Opportunities for States to Improve HIV Treatment through Peer-Delivered Services
/in HIV/AIDS Florida, New York, Wisconsin Featured News Home, Reports HIV/AIDS /by Eliza Mette and Jodi ManzPaying Family Caregivers through Medicaid Consumer-Directed Programs: State Opportunities and Innovations
/in The RAISE Act Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center Connecticut, Florida, Virginia Featured News Home, Reports Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Consumer Affordability, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Long-Term Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, State Resources, The RAISE Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center, Workforce Capacity /by Salom Teshale, Wendy Fox-Grage and Kitty PuringtonFamily members provide significant amounts of care to relatives with complex needs, including those who are Medicaid enrollees.
Individuals may hesitate about receiving care in congregate care settings, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, but many face home-based care service workforce shortages. Programs that incorporate family members who provide care can help support person-centered care for Medicaid enrollees and also help states address the demand for long-term services and supports. States have the opportunity to use Medicaid to support enrollees with long-term care needs and their families by developing consumer direction programs that allow family members to be hired to provide care. This report explores how Connecticut, Florida, and Virginia developed consumer-directed care programs to serve older adults and people with physical disabilities.
Introduction
COVID-19 has upended states’ long-term services and supports (LTSS) systems and strained congregate care facilities. A recent report suggests virtually all states have seen a significant drop in skilled nursing facility occupancy rates . The increasing demand for home-based care is exacerbating underlying challenges, such as long-standing LTSS direct care workforce shortages and gaps in meeting the needs of communities of color and speakers of different languages.
Medicaid consumer–directed care programs are an alternative way individuals can receive home-based services. Consumers choose and hire their care providers rather than having an agency dictate who delivers care.
To address these challenges, states are exploring how Medicaid options can support enrollees with long-term care needs through consumer direction programs (also called consumer-directed care programs, participant direction programs, or self-direction programs) that allow family members to be paid for providing care. States have developed and expanded consumer direction programs over the past decades. Given increasing interest in home-and community-based care over institutional care, consumer direction programs are a growing option to offer older adults and people with disabilities an alternative to institutionalization. This report highlights three states’ self-directed care programs that include older adults and people with physical disabilities.
Findings suggest consumer-directed programs can improve quality of life and health outcomes and can help meet participant needs without increasing Medicaid fraud.
Medicaid-funded consumer direction- programs allow enrollees to directly hire people, including some family members, to provide personal care, such as bathing, dressing, and toileting. According to the National Council on Disability, consideration of consumer-directed personal care options began in the late 1960s and 1970s with calls for increased autonomy and independence by and for people with disabilities. While early pilot programs focused on people with disabilities, the model – and its core values of autonomy and dignity – have since been applied to programs for older adults. Findings from the Cash and Counseling Demonstration Program suggest consumer-directed programs can improve quality of life and health outcomes and can help meet participant needs without increasing Medicaid fraud. While small-scale studies have shown savings, states can also incorporate cost-containment mechanisms into these models through waiver enrollment or spending caps, or reimbursement methodologies that limit consumer-directed care payment to a percentage of agency rates.
States are increasingly using consumer-directed models; according to Applied Self-Direction, all 50 states and Washington, DC have at least one consumer direction LTSS option. Several federal initiatives, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance beginning in the early 2000s, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and creation of the Community First Choice state plan option under the Affordable Care Act have expanded states’ ability to provide these programs. This trend is likely to continue as states:
- Seek to address issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic;
- Promote equity and access to services in underserved communities; and
- Address growing work force shortages.
Modifying or expanding consumer-directed programs can be an important strategy.
How States Can Develop Consumer-Directed Programs
States have multiple decision points when developing a Medicaid consumer-directed program.
Medicaid Authority: States can use various Medicaid authorities to support consumer-directed options that allow family members to receive reimbursement for providing care. Policymakers have many factors to consider when designing these waivers and/or state plan amendments, such as whether to expand Medicaid eligibility, whether to target specific populations or geographic areas, and what services and supports should be provided.
The majority of states operate consumer-directed programs through the Medicaid 1915(c) home- and community-based waiver (HCBS) authority. Using 1915(c) waivers, states can modify eligibility requirements, target services to particular areas of the state, and/or limit or tailor services to certain populations, such as older adults or adults with physical disabilities who are at risk of institutionalization. States can, depending on the authority, add self-direction options for different services into a single waiver.
Chart: Medicaid Authorities and Consumer-Direction Options
| Medicaid authority | Is institutional level of care required? | Can states waive comparability? | Can states waive statewideness? | Financial management services required? | Budget authority/
cash payments allowed? |
Limits on reimbursing family caregivers |
| 1905 (a) (24) state plan personal care services | As medically necessary | No | No | Only fiscal employer agent required | Neither budget authority nor cash payments are allowed | Excludes “legally responsible individuals” |
| 1915(c) Home and Community-Based Services | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Budget authority is allowed, but cash payments are not | Allows relatives, legally responsible individuals, and legal guardians |
| 1915 (i) Home and Community-Based Services state plan option | No (allows individuals with less than institutional level-of-care requirements depending on certain types of eligibility) | Yes | No | Yes | Budget authority is allowed but cash payments are not | Allows relatives, legally responsible individuals, and legal guardians |
| 1915(j) self-directed personal assistance services state plan option | No, if receiving services through state plan and state plan does not require it
Yes, if receiving services through a 1915 (c) waiver |
Yes | Yes | Yes, unless participants choose to receive cash directly | Budget authority is required, cash payments are allowed | Allows legally responsible relatives |
| 1915(k) Community First Choice State Plan Option | Yes | No | No | Yes, depending on the model selected | States may allow budget authority and cash payments to participants depending on the model selected | Allows legally responsible individuals, relatives |
| 1115 Demonstration Waiver | Determined by state | Determined by state | Yes | Yes, when incorporating participant- direction | States may allow budget authority and cash payments to participants | Allows legally responsible individuals, relatives |
Sources:
Authority Comparison Chart. HCBS Technical Assistance Web Site. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accessed Dec. 31, 2020.
Home and Community Based Services Authorities. Medicaid.gov. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accessed Dec. 31, 2020.
Self-Directed Services, Medicaid.gov (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), accessed Dec. 31, 2020.
