2018. This blog explains how new federal guidance changes the requirements for states under section 1332 State Relief and Empowerment Waivers.
Blog: Lower Cost, Short-Term Insurance Plans Approved, but at What Cost to State Markets and Consumers, Aug. 7, 2018. This blog summarizes changes to federal regulations governing short-term limited duration insurance plans, state actions to regulate these plans, and what implications these changes may have for states’ markets.
Blog: The New Association Health Plan Rule: What Are the Issues and Options for States, June 26, 2018. This blog details all the changes made under a new federal rule regulating association health plans (AHPs)
Blog: New Insurance Rules Allow States to Revise Marketplace Coverage as Rate-Filing Deadlines Near, April 17, 2018. This blog provides a detailed summary of changes made by the 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, the federal rule governing health insurance in 2019.
Blog: How Elimination of Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments Changed Consumer Enrollment in State-based Marketplaces, March 20, 2018. This blog provides an update on how state regulators adjusted their insurance markets in response to the federal decision to eliminate funding for the cost-sharing reduction program. An accompanying chart documents resulting shifts in enrollment by metal level in state-based marketplace states.
SBM Responses to Federal Actions
Blog: State-based Exchange Directors Share their Marketplace Success with Congress, March 11, 2019. This blog explores topics shared by SBM executives with Congressional leaders during a series of meetings in Washington, DC.
Letter: State Exchange Leaders Express Concern about Potential Rule Changes, February 19, 2019. Letter from 13 SBM executives to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding changes proposed under the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters.
Letter: Twelve State-based Exchanges Outline Strategies to Stabilize Individual Market, August 29, 2018. Letter from 12 SBM executives to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee detailing consensus strategies to bring stability to the individual insurance market.
Letter: State-based Marketplace Directors Ask Senate Leaders to Support a Reinsurance Program, February 6, 2018. Letter from 10 SBM executives to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to support Congressional efforts to stabilize insurance markets.
How States Stabilize Markets
Q&A: How Maryland Uses Multiple Policy Levers to Improve Health Coverage, Affordability, and Access October 14, 2019. Maryland’s Health Insurance Marketplace Executive Director discusses how reinsurance and a new easy enrollment program will help spread affordable coverage in the state.
How Washington State Is Reducing Costs and Improving Coverage Value – A Q&A with its Health Benefit Exchange CEO August 5, 2019 In this interview, Washington’s marketplace CEO discusses plans for implementation of Washington’s public option and standard benefit design.
How California Is Moving the Needle on Coverage and Costs: An Interview with Covered California Leaders July 29, 2019. In this interview, officials from Covered California talk about the implementation of California’s new law to expand health insurance subsidies and reinstate the individual mandate.
Webinar and Blog: State Reinsurance Programs Lower Premiums and Stabilize Markets — Oregon and Maryland Show How, Dec. 11, 2018. This blog describes early results from Maryland and Oregon’s implementation of a reinsurance program for their individual insurance market. Additional details are shared in a webinar linked in this blog.
Blog: Health Coverage and Human Service Program Eligibility: Considerations for States Weighing Systems Integration, Oct. 2, 2018. This blog describes various policy considerations for states that are interested in implementing more integrated eligibility systems for their health and human services programs.
Blog: How State Policymakers Spent Their Summer: Stabilizing Their Insurance Markets, Sept. 11, 2018. This blog provides a round-up of new state legislation passed to implement an individual mandate and to regulate short-term insurance and association health plans.
Blog: #NASHPCONF18: Policymakers Share Their Approaches to Stabilize State Individual Insurance Markets, Aug. 28, 2018. This blog recaps a NASHP conference panel with state officials highlighting strategies used to stabilize markets and identify lingering challenges to insurance markets’ affordability and choice.
Blog: #NASHPCONF18: State Policymakers Share Views on Evolving Individual Insurance Markets, Aug. 21, 2018. During NASHP’s 31st Annual State Health Policy Conference, experts and state officials assessed the dramatic sea changes that recent federal action has imposed on their individual health insurance markets, what they are doing to stabilize them, and what the future holds.
