How States Use Cost-Growth Benchmark Programs to Contain Health Care Costs
/in Health System Costs Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Washington Charts, Featured News Home Consumer Affordability, Health System Costs, Hospital/Health System Oversight, Making the Case for Action, Total Cost of Care Benchmark /by Deborah Fournier and Adney RakotoniainaWebinar: Strategies to Increase Access to PACE: Findings from the NASHP State PACE Action Network
/in Policy Maryland, Massachusetts Webinars Chronic and Complex Populations, Long-Term Care /by NASHP StaffComparison of State Prescription Drug Affordability Review Initiatives
/in Prescription Drug Pricing Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio Charts, Featured News Home Administrative Actions, Legal Resources, Model Legislation, Newly-Enacted Laws, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by NASHP StaffHow States Are Getting Ready to Unwind Medicaid’s Continuous Coverage Requirement
/in Health Coverage and Access Colorado, Massachusetts, Utah Blogs, Featured News Home COVID-19, Health Coverage and Access, Medicaid Managed Care /by Anita CardwellAcross agencies, state health policy officials are in the midst of tremendous planning efforts to prepare for the end of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement and the resumption of eligibility determination processes in Medicaid.
While the timing of this is uncertain because the requirement is tied to the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), states recognize that it is likely that the federal PHE declaration could end in the coming months. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a series of guidance documents for states related to unwinding PHE policies — most recently a state health official letter and new reporting templates released earlier this month — that have included specifics about reinstating disenrollments in Medicaid and strategies states can consider to minimize both churn and inappropriate coverage terminations.
On NASHP’s webinar earlier this month, three state officials each representing different health coverage programs — Medicaid (Colorado), CHIP (Utah), and a state-based marketplace (Massachusetts) — spoke about their programs’ current efforts to plan for the eventual end of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement. While they shared unique perspectives from their various vantage points and state contexts, some of the common themes from the discussion are described below, along with state snapshots of their current key priorities.
State-Specific Unwinding Planning Efforts
Colorado: The state’s Medicaid agency is focusing on a range of strategies to ensure continuity of coverage once the continuous coverage requirement is no longer in effect. Their overarching priorities center on minimizing disruptions for enrollees and supporting their eligibility determination workforce, and they are focusing their efforts in the areas of system improvements and partner input to develop effective strategies. The agency is seeking to distribute their eligibility redetermination work evenly over the PHE unwinding period and is taking into consideration the needs of certain populations, such as individuals who will be covered under the American Rescue Plan Act’s (ARPA) extended postpartum coverage option that the state will be implementing and vulnerable populations such as homeless individuals. Additionally, the agency recently redesigned their renewal materials with the aim of improving communications with enrollees about actions that they will need to take to maintain coverage. State Medicaid officials also hold weekly meetings with their county-based eligibility determination sites and their state-based marketplace to review needed policy and system changes and assess communication plans.
Massachusetts: Officials from the state-based marketplace, the Health Connector, are working very closely with their Medicaid agency counterparts to strategize about policy and operational approaches, coordinate messaging efforts, and share general information. Health Connector staff are currently in the process of gaining a better understanding of the characteristics of the individuals currently enrolled in Medicaid who may become eligible for marketplace coverage when the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement ends. One advantage the state has is that their Medicaid and marketplace eligibility determination systems are integrated, which facilitates smoother transitions between coverage programs.
Utah: Officials from Utah’s CHIP agency are incorporating lessons learned from their experience last year when CMS informed the state that unlike Medicaid, the CHIP program should be conducting regular disenrollments for individuals determined ineligible during the PHE (CMS had previously approved the state’s request to implement a disenrollment freeze in CHIP). Although the CHIP program attempted to reach enrollees, because the process needed to be conducted quickly, 41 percent of the CHIP caseload was disenrolled. Reflecting on this experience to inform the upcoming changes in Medicaid, the state is strategizing on ways to better communicate with enrollees and examining their eligibility system data closely. Similar to Colorado, they are focusing on prioritizing certain populations based on a range of factors and are currently identifying Medicaid enrollees within their system who are either found to be ineligible or whose eligibility cannot be confirmed so that further action can be taken on these cases when the PHE ends. Additionally, the state plans to launch a dashboard that will be able to provide information to the public about the reasons individuals are disenrolled from Medicaid and whether they are transferred to other coverage programs, as well as information about call center volumes and other data points to provide a comprehensive picture of eligibility redetermination activity.