Participant Direction Features of the Optional Medicaid Authorities, Table 7-1, p. 182. O’Keeffe, Janet, Paul Saucier, Beth Jackson, Robin Cooper, Ernest McKenney, Suzanne Crisp, and Charles Moseley. Understanding Medicaid home and community services: A primer, 2010 edition. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services and RTI International, 2010.
Wolff, Jennifer, Karen Davis, Mark Leeds, Lorraine Narawa, Ian Stockwell, and Cynthia Woodcock. Family Caregivers as Paid Personal Care Attendants in Medicaid. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2016.
Enrollee authority: States can determine how care recipients manage their budgets, caregivers, and services:
- Employer authority permits recipients to directly recruit and manage their service providers. Employer authority is integral to the consumer direction model. Depending on the authority, states have some flexibility to determine which employer responsibilities can be consumer-directed.
- Budget authority allows enrollees to manage their budgets and purchase other goods and services. States also have flexibility in determining what types of goods and services can be purchased under budget authority.
Enrollee supports: States are required to provide supports for enrollees in managing the consumer-direction process, which can include training and assistance, information about responsibilities, or access to financial management services. For example, Virginia’s 1915(c) waivers include a “services facilitator” to support individuals in managing consumer-directed services.
Definition of “family:” States have discretion to determine who may provide HCBS under consumer direction. Under most authorities, states have flexibility to allow services to be provided by family members, including “legally responsible individuals” such as spouses or parents of minor children under specific circumstances. Within the 1915(c) waiver, for example, states have the option to allow relatives to provide waiver services, and/or allow legally responsible individuals, such as spouses and parents of minor children, to provide personal care services. When delivering personal care-related services, the legally responsible person must be providing care that is beyond the care normally expected of a spouse or parent. In defining family for reimbursement, the state plan personal care option is the exception: legally responsible individuals may not be paid under this authority to provide personal care services.
Training and workforce requirements: State Medicaid agencies often require background checks or certification requirements for caregivers.
- States vary in the specifics of the training requirements for caregivers hired under consumer direction. Florida does not require licensing or certification to provide personal care, homemaker, or adult companion services, but does require licensure for attendant care.
- States can, through legislation, specify the types of tasks that can be delegated by a nurse to an unlicensed caregiver who receives training, as in the example of Virginia’s regulations on nurse delegation. The AARP 2020 LTSS Scorecard found that 26 states allow nurses to delegate at least 14 health maintenance tasks to be performed by a direct care aide, such as medication administration, respiratory care, tube feeding/gastric care, and/or bladder regimen and skin/appliance care-related tasks.
Use of representatives: Participants can choose to have a representative assist them with managing their consumer-directed services. Individuals may appoint a family member as a representative, but that family member cannot be paid to be the participant’s representative, or provide paid care to the participant. (Note: Due to the COVID-19 emergency, emergency flexibilities may allow states to waive certain requirements during the public health emergency. For example, West Virginia’s Appendix K for its 1915[c] waivers allows legal representatives to receive payment for certain personal care-related services under specific circumstances during the emergency.)
Three State Approaches
States can structure consumer-directed program options in a variety of ways, reflecting the needs of their residents. After a nationwide scan of Medicaid waivers and state plan options for older adults and adults with physical disabilities, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) identified three states — Connecticut, Florida, and Virginia — that have long-standing consumer-directed care programs and illustrate the various policy strategies available to states to help Medicaid enrollees (and their family caregivers) who are older adults or have physical disabilities live in their communities.
Connecticut’s 1915(k) Community First Choice (CFC) State Plan Amendment was approved in 2015. Enrollees in Connecticut’s CFC option may hire, supervise, and train their own staff and manage their budgets themselves or with support of an individual other than a spouse or legally liable individual.
- Medicaid authority: 1915(k) Community First Choice (CFC) state plan option
- Services: Attendant care, transitional services, home-delivered meals, environmental accessibility adaptations, assistive technology, and voluntary training on how to hire/manage/dismiss staff
- Family caregivers: Enrollees in the CFC option can hire family members or other individuals as long as they meet qualification requirements. (Excludes spouses and legally responsible individuals, health care representatives, conservators, or guardians.) Caregivers may live in the home.
Enrollees create job descriptions. Participants who choose to hire an attendant can request a pay rate subject to approval of the state. They can offer a particular wage if they believe the job description merits it (e.g., special skills, fluency in a particular language, etc.). In its 1915(k) SPA, Connecticut recommends that attendants, “be at least 16 years of age; have experience providing personal care; be able to follow written or verbal instructions given by the individual or the individual’s representative or designee; be physically able to perform the services required; and be able to receive and follow instructions given by the individual or the individual’s representative or designee.” Connecticut provides access to additional employee training opportunities, such as coordinating with a community college to provide personal attendant training certification or certified nursing assistant (CNA) training for personal care assistants (PCAs).
The Medicaid enrollee is considered the employer. The state’s Division of Health Services (DHS) establishes the budget and determines how much of the budget can be spent each month. If participants continually exceed their budget, they may lose access to the option, and DHS also tracks underutilization. While DHS does not specifically track the use of paid family personal care providers, a state official estimates that approximately 30 percent of the roughly 4,000 individuals who use the service engage family caregivers as PCAs. Connecticut’s CFC option can include older adults and people with physical disabilities, and Medicaid enrollees who require institutional levels of care are eligible.
Monitoring for fraud and abuse. Connecticut’s Quality Assurance unit examines referrals and has systems and controls in place to examine and flag PCA hours. One example of a system control is related to the state’s policy that disallows PCA services while a member is hospitalized. To disallow payments to PCAs submitting claims during their employer’s hospitalization, Connecticut’s Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) compares PCA claims for the enrollee to hospital claims for the enrollee. If there is a hospital claim on the same day as a PCA’s claim, the PCA claim is not paid. In addition, the fiscal intermediary monitors for fraud and abuse. The state also established a fraud and abuse hotline and online reporting capacity to encourage public reporting.
