2022 State of the State Addresses Reflect Realities of Health, Economic Recovery
/in Health Coverage and Access Blogs Chronic and Complex Populations, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Featured Policy Home, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Population Health, Prescription Drug Pricing /by Allie Atkeson, Anita Cardwell, Clare Cartheuser, Rebecca Cooper, Gia Gould and Elinor HigginsGovernors use their annual state-of-the-state addresses to showcase successes and accomplishments over the past year and to define their policy priorities for the year ahead. This year 36 states will hold gubernatorial elections, so many governors use their state-of-the-state addresses to build their case for reelection and visions for the future. By late February, 41 governors had delivered speeches outlining plans to address a wide variety of health and economic related issues in the coming year, as the immediate health-related emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic has faded. Most governors reflected on the incredible response from frontline responders and public health agencies’ ability to meet the needs of the crisis but focused their future plans on how to emerge from the pandemic and respond to the economic and mental health crises that remain.
View a map highlighting governors’ goals on a variety of health-related policies here.
Priorities diverged from their 2021 health care and social determinants priorities. While many governors continued to address social drivers of health, citing affordable housing and access to healthy food and the environment as key levers to improve health, more highlighted livable wages, support for the workforce and business, and education. Notably, in comparison to last year, many more governors highlighted the need to address health care workforce shortages that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis. Governors also mentioned their priorities for investing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding.
These issues do not exist in isolation; many of these topics, including mental health, education, workforce, and equity, are woven throughout the speeches and require a whole-of-government approach to address. Below are highlights from key themes that the governors addressed.
Behavioral Health
Twenty-eight governors discussed behavioral health in their speeches this year, up from 22 last year. With an increased focus on crisis services, substance use disorder services and school-based mental health care as a result of COVID-19, governors addressed the need for investments in behavioral health services and workforce.
Fourteen governors mentioned making significant investments in behavioral health in their state-of-the- state addresses. In Idaho, Gov. Little proposed accelerating the implementation of the Behavioral Health Council’s recommendations, including a $50 million dollar investment in behavioral health care. In the executive budget, Gov. Lujan Grisham of New Mexico is proposing “tens of millions of dollars into new behavioral health services, expanding access to treatment for substance abuse, suicide interventions and more. New Mexicans call me about this issue more than almost any other, and we will answer that call.”
Ten governors mentioned substance use disorder, including the opioid epidemic and recent rises in overdoses over the past year. New Jersey Gov. Murphy discussed the state’s data driven approach to the opioid-use epidemic and expansion of harm reduction centers and naloxone.
In Delaware and Tennessee, governors discussed their executive branch efforts to combat the opioid epidemic. In Delaware, the Behavioral Health Consortium is led by Lt. Gov. Hall-Long, and the state was one of a few to see a decrease in the rate of overdose deaths. In Tennessee, Attorney General Slatery is working to deploy funding from the $26 billion dollar suit against pharmaceutical companies. Governors in Alaska and Missouri discussed providing behavioral health services to individuals in the criminal justice system.
Nine governors referenced youth behavioral health and school-based services now that children are back in the classroom. In Alabama, Michigan, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, governors proposed additional school mental health supports. Gov. McMaster in South Carolina stated, “we must also recognize that a mental health crisis exists in South Carolina, especially among our young people who have weathered two years of disruptions, virtual instruction, isolation, and constant changes to normal routines.” He also directed the Health and Human Services Director to study the state’s behavioral health system as 60 percent of South Carolina children are enrolled in Medicaid. In Washington, Gov. Inslee’s budget will increase the number of school counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers in schools.
Six governors discussed strengthening the crisis system of care in their states through outreach services, mobile unitsand new centers. Gov. Ivey of Alabama proposed funding for two new mental health crisis centers and in New Hampshire, Gov. Sununu discussed mobile crisis support and a new 24/7 crisis call center. Alaska Gov. Dunleavy announced reopening the unit that serves adolescents in crisis, and additional funding for staffed beds.