Key Strategies to Address Current and Anticipated Challenges
Broadly, all states are facing the challenges of uncertainty about when the PHE declaration will end, as well as the significant growth in Medicaid enrollment over the course of the pandemic which increases the volume of work that will need to be completed. There is the additional challenge that the enhanced federal Medicaid funding that states are currently receiving for complying with the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement will expire at the end of the quarter in which the PHE ends; but states’ work to unwind the requirement will take much longer.
Balancing workloads and providing training to address state workforce constraints: Although the majority of states have been conducting renewals during the PHE, there will still be a very sizeable amount of eligibility work for states to process during the unwinding period. State officials also mentioned additional concerns about the potential increased workload as people begin reapplying for coverage after being disenrolled or appeal eligibility decisions. Both Colorado and Utah cited challenges related to recruiting and training the large number of state eligibility determination workers that will be needed. In Colorado, the state oversees the Medicaid program, but it is administered at the county level. While the legislature allocated funding for the hiring of more eligibility workers, counties have reported that it has been difficult to find employees because many businesses in the private sector are offering higher wages. However, a centralized state-funded site has been added so that counties with excess eligibility determination work can redirect cases there, which state officials hope will help even out the workload. In Utah, about a third of the Medicaid and CHIP eligibility staff are new employees, and due to the continuous coverage requirement they lack experience with conducting disenrollments in Medicaid. The state is providing training to recently hired staff and seeking to ensure that the upcoming significant workload increase will be processed both efficiently and carefully, with a focus on helping Medicaid-eligible individuals remain enrolled or that those who qualify for other programs are smoothly transferred to other sources of coverage.
Leveraging partnerships to reduce enrollee communication barriers: All three state officials commented on the significant challenge of finding effective ways to communicate with enrollees about the impending changes, especially because many enrollees have not ever had to take action to maintain coverage and may be unfamiliar with the redetermination process. In Colorado, in addition to their revamped renewal packet, the agency is promoting their newly modernized online portal that state officials are working to ensure is user-friendly. They are also using text messaging and other communication tools to engage enrollees and collect updated contact information. Massachusetts is aiming to use best practices in communication with enrollees and is currently conducting focus group testing of messaging that can be used across agencies so that they are in sync and are using the same “song sheet.” Additionally, for individuals who no longer qualify for Medicaid but are eligible for qualified health plans, Massachusetts Health Connector staff are thinking through ways to inform individuals about how marketplace coverage differs from Medicaid in terms of factors such as cost, provider networks, and income change reporting requirements. In Utah’s CHIP program, premiums have been suspended during the pandemic and state officials are working to develop effective strategies to inform enrollees about the reinstatement of these charges once the PHE ends.
One essential element in improving enrollee communication methods and gathering updated enrollee contact information cited by all three states is the engagement of a range of partners, such as community-based organizations with well-established ties to underserved and vulnerable populations. In Massachusetts, the state legislature allocated $5 million in ARPA funding to Health Care for All (HCFA)—a grassroots organization with strong connections to many marginalized communities—to support outreach efforts to Medicaid enrollees, and the state’s health insurance marketplace and Medicaid agency are working in tandem with HCFA on these initiatives. In Utah, advocates are helping to ensure that notices are written in plain and clear language, and the state is also actively reaching out to tribal nations for their input on communication strategies. In Colorado, community-based partners are directly assisting with updating enrollee contact information and the state has frequent communication with advocacy organizations. All three states are also coordinating closely with health insurance carriers that may have more frequent communication with members enrolled in their plans to both collect updated enrollee contact information and communicate about the upcoming changes. For example, in Utah, managed care plans are conducting outreach calls to individuals, and the state will soon be able to share more detailed information about enrollees’ eligibility determinations with the plans.
Putting the Medicaid Continuous Coverage Requirement Unwinding in Context
State officials also emphasized that it is important for all stakeholders to keep in mind that the work of unwinding PHE policies and resuming normal eligibility determination operations in Medicaid will be occurring within the context of many other substantial changes, overlapping timelines, and unique state challenges. For example, in Utah, the state is making significant changes to their eligibility determination system, recently launched a new Medicaid Management Information System, and is in the process of merging their health and human services agencies. From the perspective of the state-based marketplaces, if the PHE ends in July 2022, that coincides with their efforts to prepare for the fall open enrollment season, which involves considerable system changes and could create outreach and communication challenges. A further complication is that if the enhanced marketplace subsidies currently available via ARPA are not extended by Congress, individuals transferring to the marketplace will face considerably higher costs. Additionally, each state’s unique characteristics, such as their Medicaid and marketplace coordination arrangements and eligibility system structures, will affect the resumption of regular Medicaid eligibility operations and the overall PHE unwinding process.