Reimbursement. Connecticut established a universal assessment to evaluate levels of care for all Medicaid enrollees with HCBS needs in 2015, at the same time as the CFC option was being developed. Data from this universal needs assessment has been used since then to determine tiered budget groupings within the CFC option as well. Because CFC budgets are driven by the universal assessment — as are its other HCBS programs – a Connecticut state official reported costs did not differ greatly across programs. The state is in the process of working with consultants, including the University of Connecticut, to review the tool and the data collected from the universal assessment and to revise the current budget groupings.
Payment. The fiscal intermediary pays the PCA, then submits claims for reimbursement through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). The state sends information about individual budgets to the fiscal intermediary. If enrollees want to pay their PCAs a different payment rate than listed in their individual budgets, they must submit documents about how risk would be managed. This is because individual budgets are based on needed hours at the minimum wage rate. While it is permissible for participants to request higher wages, this decision decreases the number of hours available within the budget. In 2020, Connecticut selected Allied Community Resources as its fiscal intermediary through a request for proposals. The provider fee schedule is posted at ctdssmap.com. As of 2020, PCAs in Connecticut are unionized and their minimum payment rate has increased. Some program costs also have increased accordingly.
Florida
In Florida’s participant-directed option (PDO), the managed care plan sets the fee schedule and makes payments. The PDO, which is provided by Florida’s Statewide Medicaid Managed Long-Term Care program, can serve both older adults and people with physical disabilities. The enrollee has responsibility for finding, training, and managing workers, setting hours, reporting fraud or abuse, and submitting timesheets to the managed care plan, among other responsibilities.
- Medicaid authority: Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Long-Term Care (LTC) 1915(b)/(c) waiver, which includes a participant-directed option (PDO)
- Services: Allows five services through PDO: adult companion, homemaker, attendant care, intermittent and skilled nursing, and personal care services
- Family caregivers: Legally responsible individuals, including spouses, can provide PDO services as long as the caregiver is qualified, has executed a PDO work agreement, and has passed the necessary background checks; the enrollee can live in their own home or in a family member’s home.
The PDO initially began as a consumer direction pilot in 2000 administered by the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and the Department of Elder Affairs (DOEA). In 2013, the participant-directed option was transitioned into the Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Long-Term Care (SMMC-LTC) program. Eight managed care plans offer PDOs. As of June 2020, slightly more than 119,000 enrollees were enrolled in the SMMC-LTC program overall. According to state data, out of 51,848 HCBS enrollees, 7,841 were participating in the PDO as of June 2020.
Specific family caregiver hiring information is not reported in the care plan, although all care is documented in the care plan, including whether services are administered through the PDO or traditional options. Because the PDO offers flexibility in hiring caregivers, the option can be used by enrollees who desire culturally competent caregivers, or who are not satisfied with other available options. Legally responsible individuals, including spouses, can receive reimbursement. In 2020, Florida included a caregiver training benefit as part of its LTC Waiver. Training is available based on a caregiver assessment administered through the managed care plan. Each managed care plan has its own training program. This caregiver training support can be utilized only for unpaid caregivers, however.
Monitoring for fraud and abuse. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), Florida’s Medicaid agency, monitors for fraud and waste through the state’s contracted Medicaid managed care plans, which are required to provide fiscal/employer agent (F/EA) services. The managed care plan either operates as a F/EA, or subcontracts to an F/EA vendor. The managed care plan is responsible for fulfilling certain F/EA-related tasks, including reporting of underutilization to participants/case managers, and following up with timesheet issues. AHCA conducts a desk review every quarter, which involves an audit process for compliance.
Reimbursement. Each plan has a designated fee schedule, and there are no caps from AHCA on the number of PDO hours that can be received by an enrollee, which is determined by medical necessity. Managed care plans or their vendors who serve as F/EAs provide payroll and tax management services for participants and are responsible for processing and payment of all applicable taxes on behalf of participants and their workers.
Virginia
Virginia’s consumer-directed option began in the mid-1990s and was available only to individuals with physical disabilities. Virginia’s options expanded over time to include individuals with cognitive impairment, and additional services, such as companion services and respite. These consumer-directed program services have since been incorporated into Virginia’s HCBS waivers. Consumer direction for older adults and people with physical disabilities is part of the Commonwealth Coordinated Care Plus (CCC Plus) program operated under a 1915b/c waiver.
- Medicaid authority: Commonwealth Coordinated Care Plus 1915(b)/(c) waiver program
- Services: Participants have the option to self-direct personal care and respite services
- Family caregivers: As of 2020, relatives other than spouses or parents of minor children can be reimbursed for services, however, during the pandemic, spouses and parents of minor children can be reimbursed for care.
Enrollees selecting consumer direction are provided with a list of “services facilitators” as part of the screening process for level-of-care eligibility assessment (administered by local Virginia Department of Health nurses and physicians or local departments of social services’ family services specialists). Services facilitators are Medicaid-enrolled providers who support participants in managing their consumer directed services. Services facilitators can:
- Assess a participant for particular consumer-directed services;
- Help develop a plan of care; and
- Provide training and support to the participant in performing their role as employer.
Participants can select workers and are considered the employer, but do not have decision-making authority over the budget. Within CCC Plus, a legally responsible relative can serve as the participant’s representative and be the employer if the participant is not independently able to self-direct care, but this relative cannot also be a services facilitator, paid caregiver, or attendant. Spouses and parents of children cannot be paid to provide personal care services, but other relatives can be paid under specific circumstances. Currently, flexibilities instituted due to COVID-19 under Virginia’s Appendix K waiver allow spouses and parents of children to provide services during the public health emergency.
Consumer direction is available for members living in their own homes or in family members’ homes. An estimated 40 percent of caregivers are family members, according to key informant estimates.
Monitoring for fraud and abuse. Payments to family caregivers under the CCC Plus program are monitored through the Quality Management review process in the Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) using the same processes used to monitor other home-based and personal care services. However, if payments are made to a family member living in the same home as the participant, the member must provide documentation to justify hiring the relative who lives in the same home as an “option of last resort.” There are no limits that are specific to relatives on the number of hours of services that can be furnished.
