Recent State Actions that Support and Expand Palliative Care
/in Palliative Care, Policy Charts, Featured News Home, Maps Building Infrastructure, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Framing the Message, Palliative Care, Population Health, Reimbursement Strategies, State Recommended Resources /by Mia AntezzoEligibility Levels for Pregnancy-Related Coverage in Medicaid and CHIP
/in Policy Featured News Home, Maps CHIP, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Eligibility and Enrollment, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Infant Mortality, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, State Insurance Marketplaces /by Anita CardwellEligibility Levels for Pregnancy-Related Coverage in Medicaid and CHIP
State Community Health Worker Models
/in Community Health Workers Featured News Home, Maps Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Community Health Workers, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs, Long-Term Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home Community Health Workers /by NASHP StaffHow States Address Social Determinants of Oral Health in Managed Care Contracts
/in Medicaid Managed Care Maps Child Oral Health, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, CHIP, CHIP, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Essential Health Benefits, Health Coverage and Access, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Oral Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health, Special Populations and Services /by NASHP StaffThrough Coordination and Investment, Arizona Substantially Increases Access to School-Based Behavioral Health Services
/in COVID-19 State Action Center, Policy Arizona Blogs, Featured News Home Back to School, Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, EPSDT, Health Equity, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Anita Cardwell and Gia GouldBy leveraging federal Medicaid funding and state investment while simultaneously clarifying complex billing procedures and enhancing engagement with providers, Arizona has made remarkable progress in increasing student access to critical school-based behavioral health services.
Arizona’s efforts to improve school behavioral health services began in 2018 when its state legislature allocated $3 million from the state’s general fund to expand these services. The state’s Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), and the Arizona Department of Education (DOE) used $1 million of this funding to provide schools with mental health training, and the remaining $2 million was matched with federal Medicaid funds, resulting in a total $10 million in Medicaid funding to increase the number of behavioral health providers in schools.
To obtain Medicaid reimbursement for school-based services under the Medicaid School-Based Claiming (MSBC) program, Arizona’s local education agencies (LEAs) use two school-based claiming programs, the Direct Service Claiming (DSC) program and the Medicaid Administrative Claiming (MAC) program. LEAs seek Medicaid reimbursement through the DSC program to cover the cost of providing medical and behavioral health services to Medicaid-eligible students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The MAC program provides LEAs with reimbursement for administrative outreach services for Medicaid that are conducted in school settings. The state contracts with a third-party administrator, Public Consulting Group (PCG), to process Medicaid school-based claims.
In addition to claims processed through the MSBC program for students with IEPs, Medicaid services delivered by behavioral health providers contracted through one of AHCCCS’ managed care organizations can be reimbursed by Medicaid regardless of whether the student has an IEP.
Challenges and Solutions
Improving partnerships and coordination between schools and providers: While Arizona provided school behavioral health services before 2018, the additional state funding helped prioritize these services and facilitated the development of new relationships between behavioral health providers and schools. State officials reported that prior to the initiative to promote school-based behavioral health services, there were some challenges related to establishing relationships between schools and providers.
For example, some school administrators were skeptical if they could bill for school-based services or were concerned about the logistics of providing appropriate space to conduct behavioral health services without interrupting usual school activities. Many of these issues have been addressed through extensive and ongoing training sessions with both school administrators and provider groups. State officials also credited the cross-sector workgroup meetings that are held on a regular basis with helping improve interagency relationships.
Another key factor in Arizona’s success was incentivizing partnerships between schools and behavioral health provider agencies to create a differential adjusted payment for behavioral health providers. The enhanced payment became effective in October 2019, and provides a 1 percent rate increase for providers that have a memorandum of understanding with three or more schools to provide behavioral health services, and a 3 percent rate increase for providers that are autism Centers of Excellence.
State officials at AHCCCS also are in the process of improving data sharing with the DOE. By matching school identifier numbers on claims for services provided on a school campus, or as the result of a referral from an educational entity, the state will be able to obtain a better understanding of where and which services are delivered. Improving these data-matching processes will also provide information about where students are being referred for additional services and help identify where future focus should be directed within the state to enhance school-based behavioral health services.
Another key partnership to support students’ behavioral health needs is AHCCCS’ collaboration with the Arizona DOE on several grants, including Project Aware, which is funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Project AWARE works with three school districts to provide suicide prevention and behavioral health resources.