Webinar and Blog: Ministry, Association, and Short-Term Health Insurance Plans – What’s a State to Do? May 29, 2018. During this webinar, experts reviewed major trends expected for insurance markets, and state actions and tools to encourage stability and consumer protections in the midst of these changes.
Blog: States Face Short Deadlines to Address the Risks of Short-term Insurance Plans, May 1, 2018. This blog reviews options for state regulation of short-term insurance plans in light of proposed federal rules to expand their availability.
Q&A with Pennsylvania’s Insurance Chief: Jessica Altman Explores the Evolving Role of Insurance Coverage, April 10, 2018. Altman speaks with NASHP about the evolving role of health insurance coverage in state and national politics.
Webinar: How Would a State Individual Insurance Mandate Work? Feb. 7, 2018. This webinar dives deep into Massachusetts’ individual mandate and a new proposal in Maryland to create an auto-enrollment process for individuals through its insurance marketplaces.
Webinar: Prohibiting Discrimination under the Affordable Care Act—State and Federal Roles and Responsibilities, April 18, 2016. This webinar examines the state role in prohibiting discrimination in health insurance coverage per requirements issued under the Affordable Care Act including the impacts of nondiscrimination requirements on insurance markets.
How States Use the National Standards for CYSHCN to Strengthen Medicaid Managed Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs
/in Policy Arizona, District Of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin Reports Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, CHIP, CHIP, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Integrated Care for Children, Long-Term Care, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Quality and Measurement /by Hannah Eichner and Kate HonsbergerAbout this Fact Sheet
The various state examples outlined here resulted from a 12-month learning collaborative facilitated by NASHP, in partnership with the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs (AMCHP), with support from the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health (LPFCH). NASHP and AMCHP convened the learning collaborative academy both virtually and in-person, providing targeted technical assistance, peer-to-peer learning opportunities, and individual assistance to state teams from October 2017 to September 2018. The learning collaborative states included Delaware, Georgia Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. Each team was comprised of representatives from the state’s Medicaid and Title V agencies, a provider who serves CYSHCN, a representative from a Medicaid managed care organization and a family member of a CYSHCN.
Historically, most children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) were not enrolled in Medicaid managed care (MMC) programs because of their medical complexity and the number of specialty services they required. These services, including community-based supports such as in-home and respite care, care coordination, and long-term services and supports, were deemed by state health policymakers as best delivered by a fee-for-service system. As states become more adept at designing and implementing managed care programs for adult Medicaid beneficiaries, they have begun enrolling populations with complex needs into managed care to better coordinate care, control costs, and improve health care quality and outcomes.
As of June 2017, 47 states and Washington, DC, used some form of managed care to provide services to all or some children and adults enrolled in Medicaid.[1] Of states with managed care delivery systems, all enrolled at least some or all of the CYSHCN population into some type of MMC. Contracting with risk-based managed care organizations (MCO) is the most common managed care delivery system used to serve Medicaid beneficiaries, including CYSHCN.
Nearly 20 percent of US children ages birth to 18 years (14.6 million children) have a chronic and/or complex health care need (e.g., asthma, diabetes, spina bifida, autism) requiring physical and behavioral health care services and supports beyond what children require normally.[2] CYSHCN are costlier to care for than children without special health care needs. Within Medicaid, for example, annual per enrollee spending is over 12-times higher for children who use long-term care services ($37,084) as compared to those who do not ($2,863).[3] MMC gives states a unique opportunity to strengthen the structure and delivery of health care, improve quality, and control costs, particularly for beneficiaries with chronic and complex health care needs.