Reimbursement. Participants in Virginia’s consumer-directed option must use a fiscal/employer agent, who conducts payroll functions on the participant’s behalf, including payment and withholding. DMAS issued a request for proposals to select the state’s fiscal/employer agent. The fiscal/employer agent must also process background checks. Managed care organizations in CCC Plus contract with a fiscal/employer agent, and follow the same processes as the state for consumer-direction. In the 2020 budget, a 5 percent increase beginning July 2020 and a 2 percent increase beginning in July 2021 to the salary rate for attendants was approved. Time and a-half payment up to 16 hours was also approved for attendants working over 40 hours per week providing Medicaid consumer-directed personal assistance, respite, and companion services.
Lessons Learned
State policy leaders interviewed for this report all expressed value for program flexibility and choice for enrollees receiving care. They also noted the broader state goals of providing home- and community-based services alternatives over institutional services as a critical factor in supporting self-direction for people requiring institutional levels of care, and paying family caregivers. Across the highlighted states, additional themes emerged:
-
- Consumer direction provides an important opportunity to support health equity and culturally competent care. By giving enrollees flexibility to select caregivers and employ family members, states enhanced their ability to support the needs of underserved populations. Both Florida and Connecticut officials highlighted that the consumer-directed option allowed participants to hire caregivers who met their cultural and linguistic needs. Connecticut’s Community First Choice state plan option allows enrollees, as the hiring employer, to develop job descriptions that can include speaking a specific language or possessing a particular type of certification.
- Paying family caregivers can be a cost-neutral Medicaid rebalancing strategy. States can set comparable (or lower) rates for family caregivers, manage service utilization, and support more individuals in home and community settings. Connecticut state health officials anticipated a shift from institutional care toward community-based services through use of its Community First Choice (CFC) option, and results are tracking accurately to the state’s initial estimates. Connecticut also reports a lower dependence on home health agencies. Utilization of Connecticut’s CFC program has grown since 2015, but a state official noted significant savings in other services. The CFC option also benefits from a 6 percent enhanced federal match. A state official in Florida also noted that the state PDO’s lower service costs make the program competitive when compared to similar services provided by a traditional vendor.
- Outreach to Medicaid enrollees is critical. States noted that the complexity of these programs can be a challenge to enrollment, particularly among participants who are uncertain about whether they would be required to manage their own budgets. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and interest in avoiding facility-based care, states may have a heightened opportunity to raise awareness about consumer-directed options for personal care-related services.
Effects of COVID-19
Enrollment support for consumer-directed programs in the three states has increased as reliance on family caregivers grew during the pandemic:
- Within a week of declaring the emergency, Connecticut permitted expedited enrollment so enrollees could hire family caregivers, and the state also allowed overtime. Connecticut has commissioned a report from the University of Connecticut to examine the impact of COVID-19 on LTSS.
- Florida encouraged enrollment in its PDO to obtain or provide care during COVID-19, and the state has since documented an increase in new enrollees. State administrators report they are not concerned about sustaining their managed care PDO option because the option is cost-effective.
- Virginia officials noted that family members have been designating themselves as live-in caregivers in response to COVID-19. Virginia used CARES Act funding to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to caregivers and advocate in particular for caregivers of color. CARES Act funding was also used to provide COVID-19-related hazard pay to consumer-directed caregivers who worked during the first few months of the pandemic.
- States may want to consider enhancing data collection to better identify family caregivers who are reimbursed through consumer-directed programs. States do not currently track whether enrollees in consumer-directed programs hire family members. States can consider tracking data on family caregivers within consumer-directed options to better understand the fiscal and health impact of incorporating family caregivers within these programs. Virginia officials are interested in developing mechanisms to encourage individuals who provide care to identify themselves as family caregivers. States could also support data collection to better analyze whether services are reaching at-risk populations and to better support underserved populations, including caregivers of different ethnic or racial backgrounds.
- States have a number of strategies they can use to prevent fraud and abuse. A 2017 GAO report notes that personal care services are particularly prone to incomplete data, overbilling, and risk of neglect for vulnerable enrollees. States can incorporate a range of policies that can mitigate the risk of fraud while improving the quality of care, such as:
- Criminal background checks;
- Service provider requirements and training; and
- Use of care managers.
States can also leverage electronic visit verification (EVV) technology (mandated by the 21st Century Cures Act for personal care and home-based services) to mitigate fraud and abuse. Anticipating the particular needs of consumer-directed enrollees and family caregivers can help. Also, flexible scheduling, user-friendly technology, and active engagement of stakeholders in implementation can avoid challenges. Florida noted that some MCOs provide tablets to family caregivers to utilize for EVV.
- Understand how employment and scope-of-practice laws can affect family caregivers receiving reimbursement through a consumer-directed option. Family caregivers can be considered employees and subject to a range of state and federal regulations that can impact state Medicaid programs. When the US Department of Labor issued a Final Rule regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that live-in caregivers for specific services could be included in receiving overtime, Florida noted that overtime hour claims increased. Plans subsequently required use of in-network providers for service hours over 40 hours per week. While Virginia’s program focuses on caregivers who do not provide services that licensed or certified professionals provide, Virginia’s Nurse Practice Act has been amended to allow a nurse to delegate authority to caregivers to render certain tasks without violation of licensing regulations under specific circumstances.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic is reinvigorating long-standing state efforts to support older adults and others with LTSS needs while reducing reliance on congregate settings of care. Reimbursing family members to provide some services can help states rebalance long-term care toward more home- and-community-based options and promote more person-centered long-term care, especially for underserved populations. These considerations are particularly important as states consider winding down various program changes put in place in response to the pandemic. As policymakers consider ways to support enrollees while balancing financial considerations, robust consumer-directed options that engage family caregivers can provide important and person-centered strategies for long-term care.
Acknowledgements: The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) thanks Dawn Lambert, Co-Leader, Community Options Unit, Division of Health Services (CT), Karen Kimsey, Director, Department of Medical Assistance Services (VA), and Eunice Medina, Bureau Chief, Medicaid Plan Management Operations, Agency for Health Care Administration (FL) for sharing their time, expertise, and input on this report. NASHP also greatly appreciates The John A. Hartford Foundation for its support of NASHP’s work related to family caregiving and state policy.