Addressing lack of behavioral health providers and service delivery challenges: Arizona state officials identified the lack of behavioral health providers, particularly in rural regions, as an issue faced by many states. However, Arizona officials are pleased and encouraged by the number of providers who are participating in the state’s expansion of school-based behavioral health services. One factor that likely incentivized greater provider engagement was the implementation of the differential adjusted payment, although state officials indicated that there had already been a growing interest among behavioral health providers to develop new school partnerships to reach more students due to the statewide focus on the issue.
School districts in Arizona have also developed creative solutions to connect their students to behavioral health services. One school district in Arizona responded to provider shortages and space limitations by setting up a dedicated mobile unit in the school parking lot for behavioral health services. Prior to bringing in the mobile clinic, providers did not have financial incentives to travel to the school because it was difficult to secure an appropriate office during the school day. With the mobile unit, the district can provide consistency for their providers as well as a private space for students to receive behavioral health care. However, because the care is not technically provided in the school building, the district needed to work with the state Medicaid agency to find a way to appropriately bill under school-based behavioral health services.
Clarifying qualifying services and billing procedures: The state’s increased focus on the provision of behavioral health services in schools also helped to improve the accuracy of billing code processes. When efforts to expand school-based behavioral health services were initially launched, state officials at AHCCCS actively worked to address some of the existing misunderstandings about the allowability for those services to be provided at a school campus outside of the MSBC program. State officials recognized that due to errors in coding related to where services are provided, some school-based behavioral health services were not being correctly captured, resulting in the state not having a clear picture of the scope of services being provided to students.
To address these issues, AHCCCS coordinated and led many informational learning sessions throughout the state for both educators and provider agencies, including trainings about billing procedures. Once providers learned how to assign the correct place of service code, state officials reported a notable increase in the quantity of behavioral health services provided. State officials attributed the increase not only to the coding improvements that more accurately captured completed work, but also due to new services provided as a result of the state’s overall emphasis and investment in school behavioral health services.
Like many states, Arizona uses a Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) to assess the amount of time providers spend engaged in Medicaid-reimbursable activities. Each LEA has a RMTS coordinator who facilitates the administration of the program. As the third-party administrator, PCG manages the overall RMTS process, and provides program-specific introductory trainings for new coordinators and LEAs as well as recurring trainings to provide program updates and address areas of concern. AHCCCS coordinates with PCG to improve the RMTS process, and at present, AHCCCS consistently meets RMTS compliance standards, despite having to transition to virtual trainings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Effect of COVID-19: The transition to mobile learning due to COVID-19-related school closures has presented an opportunity for schools to provide behavioral health services through virtual platforms. State officials report there has been a reduction in the number of claims that use place-of-service codes, which indicate when services are provided at an educational institution, most likely due to the decrease in the number of students attending school in person because of the pandemic. However, officials indicated that they have observed a dramatic increase in the amount of behavioral health services currently delivered through telehealth as more students have had to operate within a remote learning environment.
For districts without local providers, the ability to work with students without travel has helped connect more children to care. According to one Arizona state official, many behavioral health providers have gone above and beyond to connect with children whose need for care has been exacerbated by stress and isolation resulting from the pandemic.
State officials said there is anecdotal evidence that the pandemic has caused an increase in the number of parents expressing concern that their children are exhibiting depression and/or suicidal tendencies. However, officials also noted they have observed a greater willingness among parents to discuss issues concerning mental health, which could result in parents more actively advocating to ensure that schools continue to offer behavioral health services.
Overall Success
Since the start of the state’s efforts to expand behavioral health services in schools in 2018, officials report progress has been remarkably successful throughout 2019 and into early 2020, and there has been a substantial increase in the number of students who have received behavioral health services from an educational entity or institution. While declines in the number of youth suicides cannot be directly correlated with the state’s expansion of behavioral health services — and data from the effect of the pandemic is not yet available — there was a 41 percent decrease in youth suicides from 2018 through 2019.
State officials report their efforts have been so successful that in 2020 the state legislature passed SB 1523, which established and allocated $8 million to a new Children’s Behavioral Health Services Fund that will further enhance school-based behavioral health services. The fund will be administered by AHCCCS and provides behavioral health services to students who are not Medicaid-eligible but are uninsured or under-insured and who receive a referral for services from an educational institution.
