Posts
State Efforts to Ban or Enforce COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Passports
/in COVID-19 State Action Center Featured News Home, Maps COVID-19, Featured Policy Home, Health Equity, Population Health, Relief and Recovery, Social Determinants of Health, Vaccines /by NASHP Staff and Ella RothIndiana’s Approach to Supporting Mobile Integrated Health Programs
/in Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD Indiana Featured News Home, Reports /by Jodi ManzState Strategies to Increase COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in Children
/in COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Resource Center Blogs, Featured News Home Back to School, COVID-19, Relief and Recovery, Vaccines /by Michelle Fiscus and Rebecca CooperCOVID-19 vaccines have been available for children ages 5-11 since October 29, 2021. As of March 16, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that just one-third (33%) of children in this age group have received their first vaccine dose, with vaccination rates varying widely by state. Just twenty-six percent of 5–11-year-olds have been fully vaccinated.
The ten states with the highest fully vaccinated rates among children ages 5-11 years (Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Connecticut, Virginia, Minnesota, and Illinois) have adopted creative approaches to promoting COVID-19 vaccination.
This blog highlights several of these approaches, which states may consider adopting when encouraging parents to get their children vaccinated against COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable diseases. These strategies may be extended to vaccination activities for 6-month to 4-year-olds once COVID-19 vaccines receive emergency use authorization for this age group from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Incentives
Many states have offered incentives to encourage COVID-19 vaccination. These incentives range from college scholarships to free food, with mixed results when evaluated for impact on vaccination uptake. A randomized clinical trial in Sweden in 2021 demonstrated that monetary incentives increased vaccination rates by approximately 4 percent. Other research has suggested incentives are most effective when three criteria are met: receipt of the incentive is certain, incentives are delivered immediately, and the recipients value the incentives. Several states in the top 10 for vaccine coverage offered incentives for vaccinating children ages 5-11, including:
- Vermont created the School Vaccine Incentive Program in December 2021, which provides monetary awards to schools achieving an 85 percent student vaccination rate. Schools are awarded $15 per vaccinated student with a minimum award of $2000 and a maximum award of $10,000. Schools achieving at least 90 percent student vaccination rate can apply for an additional 50 percent of the initial award, up to a maximum award of $15,000. The state is using federal emergency funds to support the program, which runs through April 1, 2022.
- Minnesota launched its “Kids Deserve a Shot!” campaign, providing families with a $200 Visa gift card if their 5-11-year-old child received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine between January 1 and February 28, 2022. More than 22,000 children registered to receive a gift card as a result of this program. On March 1st, the Governor announced that any Minnesota parent or guardian whose 5 to 11-year-old had ever received both doses of COVID-19 vaccine by April 11, 2022, can enter to win one of five $100,000 Minnesota College Scholarships. This strategy was modeled after the state’s successful program to vaccinate children ages 12-17.
- Six months after 12-17-year-olds became eligible, the state launched the program to help drive up vaccination in the youth population, which had the lowest vaccination rate at the time. Within one week of the start of the campaign, first dose vaccinations increased nearly 40%. The state offered a $200 Visa gift card for 12-17-year-olds who started and completed their vaccine series within a six-week window, and five drawings of $100,000 Minnesota college scholarships for any Minnesotan 12-17 years old with a complete vaccine series.
School-located Vaccination Clinics
States play an important role in the success of school-based COVID-19 vaccination clinics. States can support schools with coordination of efforts, financial support, and media outreach in addition to providing vaccination supplies, personal protective equipment, and personnel to support these activities.
- Virginia recently published a playbook to support school-based vaccination events. “Vaccination of the School-Age Population in a School Setting and in the Community: Playbook to Support Vaccination Events” was created in partnership with the state’s immunization coalition, Vaccinate VA, and provides information for planning and conducting school-located COVID-19 vaccination clinics for the 5- to 11-year-old population.
- Connecticut published its “#Vax2SchoolCT” toolkit, which outlined step-by-step logistical considerations and recommendations for promotion and outreach. The toolkit provides a letter template for communications to students and families as well as information on the state’s “Vaccine+ Program,” which connects families to resources such as water and heating assistance.