Recent State Actions to Address Declining Children’s Insurance Coverage Rates
/in Policy Florida, Georgia, Iowa, New Jersey, Utah Blogs, Featured News Home CHIP, CHIP, Eligibility and Enrollment, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Healthy Child Development, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care /by Gia GouldSince reaching an all-time low in 2016, the rate of uninsured children has climbed from 4.7 percent in 2016 to 5.7 percent in 2019. In response, several state legislatures are considering bills designed to improve children’s coverage options and promote child enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Program and Enrollment Expansions
One of the most notable efforts to expand children’s coverage was included in New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s fiscal year 2022 budget, which establishes the Cover All Kids initiative to provide coverage to all uninsured children. At an estimated cost of $20 million, it is forecasted to cover 88,000 children by expanding Medicaid eligibility thresholds and extending coverage to children currently ineligible due to immigration status.
The Cover All Kids program aligns with initiatives previously proposed by New Jersey advocates and legislators to ensure all children have coverage. The governor’s proposed budget also directs the Department of Human Services to eliminate premiums and the waiting list for children enrolled in CHIP and provides funds for an enhanced outreach campaign to increase Medicaid and CHIP child enrollment.
In Utah, lawmakers considered two children’s coverage bills during this session. In 2019, Utah had the third-highest increase in the rate of uninsured children and the highest rate of uninsured Latinx children in the country. In response to these troubling statistics, the Utah Legislature passed HB262, which creates the Children’s Health Care Coverage program. This program directs the Utah Department of Health, Department of Workforce Services, and the state Board of Education to develop a program to promote health insurance coverage for children when they enroll in school and when they apply for free and reduced lunch.
The Utah law also requires the state to:
- Conduct research on families who are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP to determine their awareness of coverage options;
- Analyze trends in disenrollment to identify barriers for coverage renewal; and
- Administer surveys to gather information about current enrollees’ experiences with the programs.
Findings from this research will be used to redesign the CHIP and children’s Medicaid enrollment websites and inform future outreach partnerships.
Another Utah bill, SB158, designed to address the state’s coverage crisis through the creation of a robust outreach program, focused on enrolling underserved populations, providing application assistance, and launching an advertising campaign to draw attention to coverage opportunities for children. In addition, the bill would have expanded public coverage to children whose family income fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Despite senate approval, the bill did not pass.
Like Utah, Florida experienced a dramatic increase in childhood uninsured rates since 2016. The Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute 2020 report found that more than 55,000 Florida children had lost coverage between 2016 and 2019, representing the second-highest coverage drop in the nation during that period. Florida legislators are currently considering HB 201 and SB 1244, both of which would increase the eligibility threshold for their CHIP program from 200 percent of FPL incrementally by 20 percent each year beginning in the 2021-2022 fiscal year, until reaching 300 percent of FPL, which is expected in the 2026-2027 fiscal year.
In Maine, legislators are considering LD 372, a bill to expand access to CHIP. The bill includes provisions to:
- Expand income eligibility from 200 to 300 percent of FPL;
- Eliminate the waiting period for children whose families have lost employer-sponsored coverage;
- Extend coverage eligibility from age 19 to 20; and
- Eliminate premium payments for all enrollees.
Express-lane eligibility:
Last week, the Georgia Legislature passed HB 163, which directs the Department of Community Health to seek federal approval to establish express-lane-eligibility (ELE) for children whose families apply for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). By implementing the ELE option, children will automatically be enrolled or renewed in Medicaid or the state’s CHIP program, PeachCare for Kids, based on the current information provided in their SNAP application. State child health advocates estimate that this could increase child enrollment in Medicaid in the state by 70,000. Currently, five states use SNAP data to determine eligibility for Medicaid and/or CHIP.
CHIP Buy-in Programs:
Legislators in Iowa and West Virginia are considering bills to create CHIP buy-in programs, which allow families with incomes above their state’s CHIP eligibility thresholds to purchase coverage.
Iowa’s SF220 would allow families to purchase CHIP coverage for children and young adults up to age 26 whose household income exceeds the maximum income eligibility threshold of 302 percent of FPL. Iowa’s CHIP-buy in plan differs from traditional CHIP buy-in programs as it would allow families to purchase CHIP coverage for their children as an alternative to qualified health plans on the exchange or plans on the individual market — which unlike CHIP are not tailored to children’s needs.
The CHIP coverage would be sold through the marketplace, allowing families to compare their coverage options, and could be paid for with premium tax credits for eligible enrollees. If passed, the state would need federal approval to implement the plan.
West Virginia’s HB2278 would establish a buy-in program for children’s whose families earn more than 300 percent of FPL and could afford to pay the cost of CHIP coverage in full.
Despite states continuing to grapple with managing the COVID-19 pandemic, many are still seeking to improve coverage for children in Medicaid and CHIP. The National Academy for State Health Policy continues to track states’ efforts to increase enrollment in children’s coverage in Medicaid and CHIP.
With Federal Rule Issued, States Advance Prescription Drug Importation Programs
/in Prescription Drug Pricing Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont Blogs, Featured News Home Model Legislation, Newly-Enacted Laws, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by Jennifer Reck and Trish RileyEarlier this month, the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary published the final rule for state importation of prescription drugs from Canada. To receive federal approval for their Section 804 importation programs (SIPs), the six states with laws enabling importation (VT, FL, ME, CO, NM, and NH) must meet the rule’s safety and cost-savings requirements and also navigate the rule’s implementation challenges.
While HHS made some of the states’ requested changes in the rule’s final version, such as giving states the flexibility to designate the agency responsible for administering a SIP, several concerns that states raised in their comments on the draft rule to ensure efficient and effective programs, were not reflected in the final rule.
Key among those concerns are issues relating to the role of the “foreign seller” (Canadian wholesaler) that purchases eligible prescription drugs from manufacturers in order to sell to the state “importer” in the United States. The final rule specifies that a SIP may work with just one foreign seller initially. Though the logic of the rule is to maintain a tight supply chain, limiting SIPs to just one foreign seller creates the risk that a manufacturer opposed to state importation may cut off its supplies to a single foreign seller that would be easily identified due to its increased demand for prescription drugs to supply a SIP.
Limiting SIPs to one foreign seller may also preempt normal forces of market competition that would otherwise help states maximize savings from importation.
Additionally, though the final rule gives states up to six months to identify a foreign seller after submitting their importation program applications to HHS, states may still be required to identify their foreign seller prior to federal approval of their SIPs. States had requested that the step of identifying a foreign seller come after program approval because foreign sellers may not choose to participate in a program that has not yet gained federal approval, especially when their participation may put them in a drug manufacturer’s crosshairs.