In reflecting on lessons from Arizona’s expansion of school-based behavioral health services that might be used by other states, officials explained that determining how to handle nuanced billing situations, such as telehealth and the state’s mobile unit, was an important factor in ensuring that all provided services were accurately captured and reimbursed. They commented, “If Arizona can do it, anyone can do it — we are ranked 51st in [the nation for] education funding, and we have the poorest counselor-to-student ratio in the nation…that said, we have this great state Medicaid agency, and we’ve been able to figure out how to reach more kids with the dollars given to us. And so, if Arizona can figure out how to do this sort of work and get these partners on school campuses, then any other state can do this.”
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank state officials from Arizona for their time and contribution to this publication. Support for this work was provided by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
New Federal Resources Can Support States’ Affordable and Supportive Housing Programs
/in COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Resource Center Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Relief and Recovery, Social Determinants of Health /by Allie AtkesonAcross the nation, COVID-19 has exacerbated the dual challenges of housing affordability and homelessness. As states address these issues, there are new federal resources available through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and proposed American Jobs Plan that states can deploy efficiently and equitably.
The economic impact from COVID-19 has left 30 to 40 million Americans at risk of eviction with a disproportionate impact on low-income communities of color. To avoid homelessness, many individuals and families have sought housing with friends and family, leading to crowding and increased coronavirus transmission. The pandemic has also greatly impacted individuals currently experiencing homelessness and living in congregate shelters. In New York City, the age-adjusted mortality rate from COVID-19 among sheltered people experiencing homelessness was 50 percent higher than the rest of the population’s cumulative rate as of February 2021.
For more information about NASHP’s health and housing institute opportunity, please view the request for applications due Friday, April 30, 2021.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) is launching its Second Health and Housing Institute. The goal of the institute is to help states break down inter-agency silos and strengthen services and supports to help low-income and vulnerable populations become and remain successfully housed. Permanent supportive housing programs require affordable housing and housing-related services financed by Medicaid. Importantly, the new institute will focus on state deployment and execution of newly available federal resources.
With the passage of ARPA and the proposed American Jobs Plan, the following are new programs, policy, and funding opportunities:
Eviction Prevention and Affordable Housing:
- In late March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky extended the temporary halt in residential evictions until June 30, 2021. Under the eviction moratorium, individuals must declare their inability to pay rent due to the loss of income or employment to avoid eviction.
- ARPA allocated $21.5 billion for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). ERAP funds will be released by early May 2021 to support eligible households in which one or more individuals are experiencing unemployment or housing instability. Financial assistance is limited to 18 months.
- $100 million in grants to organizations approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that provide housing counseling services to households experiencing housing instability. Housing counseling includes information on renting, mortgage defaults, foreclosures, and credit issues.
- $5 billion allocated in ARPA for emergency housing vouchers. Vouchers serve as emergency rental assistance and voucher renewals for people experiencing homelessness, at risk of homelessness, experiencing housing instability, or fleeing intimate partner violence.
Supportive Housing and Homelessness Assistance:
- $5 billion in federal funding to states for the Homelessness Assistance and Supportive Services Program. This funding will be distributed to states to acquire and develop properties for supportive housing programs, tenant-based rental assistance, and supportive services, including housing counseling and homeless prevention services. Funding can also be used for the supportive housing workforce and service providers.
Home- and Community-Based Services:
- President Biden’s proposed American Jobs Plan includes $400 billion to strengthen home- and community-based services for seniors and people with disabilities. This funding will also raise wages for home health care workers and support the Money Follows the Person program to provide services for individuals in communities rather than nursing homes. Both home-and community-based services and the Money Follows the Person program are essential components of supportive housing.
These newly available resources provide states with opportunities to support, expand, and develop programs for those experiencing homelessness, housing instability, and populations that benefit from supportive housing. States will play an important role in determining how resources are distributed equitably to communities that have historically been denied federal housing resources and those most in need. In addition, some funding will go directly to local governments, public housing authorities and HUD-approved nonprofits. States can work collaboratively with these partners on shared agendas around housing stability and homelessness to strengthen health outcomes.
Acknowledgement: This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U2MOA394670100, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the US government. The author would also like to thank the Corporation for Supportive Housing for their analysis of the American Rescue Plan Act.