- In Hawaii, schools were the main staging ground for administering COVID-19 vaccinations to children ages 5-11, with over 100 public, private, and charter schools holding vaccination clinics.
- Illinois organized 756 elementary school districts to offer vaccination clinics for students ages 5-11 on school grounds. Their mobile vaccination teams conducted more than 870 school and youth events when vaccines became available for 12-17-year-old students.
Parent-friendly Websites
States can provide public-facing information that is easy to access and navigate and that makes choosing to get vaccinated the easy choice. Several states have webpages dedicated to COVID-19 vaccinations for children.
- Vermont’s dedicated website for pediatric COVID-19 vaccines, “Just for Them!”, provides an online consent form and pre-vaccination checklist translated in many languages. Twenty-five percent of Vermont’s 5–11-year-old population registered to receive a vaccine within eight hours of opening registration to the public.
- Minnesota posted their “COVID-19 Vaccines and Kids: What Pediatricians Are Saying,” video to the state’s website, providing information to parents who may be hesitant about getting their children vaccinated.
- Massachusetts has a dedicated website for COVID-19 vaccines for 5-11-year-old children that includes a downloadable consent form, answers to frequently asked questions, and includes a chatbot that can answer COVID-19 vaccine-related questions in real time.
Partnerships
States can partner with organizations such as their state chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, state and local immunization coalitions, and hospitals to help build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and improve access to vaccination for children. For example:
- Vermont and the Vermont Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics partnered to provide Facebook live “Chapter Family Forum” events featuring Vermont pediatricians who discussed the importance of vaccinating children against COVID-19.
- Rhode Island and Lifespan’s Hasbro’s Children’s Hospital partnered to provide hospital-based COVID-19 vaccination clinics for children ages 5 to 11.
- Minnesota partnered with the Mall of America to vaccinate children. The Mall of America clinic had the capacity to vaccinate 1,500 children per day.
- Massachusetts partnered with museums such as the Discovery Museum in Action, Boston’s Museum of Science, and the EcoTarium Museum to offer age-specific vaccination clinics for younger children.
- Illinois announced that the Illinois Department of Public Health had “reached out to every pediatrician in the state to enroll them in the vaccine distribution program” and then called on parents to call their pediatricians and make sure they had enrolled and ordered doses. The state enrolled more than 2,200 locations to provide vaccinations to 5-11-year-olds, including more than 700 medical practices, more than 700 pharmacies, 100 urgent care centers, 112 local health departments and public health clinics, 270 federally qualified health centers, more than 200 hospitals, and dozens of rural health clinics.
Media
Federal funding has provided states with unprecedented opportunities to create media messages promoting COVID-19 vaccinations for children. States can play a vital role in building vaccine confidence and promoting vaccination for children through media. Examples of such messages include:
- Vermont partnered with Vermont Public Radio’s “But Why: Podcast for Curious Kids” to explain the importance of kids getting COVID-19 vaccines and hear from kids who took part in COVID-19 vaccine trials.
- Maine announced a contest for children ages 5 to 17 to create a short video that explains the benefits of getting the COVID-19 vaccine or the risk of not getting vaccinated. The first place winner was awarded $50,000 for their school, with $25,000 going to second place and $10,000 to third place. Schools can use the prize money to supplement school meals with healthy treats; purchase playground, classroom, gym, sports, or music equipment; enhance a special school activity; or support a school field trip for all students.
- Maryland partnered with the Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics to create a public service announcement featuring pediatric health care providers from around the state who encourage parents to get their children vaccinated against COVID-19.
- Illinois, in partnership with the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, created a COVID-19 Pediatric Vaccine Social Media Toolkit to provide credible, informative, and diverse social media messaging to promote COVID-19 vaccination for children ages 5 years and older. The toolkit included pediatric vaccination flyers, social media digital resources, and videos, including a video from the director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, who is a board-certified internist and pediatrician and the first Black woman appointed to lead the agency.
With FDA emergency use authorization of COVID-19 vaccines on the horizon for children ages 6 months to 4 years-old, states will need to continue to find new and innovative approaches to encourage parents to vaccinate their children and to ensure vaccinations are readily accessible.
How 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.