The final rule is scheduled to go into effect Nov. 30, 2020 – at which time a legal challenge from drug manufacturers is widely anticipated. Despite states’ request, the final rule did not include a severability clause – a provision that allows a law to stand even if a portion of the law is struck down by the courts. As a result, the federal framework for Canadian importation is vulnerable to being struck down if drug manufacturers successfully challenge even a minor provision of the rule.
Determined to achieve savings on prescription drugs for consumers despite the challenges presented by the final rule, states are continuing to do the groundwork necessary to design effective SIPs. For example, earlier this month, both Colorado and New Mexico convened stakeholder meetings in order to share information, solicit feedback, and answer questions. Four states – Vermont, Colorado, Maine, and Florida – had already submitted SIP applications for federal approval prior to publication of the final federal rule in order to meet timelines specified in their state statutes.
Florida issued an “Invitation to Negotiate” (ITN) to start the process of contracting with a vendor for a $30 million, three-year contract to manage its SIP. That contract was scheduled to be awarded in December 2020, however, Florida withdrew the ITN last week because no organizations responded to the ITN. While Florida sought a single contractor to fill multiple roles required to implement its SIP, Colorado, which is currently designing its own ITN for release in December, is taking an alternate approach by allowing diverse roles to be fill by multiple contractors as needed. The fact that Florida’s importation program is limited to public payers may have also made the contract less appealing to bidders from a market perspective, whereas Colorado’s program is directed at the commercial market. Florida also released its ITN prior to publication of the final federal rule, another consideration that may have inhibited potential respondents.
The National Academy for State Health Policy is continuing to work with states to advance their SIP plans and will provide updates about their progress.
States Seek Flexibility in Final Drug Importation Rules to Achieve Consumer Savings
/in Prescription Drug Pricing Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Vermont Blogs, Featured News Home Newly-Enacted Laws, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by Jennifer Reck, Trish Riley and Johanna ButlerSix states with laws enabling the importation of prescription drugs from Canada – Vermont, Florida, Maine, Colorado, New Mexico, and New Hampshire – are awaiting publication of federal rules currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget.
They are eager to see if the final rules address key concerns submitted by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) in late March on the proposed rule, published in December 2019. In order to enable effective implementation of the program, states raised several concerns and requested changes, including:
- Giving states the flexibility to determine the most appropriate state agency in which to house a state importation program (SIP);
- Removal of the requirement that states must execute contracts with program partners prior to obtaining federal approval for a SIP; and
- An extension of the initial SIP program terms beyond two years.
In order to capture the savings promised by importation of drugs from Canada – where prices on commonly used drugs can be up to 80 percent lower than in the United States – states are requesting changes to ensure those savings can be passed to consumers. State officials fear the savings could be “absorbed” by several proposed requirements that experts contend are not necessary to maintain program safety – but appear certain to eat into savings that states are hoping to pass on to consumers.
For example, states are requesting removal of the requirement that all sampling, testing, and relabeling of imported drugs occur within the confines of a foreign trade zone or port – a geographic restriction that could prove costly to states without providing any additional safety.
Other changes states requested include permitting drugs to be re-labeled and repackaged in Canada – a change that would also provide a welcome financial incentive for Canada to support importation given that it has otherwise expressed reluctance to do so. Finally, in order to ensure a competitive marketplace, states requested authority to contract with multiple foreign sellers rather than just one – the current limit in the proposed rule.
While Vermont, Colorado, Maine, and Florida have submitted applications for federal approval for their SIPs according to timelines laid out in their state’s statutes, only Florida has issued an “Invitation to Negotiate” to begin the process of contracting with a vendor for a $30 million, three-year contract to manage its SIP. That contract is scheduled to be awarded in December 2020.
Florida’s SIP program design contains some important differences compared to other states’ proposed importation programs. While most states have determined that savings for consumers are likely to be greatest in the commercial sector and have designed their SIPs accordingly, Florida chose to limit its initial SIP to only public payers, such as Medicaid and its Department of Corrections, which already receive significant discounts and don’t require significant, if any, out-of-pocket spending by individuals. Though Florida’s application includes estimated savings of $150 million from its SIP, it did not include details describing how those savings would translate into consumer savings, which is a requirement for federal approval alongside a demonstration of safety.
Because the Trump Administration has promised quick action on importation along with other drug pricing initiatives, it is widely expected that rules will be finalized before the December timeline reflected in the Federal Register. States are eager to see if the final rules will reflect the states’ much-needed changes critical to allowing states to safely import drugs from Canada while delivering on the promise of cost-savings to consumers.
Hospital Transparency: Lessons from 12 States’ Hospital Financial Reporting Laws
/in Policy California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Washington Blogs, Featured News Home Health System Costs, Hospital/Health System Oversight /by Maureen Hensley-Quinn, Nancy Kane and Johanna ButlerStates’ hospital financial reporting laws, often referred to as “hospital transparency,” are diverse and typically seek to provide information to the public rather than to inform state health system cost-containment policies. But to address and stem rising health costs, states need specific information from hospitals and providers. States’ laws offer important lessons for policymakers who want to change reporting laws or develop new hospital financial transparency requirements.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) analyzed 12 state hospital transparency laws to better understand the current landscape of states’ reporting requirements. This slideshow breaks the information into charts to highlight the 12 states laws in more detail. NASHP’s analysis shows that state requirements vary not only in purpose, but also in identifying:
- What type of hospital must report;
- What information must be disclosed;
- Which state agency or entity collects the data; and
- What penalties are imposed for noncompliance.
Most states require financial reports from acute-care hospitals – those that provide inpatient medical care and services for surgery and treat acute medical conditions or injuries. According to the 12-state analysis, only a few states require five or more types of facilities to submit financial transparency reports, which shows the wide range of states’ reporting requirements. For example, Georgia requires only nonprofit, acute-care hospitals to report while Florida requires acute, non-acute, and psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, and hospice and intermediate care facilities to report financial data. Whether a state requires one facility type or multiple types to report financial data affects policymakers’ ability to understand the financial state of the entire health care system. Collecting information from acute-care facilities is important but provides only a partial picture of a state’s health care system.