States appreciate CMS’ ongoing support, but also hope that the administration will provide them with ample notice about when the PHE will end as well as offer some flexibility on certain rules to facilitate the overall process for both individuals and programs. While the many impending policy and operational issues are daunting for states, they are continuing to actively prepare and are hopeful that with a common goal across state agencies, partners, and the federal government of ensuring that eligible individuals remain enrolled, efforts will be coordinated and coverage disruptions will be minimized.
Massachusetts Health Policy Commission Takes Steps to Hold High-Cost Health System Accountable
/in Health System Costs Massachusetts Blogs, Featured News Home Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs /by Johanna ButlerIn January, for the first time in its history, the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission (HPC)’s Board voted to require the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system to submit a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) because of the system’s substantial contributions to the state’s health care cost increases. The HPC’s comprehensive analysis of MGB cost data and decision to require the PIP comes at the same time as MGB is seeking approval from the state’s Department of Public Health to expand its hospitals and create new ambulatory facilities throughout the state. In taking this action, the HPC is addressing an identified cost trend with the PIP as well as raising concerns aboutMGB’s proposed expansions currently being reviewed through the state’s certificate of need process.
HPC to Require First Performance Improvement Plan for Large Health System
The HPC is an independent state agency charged with monitoring health care spending growth in Massachusetts and providing policy recommendations regarding health care delivery and payment reform. Among other activities, the HPC oversees the state’s cost-growth benchmark program and conducts cost and market impact reviews (CMIRs) to understand how significant transactions between providers may impact the health care market. If the HPC identifies a referred provider that has total health status-adjusted medical expenses that exceed the established benchmark for health care cost growth, the HPC may require that provider to complete a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
In January 2022, for the first time in its history, the HPC Board voted to require a PIP from MGB, which will require MGB to identify the causes of the health system’s spending growth, a savings goal, and specific action steps that MGB can take to achieve the goal. In making this decision, the HPC Board found that MGB’s spending performance has likely impacted the state’s ability to meet its health care cost growth benchmark, which has been exceeded in 2018 and 2019. The Board determined that if not addressed, spending at MGB will likely result in the health care costs continuing to exceed the state’s benchmark target. From 2014 to 2019, MGB had more cumulative commercial spending in excess of the benchmark than any other provider, totaling $293 million. The largest provider group within the MGB system has spending levels substantially higher than insurer network averages and is consistently among the highest in the state for the top three commercial payers.
Through the HPC’s review process, MGB had opportunities to provide its own data and present factors that may be contributing to high costs. For example, MGB stated that pharmacy costs are a consistent driver of medical expenditures. However, through reviewing medical expenditure data from 2017 – 2018, the HPC found that pharmacy was not a top driver of costs.
MGB now has 45 days to file a proposed PIP with the HPC, request a waiver, or request an extension. Once the HPC receives the proposed PIP, the Board will vote on whether to approve it based on a variety of factors. If approved, MGB is subject to ongoing monitoring during an 18-month implementation period. After those 18 months, if the HPC Board finds the PIP is unsuccessful, it may require further action from MGB and can also levy a fine up to $500,000 for non-compliance.
Other states will be watching how the PIP process unfolds in Massachusetts. Following the Commonwealth’s lead, a number of other states have begun to implement cost-growth benchmark programs, including most recently in Nevada and New Jersey, where Gov. Steve Sisolak and Gov. Phil Murphy signed executive orders to establish benchmarks at the end of 2021. In 2021, Oregon’s cost-growth benchmark program was enhanced to include more enforcement mechanisms including the ability to require performance improvement plans like Massachusetts and fine payer or provider organizations that exceed the benchmark for three out of five years.
HPC Reports that Proposed Health System Expansions Will Raise Costs
In addition to requiring a performance improvement plan, the HPC board also voted in January to submit a public comment on three pending Mass General Brigham Determination of Need (DoN) applications, Massachusetts’ version of certificate of need.