How States Are Leveraging Payment to Improve the Delivery of SUD Services
/in Opioid Center Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Relief and Recovery /by Neva KayeStrategies to Increase COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in Medicaid Enrollees: Considerations for State Leaders
/in COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Resource Center Featured News Home, Reports COVID-19, Relief and Recovery, Vaccines /by NASHP StaffThe 2021 American Rescue Plan Act’s Major Health Care Provisions
/in COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Resource Center Blogs, Featured News Home Consumer Affordability, COVID-19, Eligibility and Enrollment, Equity, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Housing and Health, Medicaid Expansion, Population Health, Relief and Recovery, Social Determinants of Health, State Insurance Marketplaces, Workforce Capacity Recovery and Relief /by Christina CousartState Strategies for Vaccinating Individuals Experiencing Homelessness against COVID-19
/in COVID-19 State Action Center Blogs, Featured News Home COVID-19, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health, Vaccines /by Ariella LevisohnIndividuals experiencing homelessness often face more barriers to obtaining a COVID-19 vaccination than others. As more vaccines become available and supplies increase, new and emerging best practices for vaccinating individuals in homeless shelters may help states more efficiently vaccinate other hard-to-reach or medically vulnerable populations, such as those living in rural areas or congregate settings.
Introduction
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classifies individuals experiencing homelessness as a high-risk population. Homeless shelters are congregate settings, which can facilitate the rapid spread of COVID-19 infection, and many individuals who are homeless also suffer from other medical conditions that put them at high risk of COVID-19-related complications. While some states group all individuals residing in congregate settings into one vaccination priority category, others specifically identify individuals in homeless shelters as a priority population. As a result, these individuals’ vaccination eligibility differs between states.
According to a recent analysis by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), 34 states explicitly include residents of homeless shelters as a priority population. A few states, including Wyoming and Washington, DC, explicitly prioritize “individuals experiencing homelessness.” Washington State lists “people experiencing homelessness that access services or live in congregate settings (e.g., shelters, temporary housing)” in its latest vaccine prioritization plan.
Every state has changed its eligibility criteria and prioritization guidelines as the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have issued new recommendations based on the constantly changing vaccine rollout picture. Some states have identified these individuals in their plans and moved this population up in priority, while others have instead reprioritized other populations. For example, Wyoming recently moved individuals experiencing homelessness up in their prioritization. Arizona elevated individuals with high-risk medical conditions living in shelters as well all adults in congregate settings. Wisconsin added individuals in homeless shelters and in transitional housing to a priority phase of the state plan after previously not prioritizing this population. As of March 1, 2021, 15 states were vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness.
Challenges
In addition to the general vaccine distribution challenges states are facing – such as limited vaccine supplies, tracking data on doses administered, personnel shortages, and vaccine hesitancy – vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness has its own difficulties:
- Conflicting priorities: On top of concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of the health care system, many individuals experiencing homelessness are hesitant to receive the vaccine because they see other challenges – such as housing status, food insecurity, and financial instability – as more immediate concerns.
- Transportation barriers: Many individuals experiencing homelessness face transportation barriers that prevent them from traveling to mass vaccination clinics.
- Tracking second doses: For those who receive the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, the state must figure out how to track where individuals are to ensure they receive their second dose and are fully immunized. It is particularly challenging for states to track second doses for individuals who are only in a shelter temporarily, or primarily live on the street.
- Limited technology: Many people living on the street or in shelters do not have internet access, and therefore cannot sign up for vaccine appointments through state websites.
- Connection to health care providers: Individuals experiencing homelessness are less likely to be connected to health care providers or health care systems, making it more difficult to get an appointment or find out when they are eligible.
- Vaccine Storage: In order to reach individuals living on the street, providers need to be able to transport doses to encampments and other areas where individuals frequently live. However, the vaccines’ refrigerated storage requirements make bringing doses directly to individuals on the street difficult.
States are working diligently to determine strategies and best practices for vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness. As supply increases and becomes less of a barrier to vaccine administration, it is critical to address access-related barriers that may prevent some individuals from receiving the vaccine and exacerbate existing health disparities.