The National Standards for Systems of Care for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN) is a resource to guide and support states working to improve systems of care for CYSHCN, including Medicaid managed care. The National Standards for CYSHCN highlight the core components of the structure and process of an effective system of care for CYSHCN. The standards were developed with guidance from a national work group whose members include families of CYSHCN, state Medicaid agencies, public health, researchers, children’s hospitals, health plans, provider groups, and other stakeholders. Since its release in 2014, Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) agencies, state Title V CYSHCN programs, health care systems, consumers, and others have used these standards as guideposts to improve systems of care for CYSHCN in an ever-changing health care landscape.
In 2018, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), in partnership with the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), led a national learning collaborative to help several states use the National Standards as a guide as they worked to improve MMC for CYSHCN. The following lessons learned highlight how these states effectively used the National Standards to strengthen their managed care systems for CYSHCN.
Analyzing and Enhancing Specialized Managed Care Plans
States can enroll special populations into health plans that are designed to uniquely serve enrollees with special needs (e.g., a specialized managed care program). Six states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and Washington, DC have developed specialized MMC programs that exclusively serve all or some CYSHCN populations.[4] These plans target health care benefits and services to meet the specific needs of Medicaid beneficiaries served by these programs. Georgia used the National Standards as a resource to strengthen collaboration across agencies to improve the state’s specialized MMC program — Georgia Families 360 — for children in foster care and the juvenile justice system. Learning collaborative participants from Georgia Medicaid, the Title V CYSHCN program, and the Department of Behavioral Health reviewed the National Standards for CYSHCN and selected the domains of Access to Care, Transitions of Care, and Care Coordination for their analysis. The state team created a crosswalk elements from three National Standards domains and elements their Georgia 360 contract as an internal evaluation tool. As a result of this review, the state updated its Medicaid policy manual with elements from the National Standards. Future work is planned to increase collaboration between the Georgia Families 360 MCO and the Title V agency to improve the provision of high-quality care coordination for the foster care population.
Providing a Framework to Design and Strengthen Care Delivery Systems
As a result of a state budget legislative mandate, in 2017 Delaware’s Medicaid agency developed a comprehensive plan to manage the health care needs of Delaware’s children with medical complexity (CMC). The agency formed a state steering committee and various work groups to develop the plan, working closely with MCOs and other stakeholders. The Models of Care Workgroup used the National Standards for CYSHCN to develop a framework on which to build a model of care for CMC. The framework was outlined in the final report to illustrate what an ideal system of care for CMC would look like. The Delaware Plan for Managing the Health Care Needs of Children with Medical Complexity was published in May 2018 and includes a comprehensive set of recommendations that the Delaware team plans to work implement in the future.
Strengthening Contract Language to Address the Needs of CYSHCN
New Mexico has coordinated across agencies and stakeholders to provide input into the state’s 1115 Medicaid waiver renewal and contract language development pertaining to CYSHCN. As part of this work, New Mexico Medicaid and state Title V CYSHCN officials developed a definition of CYSHCN,[5] which enables the state to better identify CYSHCN and target services to this population within its managed care program. The definition is scheduled to be included in the next round of Medicaid contracts with MCOs. This work aligns with the first standard in the National Standards’ Identification, Screening, Assessment, and Referral domain that\ states, “the state system should have a definition of CYSHCN.” Additionally, the New Mexico Learning Collaborative team used the National Standards for CYSHCN Medicaid Managed Care Contract Language Tool to inform development of the definition.
West Virginia officials, led by the state’s Title V CYSHCN program director, wanted to take advantage of the changes required by the federal Medicaid Managed Care Final Rule and use the National Standards for CYSHCN to make improvements in how the Medicaid Managed Care system served CYSHCN. After meeting as an interagency workgroup, West Virginia officials identified the need for closer coordination between the Title V program and the individual Medicaid MCOs to improve care coordination and the services that CYSHCN received. To improve coordination, the team developed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and an associated data-sharing agreement between Medicaid MCOs and the state Title V program. To assist with implementation of the updated MOU, West Virginia referred to Strengthening the Title V-Medicaid Partnership: Strategies to Support the Development of Robust Interagency Agreements between Title V and Medicaid. To ensure this MOU is enforced and coordination continues, state Title V program staff plan to meet monthly with MCO staff on an ongoing basis. Future work will focus on implementing standards for shared plans of care in cases where MCOs and Title V are both providing services to the same enrollees. The National Standards will be used to guide this work.