The type of data states collect varies, with many states requiring hospitals to report some combination of audited financial statements, Medicare cost reports, and Internal Revenue Services tax Form 990 filings. Others, such as Missouri, do not require any “standard” reports that hospitals develop as a routine part of their business. Instead, Missouri, determines its own hospital financial reporting requirements through statute and agency rule making.
Given these varied approaches, what data elements should states be collecting? NASHP is currently analyzing data collected by the 12 states in the comparison chart. NASHP’s goal is to determine which required data elements yield the best information to support cost containment initiatives and what data is missing as policymakers seek to understand specific cost drivers within their health systems. NASHP is currently developing a reporting tool that states can use to ensure they are receiving meaningful and potentially actionable information from health care systems.
Beyond the data elements required, reporting style varies from state to state. Some states have their own accounting manuals to collect hospital financial data in a uniform manner across facilities (CA, FL, MD, MA and WA). Others don’t, which can result in inconsistencies across different facilities reporting information within a single state. By requiring facilities to adhere to specific accounting principles or follow a reporting manual applied statewide, policymakers are better able to analyze data and learn about the state’s health care system as a whole, rather than using a hospital-by-hospital lens.
In many states, the responsibility for hospital financial data collection is spread across different offices or agencies and there may be varying levels of collaboration across these collecting entities. The agency or office responsible for collecting data can affect whether reporting and analysis is focused on cost containment goals or more targeted objectives. For example, some states require nursing homes to report data to an office of aging where the focus is on quality of care and overall expenditures. While ensuring targeted objectives like quality of care is critical, identifying cost trend data reported by nursing homes could be missed if the agency responsible for its collection is not looking for that information.
Additionally, some states place data collection in an office focused on general health care data and financial analysis, while others place it in offices that are also tasked with certificate of need processes or facility licensure. These different offices will have different strengths and capacities to build on current data collection and analysis efforts. However, without a coordinating infrastructure to assess data from all reporting facilities, the goal of informing health system cost containment efforts may not be achieved.
All in all, states that have already implemented hospital financial reporting are providing critical information and lessons to NASHP as we seek inform future state financial reporting requirements and new transparency policies. Having meaningful data to better understand the health system’s cost drivers is an important foundation to build on and refine cost containment efforts.
NASHP Responds to Proposed, Landmark Federal Drug Importation Rule: Changes Needed
/in Policy Colorado, Florida, Maine, Vermont Blogs, Featured News Home Administrative Actions, Model Legislation, Newly-Enacted Laws, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by Trish RileySeventeen years after Congress allowed federal importation and responding to laws enacted in several states to allow importation – the Trump Administration issued a proposed rule to implement the law. However, an analysis by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) finds that without certain revisions, the proposed rule would challenge states’ ability to implement and administer importation programs that ensure both safety and consumer savings.
Read NASHP’s recommended changes to the Administration’s proposed rule on the importation of prescription drugs here.
Section 804 of the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 2003, directs the secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue regulations guiding the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. The HHS secretary must certify that importation poses no additional risk to the public’s health and safety and results in significant reduction in costs to American consumers. In December 2019, the Administration proposed regulations to implement this provision and recently HHS Secretary Alex Azar signaled an openness to include insulin as an importable drug, a move strongly supported by states.
The landmark rule establishes a pathway for state importation, but as proposed it imposes costly administrative burdens that would limit a state’s ability to import drugs at a time when effective action to lower drug prices is imperative. In the absence of federal action to curb drug prices, states have turned to importation as a means to lower costs. In developing their proposals, states recognize that the pharmaceutical industry is already a global one. An estimated 88 percent of active drug ingredients (APIs) sold in the United States and 63 percent of facilities making finished drugs sold domestically are located overseas. In 2018, over $70 billion worth of drug products were imported into the United States.
That global supply chain is already carefully regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state importation programs, many of which used NASHP’s model importation law in their program design, are building on and mirroring those existing, federal safety requirements. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, as many as 19 million Americans, frustrated by the high cost of prescription drugs, have imported a drug – sometimes through vehicles that evade current regulatory protections. States are proposing safe, wholesale importation of certain drugs, building on FDA’s current system, to provide a regulated channel for residents to access lower cost drugs to ensure FDA’s high safety standards are met.
The proposed rule clearly identifies the requirements for a state to propose a Section 804 Importation Program (SIP) for review and approval by the federal government. However, without certain revisions the proposed rule would impose administrative requirements that challenge a state’s capacity to establish and implement programs that ensure both safety and consumer savings.
Successful state implementation of importation requires certain revisions to the proposed rules, including:
- States need the authority to determine which state agency will administer the program. The rule requires administration of the program by the state entity responsible for regulating pharmacies and wholesalers. Collaboration with those entities is necessary but those entities often lack the staff and capacity to administer an importation program, and such a requirement is inconsistent with most states’ Section 804 importation laws.
- Requiring a state to have completed agreements with importers, foreign sellers, relabelers, and repackagers at the time of the state’s application to the federal government is unrealistic, given that those entities cannot enter into agreements until a program is authorized by the federal government. Instead, the federal government could conditionally approve SIPs, pending those agreements, and should provide technical assistance to states in developing them with Canada.
- States need to contract with multiple foreign sellers in Canada to assure sufficient competition and supply of drugs under their programs. The proposed rule would initially limit states to one foreign seller.
- Collaboration with Canada is a cornerstone of state importation plans and allowing drugs to be relabeled and repackaged in Canada would provide financial incentives for Canada to support the program, and would impose no additional public health and safety risks because the businesses that conduct relabeling and repackaging in Canada must already meet FDA standards.
- Drug testing would be conducted in the United States even if repacking and relabeling are completed in Canada. In 2019, the FDA tested only 0.03 percent of all drug shipments imported into the United States. By law, these new drug importation programs will test and ensure the authenticity of 100 percent of drug shipments imported under these programs. But the rule’s restrictions on how that testing must be performed will raise costs without improving safety. The proposed rule, for example, requires all labs that test drugs to have an FDA inspection history, but does not provide information about how many currently do. The competency of drug testing labs could be ensured by requiring them to meet strict accreditation standards, and the FDA does not typically inspect independent labs. Under the proposed requirement, this rule could result in too few labs available to perform the necessary testing. As a result, states would be unable to implement their programs.