Six governors also discussed supporting the behavioral health workforce through crosscutting investments. Massachusetts Gov. Baker discussed working with the legislature to address “enormous staff and clinician shortages in exactly the areas of care that we need most.” In Michigan, Gov. Whitmer stated, “40 percent of Michiganders do not get treatment for their mental illness. We will address this shortfall by expanding Michigan’s Loan Repayment Program for mental health professionals. And we will make a historic investment to retain and recruit hundreds more mental health workers.”
Broadband
This year, 17 governors discussed broadband in their state-of-the-state speeches, down from 30 in 2021. Governors in four states, Alabama, Delaware, Hawai’i and Maine proposed leveraging ARPA funding to support broadband efforts in their states. Other themes included broadband connectivity to support remote work and education and the creation of statewide authorities for broadband. Missouri Gov. Parson requested a “$34 million dollar investment in rural communities to increase access to telehealth and telemedicine services.”
Five governors identified broadband as critical for supporting remote work and education. According to Kansas Gov. Kelly, hotspots were deployed to students in low-income households to continue their education remotely. Gov. Dunleavy in Alaska stated that broadband “…unlocks the opportunity for us to live anywhere and work from anywhere in this Great State.”
Additionally, governors in Kansas and Maine are establishing statewide broadband authorities, In Kansas, the Office of Broadband Development has expanded internet access to over 50,000 new households and businesses. The Maine Connectivity Authority is “a new entity charged with achieving universal internet access.”
COVID-19
In 2021, 34 governors addressed COVID-19 in their state-of-the-state speeches, emphasizing vaccine distribution and economic recovery. In 2022, 17 governors mentioned COVID-19 with a focus on COVID-19 mandates, return to school, testing and vaccines.
The continued rollout of vaccines and testing as a strategy to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 were discussed by 12 governors. Gov. Sununu in New Hampshire emphasized the importance of data guiding the state’s approach. In South Dakota, Gov. Noem mentioned the state’s free at-home test program and announced an additional 1 million new tests to be delivered throughout the state.
Four governors spoke against COVID-19 mandates, including vaccines and masking. Gov. Dunleavy of Alaskastated his administration, “will continue to defend Alaskans’ rights to make their own medical decisions about vaccines and therapeutics for themselves and their families in consultation with their doctors and pharmacists.” Similarly, Gov. Parson of Missouri said, “when it comes to COVID-19 mandates, I firmly believe that the people should have say through their local elected representatives and not be dictated by needless executive action or any one person.”
Return to in-person instruction and masks in schools were discussed by three governors. Recently elected Gov. Youngkin of Virginia signed an executive order that allows parents to opt out of mask mandates in schools. In Kentucky, Gov. Beshear discussed the strategy to prioritize vaccines for educators and the state’s ability to return to in-person instruction in every school district early on.
Education
Thirty-seven governors discussed education this year and the impacts of COVID-19 were present throughout the speeches. Major themes included teacher recruitment and retention, addressing learning loss, and affordability of higher education. There was a marked decrease compared to last year in the number of governors that talked about expanding access to early education. Twenty-three governors proposed generalized investment in schools and students, and five governors emphasized the importance of keeping children in the classroom. Gov. Ige of Hawai’iemphasized the importance of in-person learning, but also announced the launch of the Hawai’i Virtual Learning Network—a virtual classroom network that can supplement in-person classes.
Eighteen governors talked about recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, with a major focus on increasing teacher salaries and recognizing the difficulties that educators have faced over the past two years. Gov. DeSantis of Florida proposed increases in teacher salaries in addition to $1000 bonuses for the second year in a row. Some governors also mentioned other types of support for teachers. For example, Gov. Hochul of New York proposed more “effective training and support, faster and easier certification, and stronger career pipelines and ladders”.