Earth Day 2021: State Officials Work to Address Climate Change and Improve Health
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Equity, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Johanna Butler, Rebecca Cooper and Elinor HigginsAmid the coronavirus pandemic, state officials have continued to plan for and address another looming public health crisis – climate change. In recognition of Earth Day, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) interviewed state officials to learn how they are preparing for the health impacts of climate change. The interviews revealed a wealth of long-term planning and work as state leaders:
- Embed equity into their climate and health strategies and investment efforts;
- Use scientific research and evidence to inform their policy decisions;
- Commit to immediate and long-term actions to address climate change through planning and investments; and
- Continue collaboration with federal partners, particularly as Congress considers a new infrastructure package and budget.
Climate change is expected to pose serious impacts on the health of all Americans. From severe weather events to the impact of pollution and increases in tick- and mosquito-borne diseases, state officials are considering the effect climate change will have on their population’s health needs, care delivery, and growing health care costs.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
To learn more, explore NASHP’s state resources on climate change:
• Toolkit for Governors: Climate Policy One-Pager
• Blog: States Take the Lead to Address Climate Change
• Blog: Across the Nation, State Leaders Are Tackling the Global Issue of Environmental Protection
• White Paper: State Strategies to Prevent and Respond to Disease Crises Through Medicaid and Public Health Partnerships
These threats also exacerbate existing inequities and weaknesses in the health care system. As evidenced by the recent winter storm in Texas and wildfires in Oregon and California, events triggered by climate change also overlap with other crises, especially during the pandemic, making them even more difficult to confront.
Many state leaders have focused on the health impacts of climate change for some time, and that didn’t stop with the onset of COVID-19. State efforts to mitigate climate impacts on health include addressing the factors that contribute to climate change itself. States have a variety of existing tools to address climate change, including state environmental standards, environmental health regulations, energy efficiency incentives, and other tools. Beyond existing policy levers, states have also taken the lead to convene committees or stakeholder councils to focus on additional long-term planning for climate impacts.
Despite the COVID-19 crisis, groups such as the Maine Climate Council, which released its four-year plan for climate action in December 2020, have continued their work. In March 2021, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed a law to create a “next-generation roadmap” for Massachusetts climate policy. Clearly, state momentum on climate change has not paused for the pandemic.
COVID-19 and Climate Change
In many ways, COVID-19 has given states a preview of how converging crises that impact health can strain state finances, public health infrastructure, and local economies. It has also demonstrated how a future disease outbreak, which could be spurred by climate change, can disrupt daily life.
While COVID-19 has not been directly linked to climate change, evidence suggests that climate change is impacting a number of factors that can increase pandemics and alter the way diseases behave. Climate change has already made conditions more favorable to the spread of some infectious diseases, including Lyme disease, certain waterborne diseases, and mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.
Additionally, as a recent Oregon report on climate and health highlights, populations most vulnerable to COVID-19 are the same as those most exposed to the effects of climate change such as extreme heat, air pollution, and other hazards. Research shows that people who live in areas with poor air quality are at a greater risk of dying from COVID-19, even when accounting for other factors such as pre-existing medical conditions, socioeconomic status, and access to health care.
COVID-19 is proving instructive not only as a warning bell for the large-scale impacts of climate change, but for how it is testing state officials’ ability to develop cross-agency responses to complex health threats. COVID-19 has reinforced the importance of basing policy decisions and actions on available scientific research and evidence, a lesson many states are applying to climate change action. Additionally, COVID-19 has shown the public the importance of a strong public health infrastructure and the domino effect a health crisis, one brought on by COVID-19 or climate change, can have in a community.
Focus on Equity and “Bouncing Back Better”
States had previously identified the connection between climate impacts and racial equity, but the COVID-19 pandemic has brought even more inequities and issues to light. Multiple officials referred to climate change, COVID-19, and racial injustice as inter-related, converging crises as each exposes economic and social injustices in the nation’s government and health care systems. Climate change and COVID-19 also have a disproportionate impact on certain communities, especially people of color and low-income communities.
States, such as California, have worked to make their climate change initiatives more equity-driven. The Climate Change and Health Equity Section within the California Department of Health collaborates across state agencies and departments to ensure health and equity are embedded in all of California’s climate change policies. In addition, through programs such as the Partners Advancing Climate Equity Program, California is investing in community-driven, equitable climate solutions.