- The proposed rule also limits state implementation capacity by mandating that all sampling, statutory testing, and relabeling of imported drugs occur within the confines of a foreign trade zone or port area. Under FDA’s current system for regulating drugs., these activities must meet FDA standards regardless of where they are conducted. This geographic limitation in the proposed rule poses a barrier to states’ implementation of their importation programs. There is no evidence that this limitation will ensure additional protection to public health and safety.
- The proposed rule also relies on manufacturers to provide necessary disclosures and other important information. Manufacturers have historically expressed strong opposition to importation of their drugs and relying on them to provide critical information is expected to cause delays. The federal government should provide states with all necessary information in the event manufacturers resist timely compliance with these requirements.
- The requirements for adverse event reporting and recalls as proposed by the proposed rule are redundant and costly. Current adverse event reporting and recall rules and procedures already protect consumers and should be followed.
- The rule imposes various additional, unduly burdensome requirements. For example, the proposed rule requires the full suspension of a state’s importation program if any aspect of the state’s program does not meet an applicable standard. Instead, the rule should allow for corrective action plans in instances where noncompliance does not compromise consumer safety or protections. Further, the proposed rule includes a strict severability provision, which needs to be revised. In its current construction, the entire rule could be thrown out on a minor technicality.
- By requiring the automatic termination of a SIP after two years, unless proactively extended by the FDA, the rule discourages investment and participation in a SIP.
Limiting the burden of pharmaceutical prices remains a priority that requires broader federal action. Until then, NASHP will work with states to continues addressing the issue and applauds the Administration’s effort to facilitate importation, but two hurdles remain.
First, without some modifications, the proposed rule creates costly barriers to state implementation that are unnecessary to ensure the safety of imported drugs and would increase state costs and reduce or even restrict states’ abilities to ensure savings to consumers.
More important, implementation of this initiative requires Canadian cooperation and the active engagement of the Trump administration to address any regulatory or legal barriers that Canada identifies that could impede the safe and cost-effective importation of certain drugs. Safe importation requires a partnership between the state and federal governments that has not yet been fully articulated.
State Legislatures Examine Proposals to Curb Rx Drug Costs
/in Policy Florida, Illinois, Maryland Blogs Administrative Actions, Model Legislation, Newly-Enacted Laws, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by Sarah LanfordRecent legislative committee hearings in Maryland, Florida, and Illinois provide a national snapshot of states’ diverse and innovative proposals to reign in drug costs.
Maryland’s drug affordability review board: Earlier this month, Maryland’s House Health and Government Operations Committee and Senate Finance Committee held lengthy hearings on an innovative bill that creates a state prescription drug affordability review board (see NASHP’s model legislation here.)
The board would review drugs whose price increases met or exceeded a certain threshold and set an upper payment limit if the board found the drug cost to be excessive. During the committee hearings, constituents stressed the urgency of finding a solution for increasing drug prices, and many shared their struggles of choosing between paying bills and purchasing necessary medication. There was also testimony from pharmaceutical industry representatives who voiced their concerns about the bill and said it could hamper innovation.
The committee hearings gave legislators the opportunity to hear details of the proposed bill. One Maryland state senator questioned how the upper payment limit established by the affordability board differed from the state’s anti-price-gouging law that was found to be unconstitutional last year, based on the claim that it regulated commerce beyond state borders. Supporters explained that an affordability review board would not encounter the same legal challenge because it clearly defines its jurisdiction over only drugs sold in the state. Another representative asked whether all drugs would fall under the purview of the board. The sponsor explained that only drugs that meet certain price increase thresholds would be subject to board review. As seven other states explore similar legislation, NASHP has compiled a Drug Affordability Review Board Legislation Q&A that answers many legislators’ questions.
Florida’s drug importation bill: Florida lawmakers are considering implementation of a wholesale drug importation program. Bills filed in both the Florida House and Senate would allow the state to import high-cost drugs from Canada at a lower price. Florida’s legislative process often requires that bills pass through two or three committees before a floor vote, giving lawmakers, stakeholders, and constituents ample time to consider a bill. In March, three House committees met to ask questions about the bill and learn more about importation. During hearings, the bill’s sponsor explained that more than 30 Canadian drug manufacturers are already registered by the US Food and Drug Administration to produce drugs for US markets, and that safety standards in Canada are comparable to those in the United States. Lawmakers had additional questions about cost savings and the supply chain. For more information about importation legislation, read NASHP’s importation Q&A.
Illinois’ prescription drug committee action: The Illinois House of Representatives created a Prescription Drug Affordability and Access Committee to address bills designed to curb drug costs. The committee is currently reviewing 17 bills, including legislation to create a drug affordability review board, similar to Maryland’s, and a wholesale importation program. It is also reviewing a bill that requires health insurers to ensure that at least 25 percent of their plans apply a pre-deductible, flat-dollar copayment structure to their entire drug benefit component. The committee is also considering a proposal to tax drug price increases that exceed the inflation rate. This tax would be paid by businesses that make the first sale in the state and could not be passed through to consumers. Any money collected from the tax will be deposited into a new fund dedicated to prescription drug cost fairness.
To date, the Illinois committee has met multiple times for informational sessions to learn how the drug pricing system works and to hear from consumer advocates and stakeholders. Establishing a specific committee dedicated to identifying solutions to the rising cost of prescription drugs indicates how important this issue is as the state legislature tries to help constituents afford medication and balance the state’s budget.
NASHP is tracking state legislative action across the country as lawmakers schedule more hearings on prescription drug costs. To find out the status of any state’s drug pricing legislation as they move toward enactment, explore NASHP’s Rx State Legislative Tracker. To learn more about NASHP’s prescription drug work, visit its Center for State Rx Drug Pricing.
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. 























































































































