Sixteen governors proposed targeted investments in improving the quality of education in their states by enhancing literacy levels and meeting benchmarks, supporting greater investment in STEM education, or by making up learning loss sustained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gov. Burgum of North Dakota talked about setting computer science and cyber science graduation standards for K-12 students, undergraduate students, and graduate students. Indiana Gov. Holcomb talked about the continued investment in accelerated learning programs to support students who fell behind during the pandemic.
Many governors also focused on opportunities following K-12 education, whether entering the workforce, enrolling at a community college, or attending a four-year university. Ten governors talked about apprenticeship programs and adult education opportunities, fourteen proposed investments in higher education, with nine of those focusing specifically on community college investments, and sixteen governors proposed higher education affordability measures like tuition freezes, scholarships, or loan forgiveness programs.
Ten governors also emphasized parental choices and roles in education, through vouchers, school choice programs, charter schools, or more parental involvement in curriculum. Idaho Gov. Little proposed an investment in Empowering Parents grants, which would cover “computers, tutoring, internet connectivity and other needs so students have the best chance for success.”
Equity
COVID-19 clearly shone a light on racial and ethnic health and economic-related disparities that existed prior to the pandemic, and in 2022, 9 governors highlighted the connection to equity in their plans, down from 21 governors in 2021. Three governors discussed the connection and disproportionate impact of the environment on low-income communities and communities of color. Oregon Gov. Brown used an equity lens to set the tone of her speech. She noted that she is “…most proud of is how Oregon approaches … challenges––through an equity lens. With a focus on our communities hardest hit by climate change: rural communities, people with low incomes, and people of color.”
Delaware Gov. Carney announced that the state, with federal support, will invest more than $400 million in Delaware’s clean water infrastructure, focusing on underserved communities. New York’s Gov. Hochul also proposed work to fix longstanding problems that disproportionately impact communities of color, including reconnecting neighborhoods that were cut off by highways, and directing the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to conduct an environmental review, to ensure no further harm is done.
Three governors also considered the intersection of poverty and communities of color and developed strategies to mitigate economic impacts.
Health Care Costs
Seven governors addressed increasing health care costs— emphasizing the need to alleviate the burden of rising healthcare costs on both individuals and state budgets. Notable state efforts to lower costs across the health care system include:
– New Jersey Gov. Murphy committed to lowering healthcare and prescription drug costs through a cost growth benchmark and additional transparency requirements throughout the prescription drug supply chain to identify cost drivers.
– Nevada Gov. Sisolak announced that the state will join the Northwest Prescription Drug Consortium with Washington and Oregon to leverage collective purchasing power to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
– Gov. Cox of Utah asked legislators to support the newly established Utah Sustainable Health Collaborative tasked with developing strategies to lower health care costs while improving outcomes.
Virginia Gov. Youngkin expressed support for legislation to extend access to association health plans, providing small business owners with a lower cost coverage option for their employees. Three governors celebrated successful state reforms which have lowered health insurance costs in the individual and small group market.
– Colorado Gov. Polis shared that the state reinsurance program reduced healthcare premiums by 24 percent on the individual market, with even more significant cost savings in the western region of the state.
– Following last year’s launch of a state-based marketplace, New Jersey Gov. Murphy shared that enrollment in the individual marketplace increased by more than 25 percent.
– Nevada Gov. Sisolak touted last year’s adoption of a public option to increase affordability and expand coverage options.
Five governors addressed the issue of rising prescription drug costs, with the majority focusing on the prohibitively high cost of insulin. Governors in Michigan and Colorado aim to improve insulin affordability through monthly price caps and Gov. Whitmer of Michigan announced that the state’s Attorney General would launch an investigation into one of the largest producers of insulin for excessive pricing.