State Approaches
As with most decisions related to vaccine distribution, eligibility criteria for priority populations has been left to states. Of the limited states already vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness, many have turned to private organizations to aid in vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness. In these cases, the state distributes doses to nonprofit organizations that work to address homelessness or provide health care to the homeless, and these organizations take the lead in organizing clinics and administering doses.
Since early February 2021, the Washington, DC Department of Human Services has partnered with Unity Health Care, the District’s largest network of federally qualified heath centers, to hold vaccination clinics at homeless shelters. Unity Health Care is also trying to vaccinate individuals living on the street when possible through case managers and outreach teams. Washington, DC is eliminating certain barriers to vaccination for individuals experiencing homelessness, including waiving the requirement to provide an ID at appointments, giving individuals waterproof wallets in which to keep their vaccination cards, and providing free transportation to clinics located at some homeless shelters.
In Connecticut, the state and local health departments are coordinating vaccination efforts in congregate facilities – including homeless shelters – affiliated with the state, and partnering with private nonprofits to actually administer the doses. Some hospitals and cities in Connecticut are also using mobile vaccination clinics to reach individuals in congregate settings.
In Massachusetts, the nonprofit Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP) is playing a crucial role in vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness in the Boston area. BHCHP is leveraging the City of Boston’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) – which connects to their electronic health records system Epic – in conjunction with the state’s Immunization Information System (IIS) to track first doses administered and to send out second dose text reminders. Shelter can access these reminders and provide outreach to patients to make sure they get their second doses. BHCHP is also using their grant funding and their own funding to incentivize vaccinations among the populations they serve, including providing gift cards, clothing, and snacks and combatting vaccine hesitancy by training individuals experiencing homelessness to provide peer counseling. To date, the nonprofit reports it has been successful at ensuring individuals return for their second doses. BHCHP also announced plans to start vaccinating individuals living on the street. They hope to use a van to store doses while they drive to areas where individuals on the street often live.
As states try to simultaneously provide information about vaccination clinic locations, recruit and train personnel to administer vaccines, monitor individuals after vaccination, and plan mass clinics, nonprofits are a valuable resource for reaching specific populations. Many private organizations, especially those already working to address homelessness and housing insecurity, have existing relationships with individuals experiencing homelessness and are already trusted service providers. They have been providing outreach to these communities throughout the pandemic and are poised to take on some of the work of vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness.
Looking Forward
Because demand for the vaccine still exceeds supply, states are challenged to prioritize their populations. States have to make tough decisions that promote health equity, decrease infection rates, promote vaccine efficiency, and prevent deaths. States that have not yet started vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness can learn from others that are already vaccinating this population so that they can more effectively reach those living in shelters and on the street.
As states – and their partnering nonprofits – pilot strategies like mobile vaccine clinics and offer incentive payments and peer counseling in order to reach individuals experiencing homelessness and encourage vaccinations, these and similar initiatives can inform efforts to vaccinate other hard-to-reach populations.
Acknowledgements: This blog is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award totaling $250,000 with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS. The contents are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS or the US government. CDC General Terms and Conditions for Non-research Awards, Revised: February 2021.
States Work to Improve Long-Term Care in the Age of COVID-19
/in The RAISE Act Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin Blogs, Featured News Home Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, COVID-19, Health Equity, Long-Term Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, State Resources, The RAISE Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center /by Paige SpradlinNursing home residents account for at least one-third of COVID-19 deaths, and this disparity reveals numerous problems with infection control in institutional settings. As a result, many states are rethinking and restructuring their long-term services and supports (LTSS) programs.
A recent National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) annual conference session explored what states have learned during the current health crisis that could improve LTSS during and beyond the pandemic. State officials from Washington State, Wisconsin, and Ohio highlighted their states’ responses to the current crisis, emerging innovations, and prospects for restructuring LTSS in a post-COVID-19 era.
Maximizing the Flexibility of Home- and Community-Based Waiver Services
Washington State, home to the first nursing home to be ravaged by COVID-19 in the United States, immediately worked with federal partners to maximize the flexibility of home- and community-based waiver services following its first reported case. The state was among the first to receive approval from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for its 1135 and 1115 Medicaid waivers, which provided enrollees with increased access to services during the COVID-19 pandemic and additional supports to LTSS workers. State officials noted that the presumptive eligibility measures incorporated into these new waivers ensured that individuals were able to access the LTSS they need without having to wait for their applications to be fully processed. This flexibility has helped minimize administrative burdens on eligibility workers as states face increased demands on their Medicaid programs.