As states work to address the effects of both COVID-19 and climate change, they share a theme of “bouncing forward” or “bouncing back better.” In other words, officials are using climate change interventions as an opportunity to give more people improved economic stability or better health outcomes. States are striving to become more climate-resilient by developing polices that simultaneously improve the economic status, health, and safety of individuals. For example, policies that aim to add more stable, good-paying green jobs, such as those in the energy sector, could help reduce climate change and give people better economic opportunities. Additionally, policies that target air and water quality can positively impact both environmental and population health, particularly in communities that have historically seen higher pollution levels.
Leadership Pushes for Climate Action
According to officials interviewed by NASHP, executive leadership is the most powerful ingredient to move beyond conversations and create immediate action on climate change. They also emphasized that having consensus in state legislatures can be helpful in reaffirming a state’s dedication to climate action through legislative mandates and additional funding.
In the past few years, several governors have created multi-sector committees tasked with assessing their state’s climate impact, tracking their state’s climate action progress, and creating benchmarks to work toward to meet state policy goals, such as Maine’s Climate Council, New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan Committee, and Washington State’s Disaster Resiliency Work Group. Many of these governors are making investments and commitments that will outlast their tenure in office.
A strong evidence base is necessary to understand and assess the impact of climate change in states. Having this information allows state leaders to take action on climate change when the right political moment presents itself.
Investing Strategically in Climate Change Priorities
There is power in using evidence in public messaging that links climate change to specific issues affecting citizens, and then investing in programs that actually prepare for and address them. Putting funding behind climate change initiatives is necessary to make them a priority.
For example, California Climate Investments advances the state’s climate goals by investing money raised from cap-and-trade programs in projects that expand low-carbon transportation options, place affordable housing near transit and job centers, and improve water-use efficiency. These type of state investments achieve a triple aim – addressing greenhouse gas emissions, improving people’s living conditions, and in combination help improve short- and long-term health outcomes.
When making investment decisions, state health departments that are leading climate-related initiatives are also working to ensure states are maximizing health “co-benefits.” In other words, if a state agency, locality, or community-based organization is making an investment to lower greenhouse gas emissions, states are simultaneously trying to guide those investments to have the greatest impact on health to optimize the policy’s impact. For example, locating new, carbon-neutral transportation options in communities that already have high levels of air pollution could also reduce the prevalence of asthma in the area.
The Oregon Health Authority’s Public Health Division leads education on climate, health, and equity for other state agencies and has been able to bring a health focus to Oregon’s cross-state climate change response efforts. Oregon’s 2020 Climate and Health Report outlines opportunities for climate mitigation that maximize health co-benefits.
Equity considerations are also important for states in guiding new investments. A number of officials told NASHP they want to prioritize investing in the communities that are experiencing disproportionate impacts of climate change. Involving community members in meaningful ways and giving them decision-making power is also critical in creating equity in new investments.
Rising Health Care Costs Underscore Need for Action
Climate change represents a real threat to the health of citizens, but state officials know it also represents an enormous, looming cost burden. Climate change exacerbates a number of underlying and chronic health conditions that increase the need for high-cost medical interventions, including hospitalizations and prescription drugs.
According to recent studies, asthma, which is worsened by climate change, led to average annual, per-person medical costs of $3,266 between 2008 and 2013. Of that amount, $1,830 was spent on prescription medication, $640 for office visits, $529 for hospitalizations, $176 for hospital outpatient visits, and $105 for emergency room care.
Health care costs will also balloon as more extreme weather causes additional emergency department and hospital admissions for acute care. A recent GeoHealth study estimated that the health-related costs of 10 climate events in the United States in 2012, including hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and lost wages, reached $1.6 billion. When factoring in mortality costs, it reached $10 billion.
As temperatures rise, Maine officials expect additional health care dollars will be required to treat high heat risk. According to a recent report, treatment costs for 200 cases of heat illness in 2019 reached $224,000. Health care costs are forecasted to be 9 to 14 times higher in 2050, meaning heat-related illnesses in Maine could cost as much as $3.2 million annually.
Climate change will also require additional spending on important social determinants of health – housing, food, transportation, and others – as pollution threatens natural resources and extreme weather displaces communities.
Federal Leadership and Future Partnerships
While state officials are preparing for and already working to mitigate the diverse impacts of climate change on health, states can also benefit from federal action and leadership. The federal government plays an important role in national and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and coordinate response efforts that cross state borders.