In early 2021, MGB filed DoN applications for three substantial capital expenditures, totaling $2.3 Billion, including the expansion and renovation of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital (Faulkner), as well as the creation of three new ambulatory sites across the state.
In determining whether to grant a DoN, the Department of Public Health (DPH) considers, among other factors, if an applicant has “sufficiently demonstrated that a proposed project will meaningfully contribute to the Commonwealth’s goals for cost containment, improved public health outcomes, and delivery system transformation.” DPH required an Independent Cost Analysis (ICA) to be conducted on each of the three applications, funded by MGB, which were released at the end of December.
While the HPC does not have formal authority over the DoN process, it can produce expenditure analysis and submit public comments. Leveraging its data analysis capacities and types of data similar to that used in its Cost and Market Impact Reviews, the HPC conducted its own analysis of the proposed MGB projects and ultimately concluded that the that the expansions are not in line with state’s cost containment goals.
The HPC found that in total, the proposed expansions would increase inpatient beds at MGH by 16.6% to 18.9% and beds at Faulkner by 45.6%. Based on conservative projections, the projects are likely to increase yearly commercial health insurance spending in Massachusetts by $46 million to $90.1 million.
This evidence will be considered in the state’s DoN review. Massachusetts DPH has four months to review the MGB’s application, with the option of a two-month extension (the clock was paused during the independent cost-analyses). A final decision on MGB’s proposed expansion is expected sometime this Spring or early Summer.
Impact of HPC’s Actions for Other States
Other states that are implementing cost-growth benchmark programs may consider Massachusetts a model for applying the benchmark infrastructure to examine proposed mergers and use collected data to bolster existing Certificate of Need (CON) programs. Across the country, 35 states have CON programs in place, although they vary dramatically based on which facilities are subject to CON, the range of activities that trigger a CON review, and the information considered during review. A primary challenge to state CON programs is having access to relevant cost data and analysis capacity to properly study the impact on care delivery and the expense of proposed expansions.
Massachusetts offers an example for other states interested in creating infrastructure that allows cost-growth benchmarks and CON programs to work with one another. While cost-growth benchmark programs are successful at studying spending growth, they provide a retrospective rather than prospective look at health care costs in a state. CON programs continue to be one of the few, albeit limited, tools to control future expansions, consolidation, and growth in costs. Leveraging data and analysis from cost-growth benchmark programs, may allow for more in-depth CON review processes.
Massachusetts Uses Opioid Legal Settlement to Advance Equity in Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder
/in Opioid Center Massachusetts Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Opioid Use Disorder /by Mia Antezzo and Jodi ManzNationwide, overdose fatalities continue to climb, and racial disparities in overdose rates persist. Black Americans have experienced the steepest increase in opioid-related overdoses among all groups in recent years, despite the rate of opioid use remaining higher among Whites. While the past few years have seen a significant uptick in the use of buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD), research indicates that unequal access to the full range of evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment persists: buprenorphine is more readily available for Whites and those with private insurance or the ability to self-pay; White communities have more access to buprenorphine, while access in predominantly black communities may be limited to methadone.
These trends have played out in Massachusetts, and alarming disparities in data – including a 40 percent increase in overdose deaths among Black individuals despite a decrease of 3.8 percent among Whites – led the state Attorney General’s Office (AGO) to conduct outreach to local stakeholders in the BIPOC community. These leaders noted that one major barrier to treatment was an existing lack of cultural humility in OUD treatment.
Cultural humility is a treatment framework that stresses respect for individual cultural backgrounds and ongoing provider self-assessment for bias.
This came at a time when the Massachusetts AGO had settled with an Andover-based mail-order pharmacy, Injured Worker Pharmacy (IWP), for unlawful opioid prescribing and dispensing practices targeted at workers’ compensation patients in 2020. The suit followed in the wake of major multistate settlements with pharmaceutical manufacturers and is one among several in which states are pursuing lawsuits against other parties they believe culpable in advancing the opioid epidemic.
$1.5 million of Massachusetts’ $11 million settlement with IWP was dedicated to the AGO to be spent at their discretion under broad guidelines to improve care and treatment for OUD, including through grant programs. Drawing on the issues raised by stakeholders, the AGO directed $1.5 million in grant funding to community organizations to address inequities in access to OUD treatment. The state targeted resources to organizations committed to advancing public health equity, located in the communities they serve, and already using a cultural humility framework and/or the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care (National CLAS Standards).