Improving Care Coordination and Transition to Adult Care
Rhode Island Medicaid and Title V agencies have worked to better understand the care coordination system in their state and specifically identify providers of care coordination for CYSHCN. Care coordination is a key component of a high-quality system of care and a crucial National Standards element. After reviewing the care coordination standards to learn what an ideal system of care coordination should offer, Rhode Island officials assembled key stakeholders and held monthly meetings to review the current status of care coordination services, identify available resources, and share experiences. The team also conducted an analysis of a specific group of CYSHCN enrolled in Medicaid managed care — the state’s Patient-Centered Medical Home program (PCMH-Kids) – who receive care in a community specialty care center. The children enrolled in this program require care coordination due to the complex array of services they receive. The state identified numerous barriers to providing care coordination, including limited communication between care coordinators, a lack of official designation for some care coordinators by Medicaid which prevents reimbursement, and an inability for care coordinators to authorize services, which caused delays in care. Now that it understands the barriers and complexity of care coordination for CYSHCN, Rhode Island plans to explore opportunities for policy changes, such as designating a lead care coordinator and linking a specialty care plan to the child’s medical home.
Massachusetts has similarly focused on improving integration and coordination of care with the state’s recently launched Accountable Care Organization (ACO) managed care structure. Accountable Care Organization (ACO) managed care structure. The Massachusetts’ team focused its work on the feasibility of using the new ACO model to support transition of youth with special health care needs (YSHCN) from pediatric to adult health care settings using transition policies aligned with National Standards. The Massachusetts’ team analyzed some existing transition activities in the state. These include a hybrid transition model that is being piloted at Boston Children’s Hospital between pediatrics, pediatric neurology/developmental pediatrics and adult care. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health also surveyed Title V funded care coordinators and families of CYSHCN to learn about the barriers to transition. State officials learned about integrated care strategies used by other states and organizations for transition such as Got Transition and identified value based purchasing strategies that could be used to incentivize quality transition. Massachusetts is now planning to develop guidance around strategies to implement transition policies within the ACO structure.
Conclusion
As states expand the use of Medicaid managed care to serve CYSHCN, the National Standards for CYSHCN and recent state approaches to their implementation can provide valuable resources. For more information on the National Standards and tools and resources for their implementation, visit the National Standards Toolkit.
Notes
[1] National Academy for State Health Policy. State Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment and Design for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs: A 50-state Review of Medicaid Managed Care Contracts. Washington, DC: National Academy for State Health Policy, October 2017.
[2] Health Resources and Services Administration, “Children with Special Health Care Needs,” December 2016, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternalchild-health-topics/children-and-youth-special-health-needs.
[3] The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicaid Restructuring Under the American Health Care Act and Children with Special Health Care Needs. Washington, DC: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2017.
[4] National Academy for State Health Policy. State Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment and Design for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs: A 50-state Review of Medicaid Managed Care Contracts. Washington, DC: National Academy for State Health Policy, October 2017.
[5] Children and Youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) is defined as an individual younger than 21 years old, regardless of marital status experiencing a moderate to severe medical and/or behavioral condition.
- a) With significant potential or actual impact on long term health and ability to function
- b) Which requires specialized health care services and/or a variety of services from multiple diverse systems.
How Massachusetts SHOP-ed for a New Small Group Marketplace
/in Policy District Of Columbia, Massachusetts Blogs Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Eligibility and Enrollment, Essential Health Benefits, Health Coverage and Access, Quality and Measurement, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP WritersEarlier this spring, the Massachusetts Health Connector (Health Connector), the health insurance exchange of the commonwealth, announced that it would be joining Washington, D.C.’s, exchange, DC Health Link, in a first-of-its-kind collaboration to develop a joint platform for their small business exchanges. This partnership is an exciting example of the collaborative possibilities for states. By building off of DC Health Link’s successful platform, Massachusetts is leveraging expertise and existing infrastructure, while yielding cost-savings for both exchanges. Together Massachusetts and DC will benefit from shared investment in the technology to not only maintain, but also improve the platform in response to evolving customer needs.
The Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) was created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to help small employers (those with up to 50 or, at the discretion of the state, 100 employees) facilitate the enrollment of employees into qualified health plans. Initially, the Health Connector leveraged a “legacy” platform, first built under Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform law, for its SHOP exchange; however, low enrollment meant the Health Connector began to lose money annually on operation of its SHOP. Driven by a desire to make the SHOP more appealing for employers and brokers, yield cost savings, and bring the Connector into ACA compliance, Massachusetts sought an upgrade. After two cycles of reviewing proposals for a new SHOP—none of which achieved its desired targets for financial and technical specifications—the state began to explore a new option, leveraging the SHOP of another State-based Marketplace (SBM).
Massachusetts contacted peer states to gage interest and feasibility of leveraging another state’s system. Each interested state filled out a detailed questionnaire about the capabilities of their SHOP platform, including capacity to support the additional and unique needs of a new state. After considering proposals sent from three states, Massachusetts selected to partner with the District of Columbia, hoping to leverage the flexibility built into its system by using the agility of DC Health Link’s open source code, the marketplace’s proven ability to hold up under high volume, its scalability, and cost effectiveness.
DC Health Link prioritized focus on its small business community early on. Currently, DC has more than three times as many people enrolled through SHOP than through the individual marketplace, with over 4,300 businesses and nearly 70,000 consumers currently participating—a contrast with any other SBMs where enrollment is more heavily concentrated in the individual market (to compare, Massachusetts has 1,435 groups and nearly 6,000 covered persons). Last year, NASHP wrote about how DC Health Link had developed a new agile, open source, cloud-based solution for its small business market—in non-tech terms, an easily adaptable technology built using shared public code. Rather than paying high licensing fees to a software vendor for a commercial off-the-shelf product, DC used local small IT businesses to develop custom open source to create its marketplace. The District was able to leverage this system to streamline their website, improve the consumer experience, and reduce operation and maintenance expenses. DC Health Link has reported significant cost savings as a direct result of its new award winning technology, as well as a reduction in consumer complaints.
Beyond wanting to leverage the efficiencies of DC’s platform, Massachusetts was especially attracted two qualities of the DC SHOP 1) an infrastructure designed to accommodate rapid growth, an important concern as Massachusetts dedicates itself to growing its small group market; and 2) ability of the technology to allow Massachusetts to offer employers “employee choice”, an option by which an employer can set a benchmark contribution and then allow their employees to select from a range of comparable plans. In a presentation to the board of directors in February, Health Connector staff noted employee choice increases carrier competition and estimated that allowing employee choice may reduce costs to consumers by approximately 30 percent. Additionally, assuming current enrollment levels remain constant, the ongoing operational costs for the new platform are estimated to be approximately 50 percent less than the cost of Massachusetts’s previous SHOP. With organic growth anticipated due to the addition of new product offerings, the Health Connector projects that the SHOP market will become totally self-sustaining by its second year of operation.
Massachusetts is intent on minimizing customizations, which will make transition to the joint-platform quick and efficient. DC Health Link, with assistance from IT staff in Massachusetts, will complete the six-month development process in mid-August and conduct an early launch phase for coverage with an October 1, 2017 effective date. The SHOP will be fully operational during this early launch phase, and carriers who are ready to transition to the new platform will be able to do so immediately. The Health Connector will work with its carriers throughout the pilot to help them make a smooth transition before full participation begins in 2018.
States continue to raise the bar as laboratories of innovation. The partnership between the Massachusetts Health Connector and DC Health Link is one example of how states can and are partnering with each other in order to bring the best practices from around the country into their own state. For several years, NASHP has engaged with states to help foster shared resources, services and innovation across states. We will continue to monitor these developments as states strive to implement ground-breaking and sustainable strategies to address coverage needs.