As part of his proposed infrastructure package, President Biden is aiming to pivot the US economy to green jobs, bolster infrastructure to better withstand extreme weather, and put the country on a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. All of this would help states reduce the health impacts of climate change. States hope that future federal climate change efforts will be more cross-disciplinary within and across agencies, focus more on the connections between climate and public health, and take a stronger equity lens.
State officials stressed that climate change work is extremely costly to initiate and continually fund, and they lack the resources to support local and tribal governments in preparing for the impacts of climate change.
Additional federal funding dedicated to the health impacts of climate change could help. For example, the President’s preliminary FY 2022 budget request did include an additional $100 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Climate and Health Program, which supports state, tribal, local, and territorial public health agencies as they prepare for specific health impacts from a changing climate. This program has been critical in helping states build an evidence base on climate change and launch response efforts.
State officials also highlighted that federal support is needed to generally strengthen public health systems, both to continue to respond to the pandemic but also to face current and future climate impacts. State officials suggest the federal government could:
- Expand federal programs that invest in state, local, and tribal health departments;
- Build public health workforce capacity to better address the climate health crisis;
- Invest in climate and health research as well as a national health surveillance system that can detect climate impacts in real time;
- Lead research into and develop responses to the impact of climate change on social resiliency and mental health; and
- Better integrate health and equity into a unified climate change response across federal agencies.
To learn more about states’ responses to climate change, read NASHP’s other resources:
- Toolkit for Governors: Climate Policy One-Pager, May 2020
- Blog: States Take the Lead to Address Climate Change, December 2019
Paying 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.
Spotlight on Home- and Community-Based Services: New Federal Opportunities?
/in COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Resource Center Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Health Coverage and Access, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Relief and Recovery, Social Determinants of Health, State Resources, The RAISE Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center, Workforce Capacity /by Kitty PuringtonOlder adults, people with disabilities, and their family caregivers have been hard hit by COVID 19. As states reel from the pandemic’s human and fiscal toll, policymakers are increasingly looking to home- and community-based services (HCBS) to address the pressing need for alternatives to nursing home care and supporting family caregivers who can help loved ones age in place.
Recent actions signal that the importance of HCBS is gaining traction at the federal level, and may receive significant attention in the coming months:
- The American Rescue Act, passed last month, includes a one-year, 10-point boost in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for HCBS delivered between April, 2021 and March, 2022. The funding must supplement – not supplant – current state expenditures, and can be used for an expansive list of HCBS. These include Medicaid waiver services, but also case management and rehabilitative services, which are often used to support people with serious mental illness. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently held a “listening session” to gather input for guidance that will be issued in the near future.
- The American Jobs Act, released by the White House on March 31, 2021, has been touted by the Biden Administration as an historic opportunity to rebuild America’s infrastructure. Interestingly, a full quarter of the total $1.2 billion proposed expenditure would go to “expanding access to quality, affordable home- or community-based care for aging relatives and people with disabilities.” The plan targets expansion of Medicaid HCBS and would improve wages and conditions for the nation’s direct care workforce, a majority of whom are women of color.
- Also last month, a group of members of Congress – Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – sought input on the HCBS Act of 2021, draft legislation that would make HCBS a mandatory benefit in state Medicaid plans and expand the kinds of services offered, among other changes.
In the short term, states will need to act quickly to develop time-limited strategies to take advantage of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) enhancement offered by the American Rescue Plan, and be prepared for other funding and policy opportunities as they emerge. States may choose to add enrollees to their existing HCBS programs, expand access by enhancing direct care workforce pay, focus on services to support family caregivers, and/or build on existing programs.
Explore the National Academy for State Health Policy’s (NASHP) State PACE Action Network for a new technical assistance opportunity for states to enhance or expand this home- and community-based services model. NASHP will continue to track these issues, and provide updates on state and federal initiatives that reflect the growing importance of HCBS.
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. 























































































































