Like Washington State, Wisconsin utilized waivers to implement much-needed flexibility within its home- and community-based services (HCBS) provided through the state’s 1915(c) Medicaid waiver. Importantly, the state expanded the ability of its HCBS agencies to provide waiver services remotely, including care coordination and day services. The state also modified service delivery for Medicaid acute primary services, allowing these to be delivered through telehealth and other technologies to comply with social distancing.
Leveraging State Resources to Prevent and Contain Outbreaks for High-Risk Individuals
To contain and prevent outbreaks, Ohio relied on the following guiding principles to support its nursing facilities throughout the pandemic:
- Leverage regional and local leadership to coordinate a unified response; and
- Provide resources to support nursing facilities, including additional health services and technical assistance. These efforts were supported by $314 million from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), some of which was provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, that was specifically dedicated to Ohio skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Each SNF in Ohio with six or more certified beds was eligible to receive a fixed distribution of $50,000 plus an additional $2,500 per bed.
To coordinate a unified state COVID-19 response, Gov. Mike DeWine and leaders from a major hospital chain created three health care zones divided among the state’s large metro areas to manage hospital capacity and maintain patient level of care during an anticipated surge in hospitalization services. State officials in the three health care zones paired nursing facilities with local hospitals to manage distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE) and to ensure that staff were well-equipped to treat patients.
Additionally, the state developed the following resources to support nursing facilities, staff, and patients throughout the pandemic:
- A toolkit developed by the Ohio Department of Aging, Department of Health, Department of Developmental Disabilities, and Department of Medicaid to assist nursing facilities with assessing residents and determining their care needs during a COVID-related surge in service utilization;
- Increased testing services for nursing facility staff as mandated by a Public Health Order signed by the director of the Ohio Department of Health and conducted by the Ohio National Guard over a period of two months; and
- Congregate Care Unified Response Team (CCURT) Bridge Team, composed of staff from the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Department of Medicaid, to assist nursing home staff with decision making in emergency situations and coordinating facility communication with relevant state agencies, the Emergency Operations Center, health care zones, and hospitals in the area.
Many of the steps taken by Ohio state officials track with the principal recommendations issued by the CMS-appointed Coronavirus Commission Report for Safety and Quality in Nursing Homes, including establishing a statewide strategy for testing in nursing homes, coordinating with state and local leadership, leveraging resources to support the nursing home workforce, and assembling a long-term care emergency response team to evaluate and guide emergency care coordination. With these strategies and systems in place, Ohio and other states now have the infrastructure to better manage infection control in institutional settings for future public health emergencies.
Post-COVID-19 Planning
While many of the policy changes highlighted here are temporary and in effect only during the pandemic, it is important to understand the impact of these changes on cost and quality of life to determine which, if any, should be retained after the pandemic. State officials from Washington State, Ohio, and Wisconsin reported they found the following flexibilities especially helpful:
- Presumptive eligibility for LTSS, so the state can initiate home- and community-based services as quickly as possible;
- Waiving plan signatures and self-attestation in favor of post-enrollment verification to ensure that enrollees receive timely supports; and
- Flexibilities for respite care for family caregivers, particularly those supporting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, to reduce stress and burnout.
State officials noted it would be helpful to receive support from CMS in retaining these flexibilities. State officials also suggested that broader legislative changes to Medicaid, such as streamlining Medicaid authorities that support HCBS and making HCBS mandatory state plan services on par with nursing home care, would help reduce administrative complexity and facilitate rebalancing efforts.
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. 























































































































