Thank you to the officials from DC Health Link and the Massachusetts Health Connector who generously reviewed and contributed to this work. In particular, thank you to Rob Shriver of DC Health Link, and Jason Lefferts and Jason Hetherington from the Massachusetts Health Connector.
The State Health Exchange Leadership Network is a project of the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), which works to support state officials and staff working on the operation and implementation of health insurance exchanges.
Talking Coverage: SBMs Keep Lines of Communication Open with Consumers
/in Policy California, Colorado, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont Blogs Health Coverage and Access, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHPHeading into the third week of open enrollment, early outlook has been positive for state-based marketplace (SBM) states. California recently wrapped up a 2,000-mile bus tour to “spotlight” the launch of open enrollment; Massachusetts and Vermont, which in prior years struggled with technical systems, report smooth enrollment via their enhanced systems; Minnesota is touting a new report that showcases the potential for savings for its marketplace consumers; and Maryland has more than doubled its enrollment traffic from this point last year. Where issues are arising, states are flexing their nimbleness to address concerns, such as Rhode Island’s recent steps to ramp up customer service supports and New York’s extension of enrollment deadlines for consumers impacted by the closure of the state’s Co-op.
Many of the improvements states have implemented in recent months, including updated marketing, enhanced purchasing tools, and increased access to assistance, have been in response to time spent over the past year speaking to and learning from consumers. SBMs have been reaching out to the uninsured in their states through the use of surveys, phone calls, and focus groups to learn more about barriers to enrollment. Open dialog between customers and the marketplaces, targeted data collection, and the agility of states to adjust and adapt based on this feedback, represents a unique and important opportunity for those states that have chosen to run their own SBMs.
Assessing Customer Satisfaction
In fielding consumer surveys, many SBMs found customers have high levels of satisfaction with both the enrollment systems available in their states and the coverage purchased. Surveys conducted in California, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York found that between 85 and 92 percent of their consumers reported they would recommend use of the SBM to friends and family. In Vermont, 82 percent of customers reported that their 2014 selected plan either met their needs “somewhat well” or “very well”.
Altering Outreach to Reach the Uninsured
Even with high levels of engagement and satisfaction from existing customers, there are still a significant number of uninsured in many states and an increased need to provide support to identify and enroll these individuals. In mid-2015, Maryland’s SBM conducted a series of focus groups with the uninsured to identify perceived barriers to obtaining coverage. Participants in these groups reported that the complexity of health insurance choices can be “immobilizing” and increased support is necessary to help make decisions. In response, Maryland is expanding its in-person assistance offerings – with larger numbers of “ConnectNow!” enrollment events and the addition of 23 partnership organizations with application counselors (adding to the 35 existing partnerships in the state).
Messaging to Improve Consumer Awareness
Reports from California, Maryland, and Vermont have found that a significant number of consumers remain unaware of the availability of federal subsidies to improve affordability of coverage purchased through the marketplaces. This knowledge gap is coupled with the results of multiple surveys that found affordability to be the biggest driver of consumer enrollment and plan selection.
Based on these survey findings, messaging becomes an important strategy for the marketplaces to not only ensure that consumers are aware of the opportunity to purchase coverage but that they also know about the tax credits to support affordability. Wanting to improve their efficiency, states have been thoughtful in strategizing where to best allocate resources to maximize reach to desired consumers. A Connecticut survey found that an increased number of consumers engaged with the SBM after receiving brochures and pamphlets in the mail. In response, the state is planning on modifying marketing materials this open enrollment to ensure they are engaging and informative.
Supporting Consumer Education and Insurance Literacy
Surveys from several SBM states found that consumers are seeking more support in selecting the right plan for their families and, despite considerable gains over the past three years, require refreshers on important health insurance literacy topics. For example, an independent survey conducted in Colorado recommended that the state develop materials to support increased consumer health insurance literacy, including a simple and accessible glossary of important health insurance terms. The state responded by creating a comprehensive list of terms and definitions, which includes a search function and is available directly on the Connect for Health Colorado website.