The Massachusetts grant opportunity, “Promoting Cultural Humility in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment,” was announced in October 2020. Massachusetts considered proposals from non-profits, municipalities, and quasi-public entities that demonstrated a commitment to providing culturally responsive OUD treatment for communities of color and socioeconomically diverse communities across the Commonwealth. The sixteen grantees, which were announced in February 2021, range from statewide to local and tribal initiatives, and plan to address inequities in treatment access through several distinct approaches:
- Multi-Lingual Services: Grantees plan to recruit/retain bilingual staff in clinical settings and develop their bilingual peer support/navigator workforce.
- Workforce development: All grantees plan to develop their workforces, either through training, recruitment, or retention, with a strong emphasis on peer recovery services.
- Other underserved populations: The AGO funded several grantees to address OUD in specific populations. Grantees include the programs which will use funding to target services for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, pregnant and parenting people, sex-workers, and individuals re-entering from incarceration settings.
The AGO notes that capacity building is a key component of Massachusetts’ long-term strategy to fight the opioid epidemic, and addressing the unmet needs of the BIPOC community must be central to this strategy. The office further emphasizes that continued conversations with the BIPOC community will inform ongoing work.
The National Academy for State Health Policy is providing this blog with the ongoing support of the Foundation for Opioid Response Efforts (FORE). The authors would also like to thank the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office for contributing their state experiences for this blog.
States Take Diverse Approaches to Drug Affordability Boards
/in Policy Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio Blogs, Featured News Home Administrative Actions, Legal Resources, Model Legislation, Newly-Enacted Laws, Prescription Drug Pricing, State Rx Legislative Action /by Johanna Butler, Jennifer Reck and Trish RileyAs states take important steps to lower prescription drug costs, at least six have implemented prescription drug affordability review initiatives, although approaches vary across states. The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP)’s new chart, Comparison of State Prescription Drug Affordability Review Initiatives, provides a road map of the diverse efforts taken by Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio.
NASHP’s Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) model legislation, first released in 2017, defines a PDAB as an entity comparable to a public utility commission, with the ability to establish upper payment limits when a state’s PDAB determines a drug is otherwise unaffordable for state health care purchasers and consumers.
This chart compares state prescription drug affordability review initiatives in Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio.
Maryland’s PDAB Phased-in Approach
Maryland’s PDAB, enacted in 2019, was based on the NASHP model but initially limits the board’s ability to set upper payment limits to only public purchasers, pending approval by the state legislature. The landmark Maryland law also includes a phased-in approach that could eventually establish upper payment limits for all payers in the state, including the commercial market. The start-up cost for the Maryland PDAB is roughly $750,000 and covers five full-time employees. The funding mechanism for Maryland’s board was vetoed by Gov. Larry Hogan, however the General Assembly recently overrode the veto.
In determining whether a drug is unaffordable, the Maryland board can consider a variety of factors, including:
- The wholesale acquisition cost (manufacturers’ list price) or another relevant drug cost index;
- Average rebates provided to health plans, pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers;
- Net drug prices; and
- Average patient copay.
In its early meetings, the board began to outline a list of potential drug pricing data sources it will need to access in order to determine an appropriate upper payment limit.
State Approaches that Leverage Purchasing Power
Maine and New Hampshire have also enacted laws creating their own unique PDABs. While these boards are called PDABs, it is important to note that, unlike Maryland, they do not have the authority to set payment limits, but are instead focused on leveraging public purchasing power to lower drug costs.
To accomplish that mission, Maine and New Hampshire’s boards are charged with recommending strategies for public purchasers to lower the cost of prescription drugs in order to meet drug spending targets that will be established by the boards. Ohio enacted a law creating a Prescription Drug Transparency and Affordability Council, but the law does not aim to set upper payment limits. Instead, it established a group of stakeholders to provide recommendations to the governor and legislature on actions that could lower drug costs in Ohio.
Medicaid Models
In addition to the models described above, New York and Massachusetts are engaged in affordability review initiatives that focus on drugs purchased by their states’ Medicaid agencies. As NASHP’s new chart shows, New York and Massachusetts use affordability reviews and direct negotiations with drug manufacturers to attain supplemental rebates on high-cost drugs.
Using Canadian Prices to Set Upper Payment Limits
NASHP’s model legislation’s key strategy was to set enforceable upper payment limits for prescription drugs in order to rein in drug prices. However, particularly with COVID-19’s impact on state budgets, not every state has the resources and capacity to establish a new entity to oversee the robust review of drug costs necessary to establish upper payment limits through a PDAB. During the 2020 legislative session, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee vetoed a number of bills based on cost concerns, including a measure that would have established a PDAB.
In the current 2021 legislative session, four states have introduced bills to establish a PDAB but others have refrained due to budget constraints. To support states facing those budget pressures, NASHP has also released a less costly, alternative approach to setting an upper payment limit – NASHP’s international reference rate model.
Using Canadian drug prices, the model allows a state insurance department to set an upper payment limit for up to 250 high-cost drugs (determined by drug price times utilization). A state could revise the model and use an affordability board structure as well. Canadian prices, which are established with reference to prices in various comparable countries, offer a less costly and labor-intensive process of determining upper payment limits.
Lawmakers in five states (HI, ME, OK, ND, and RI) have introduced or pre-filed bills based on the NASHP’s international reference rate model legislation and more bills are expected to be filed. To learn more about NASHP’s legislative models to curb drug costs and estimated savings from each of them, please contact Jennifer Reck.
Federal 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 CousartGuest Blog: Massachusetts Attorney General Issues Recommendations to Address Health Inequities
/in Policy Massachusetts Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Noam Yossefy and Sandra WolitzkyTo showcase what states are doing to address health disparities that the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare, the National Academy for State Health Policy is highlighting state initiatives through reports and guest blogs, such as this one by Massachusetts Attorney General Office Health Care Analyst Noam Yossefy and Assistant Attorney General Sandra Wolitzky.
A new report, Building Toward Racial Justice and Equity in Health: A Call to Action, released in November 2020 by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey outlines a series of recommendations to address longstanding health disparities and the disproportionate toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has taken on communities of color in Massachusetts.
The report identifies a set of priority areas that are critical to reducing health inequities. The five domains for action include data for identifying and addressing health disparities, equitable distribution of health care resources, telehealth as a tool for expanding equitable access to care, health care workforce diversity, and social determinants of health and root causes of health inequities.
Within each domain, the report offers actionable recommendations, including the following:
Health Care Data
- Improve the collection and reporting of data on patient race, ethnicity, geographic and other demographic characteristics to help stakeholders better understand existing disparities and develop targeted strategies to address them.
- Establish and measure statewide equity benchmarks to demonstrate commitment to advancing health equity and racial justice.
Equitable Distribution of Resources
- Promote equitable health care provider payment rates to ensure that low-income communities and communities of color have access to the same resources available to any other community in order to meet their health needs.
- Reduce patient cost sharing during the pandemic for primary care, behavioral health, and prescription drugs for certain chronic conditions so that underserved patients can get the services they need during the COVID-19 emergency.
Telehealth and Clinical Access
- Address the divide in digital access by increasing the availability of free and low-cost internet plans and devices and making sure that underserved patients are aware of available resources.
- Support coverage and payment parity for telehealth services, including telephonic visits, where clinically appropriate, for the next two years.
- Ensure equitable access for individuals with disabilities and limited English proficiency through standardized provider procedures and accommodation services to minimize existing disparities in clinical care.
Workforce Diversity
- Expand affordable and inclusive educational opportunities to increase access to health professions.
- Include anti-racist and cultural humility training in medical education, licensure, and certification processes.
Social Determinants of Health
- Prioritize investments in key social determinants of health — including education, employment, housing, the environment, and violence — in order to address upstream inequities that lead to health disparities.
- Explore new models to bring together stakeholders who can apply a health equity lens to regional decisions that affect social determinants of health, such as regional health equity authorities.
While some of the recommendations require legislation, many can be implemented immediately by health care stakeholders changing their policies or practices. “Our health care system works well for many, but the disparate effects of the pandemic provide a somber reminder that our system fails to equitably serve communities of color,” Attorney General Healey explained. “The intent of this report is to advance the urgent work that is needed to address these disparities. COVID-19 has shown us that these actions cannot wait.”
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. 























































































































