Boosting Call Center Performance
Call centers continue to be an important tool for consumer engagement and satisfaction, often representing the SBM’s most public face. In many states, call center utilization grew during last year’s open enrollment period. Despite these increased numbers, most consumers still reported receiving useful information and support from call center representatives. In Vermont, 66 percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the amount of information received. In Connecticut, 65 percent of those who enrolled in a self-purchased, qualified health plan indicated that they were either “very satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with the call center service.
Some customers, however, have reported long wait times and unanswered questions. In response, states are implementing new strategies to relieve call center back log. In response to feedback from customers, Vermont has placed an increased focus on call center training in 2015. This has already significantly reduced the number of cases that need to be escalated, resulting in customers having answers during their first call to the contact center.
Looking Forward
Following this open enrollment period, several SBMs have plans to roll out additional consumer surveying, which will allow them to engage with their customers and implement changes to improve the enrollment experience. The District of Columbia is planning to issue a comprehensive survey, including questions that focus on moving consumers from coverage to care, to be completed by July 2016. In releasing its updated proposed strategic plan, Washington State identified consumer surveying as a key tool in 2016 for measuring transparency, engagement and affordability.
NASHP will be tracking the work being done by the SBMs and the federally-facilitated marketplace, as well as the experience of enrollees around the country, and will report on the best practices and lessons learned as we move through this latest enrollment period.
Transforming the Workforce to Provide Better Chronic Care: The Role of Local Care Coordinators at CareFirst
/in Policy District Of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia Reports Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Quality and Measurement, Workforce Capacity /by Mary Takach and Susan ReinhardPart 6 in the Transforming the Workforce to Provide Better Chronic Care:
The Role of Registered Nurses series.
Click to see the rest of the series.
CareFirst, a commercial insurer serving Maryland, northern Virginia, and the District of Columbia, utilizes local nurse care coordinators to support primary care providers within its patient-centered medical home program. Local care coordinators provide care coordination, care planning, and patient education to chronically ill CareFirst members through a combination of telephonic and in-person encounters.
In addition to highlighting state policy implications, this brief also showcases how Michele Brown, local care coordinator, is able to drive improvements in care for her patients. After three years of operation, CareFirst reported that the total cost of care for patients covered by its PCMH program was $267 million less when compared to projected total cost of care from 2011 to 2013.
This brief is the sixth in a six-part series, supported by the AARP Public Policy Institute, which explores the evolving role of nurses in new delivery system models.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Click for the Publication | 359.26 KB |
Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter
Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter
Washington, DC Office:
1233 20th St., N.W., Suite 303Washington, DC 20036
p: (202) 903-0101
f: (202) 903-2790
Contact Us
Phone: 202-903-0101

For individuals living with complex, often chronic conditions, and their families, palliative care can provide relief from symptoms, improve satisfaction and outcomes, and help address critical mental and spiritual needs during difficult times. Now more than ever, there is growing recognition of the importance of palliative care services for individuals with serious illness, such as advance care planning, pain and symptom management, care coordination, and team-based, multi-disciplinary support. These services can help patients and families cope with the symptoms and stressors of disease, better anticipate and avoid crises, and reduce unnecessary and/or unwanted care. While this model is grounded in evidence that demonstrates improved quality of life, better outcomes, and reduced cost for patients, only a fraction of individuals who could benefit from palliative care receive it. 























































































































