Health Care Workforce
This year, against the backdrop of ongoing COVID-19 hospitalizations and concerns about burnout, 20 governors talked about their plans to address workforce shortages and bolster the health care workforce. In 2021, only eight governors mentioned plans to support or bolster the healthcare workforce. Recruitment was the overarching theme this year, with fifteen governors talking about how to successfully train more nurses, doctors, or emergency responders, how to use scholarships or loan forgiveness programs to incentivize entry into the health care field, and how to bring more health care providers into the state from elsewhere. Governors of New York, South Dakota, and Vermont talked about recognizing out of state licenses to attract qualified providers to their states. In Alaska, Georgia, Hawai’i, Maine, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, governors talked about expanding education programs to train more nurses and other health care providers. These proposals included plans for adding faculty to existing programs, opening new educational programs, and admitting more students to increase the number of graduates. Gov. Reynolds of Iowa announced a new apprenticeship program for high school students that would allow them to become certified nursing assistants before graduating high school. And governors in Iowa, Illinois, Rhode Island,and New York mentioned plans to offer additional scholarships, tuition reimbursement, or loan forgiveness for students training to enter the health care workforce—particularly if they stay in-state after graduating.
In addition to recruitment, nine governors also focused on strategies to retain the existing workforce—particularly those individuals who are experiencing the exhaustion of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Alabama, Colorado, Maine, New York, and Wisconsin, governors talked about increased compensation for those in the healthcare field, through pay raises, higher Medicaid reimbursement rates, or bonuses. Gov. Polis of Colorado and Gov. Pritzker of Illinoismentioned plans to wave licensing fees for healthcare providers in their states.
Housing and Homelessness
Sixteen governors addressed housing and homelessness in their state of the state speeches. Highlighting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, governors concentrated on the need to increase the supply of affordable housing, strategies to reduce homelessness, and rent and mortgage assistance. In her speech, Gov. Brown in Oregon made the connection between housing and homelessness stating, “there is no avoiding the fact that these two issues are undeniably linked –– a lack of affordable housing and some of the highest rates of people experiencing homelessness. In Oregon, today, missing one paycheck can be the difference between going to bed in a home with heat and running water, or sleeping unsheltered.”
Eleven governors spoke for the need to increase the housing stock with an emphasis on affordable housing. Gov. Mills of Maine referenced the Maine Jobs and Recovery Plan which will invest $50 million to “increase the number of energy-efficient, affordable homes for working Maine people.” In Colorado, Gov. Polis announced 14,000 units of affordable housing have been developed in the past year, saving families more than $72 million annually.
Governors in Delaware, New Mexico and Oregon discussed providing rent and mortgage assistance to residents, and governors in Colorado, Delaware and New Hampshire addressed using ARPA funding to support their housing programs. New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham said, “in the next 12 months your state government is going to deliver an additional $230 million in rent and utility assistance to the New Mexicans who need it most.”
In addition to increasing the housing supply, five governors discussed reducing homelessness in their states, proposing models such as permanent supportive housing. In Colorado, Gov. Polis proposed several interventions to address homelessness including “affordable and transitional housing, substance use treatment and recovery care, related residential programs, and permanent housing with wrap-around support services, and recipients of funds need to be held accountable for actually reducing homelessness.” Gov. Hochul of New York identified root causes of homelessness in her speech—poverty, addiction and housing insecurity—and announced a five-year housing plan to preserve 100,000 affordable homes with supportive services in 10,000 units.
Jobs/Livable Wages
The topic of employment, workforce investments, livable wages and the need to support overall economic growth was mentioned by a total of 38 governors, which is an increase from last year when 28 governors focused on this topic.
The most common theme was planned investments to promote workforce development through new training initiatives. Governors in Maine, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont specifically mentioned apprenticeship opportunities and career development for adolescents and young adults, and Vermont’s Gov. Scott placed an emphasis on trades training, in particular to help grow the number of nurses and other healthcare workers in the state. Oregon’s Gov. Brown discussed plans to build upon Future Ready Oregon, a workforce training initiative focused on jobs in health care, technology, manufacturing, and construction. She also mentioned plans to incorporate support services to help individuals advance from an entry-level job such as a certified nursing assistant to a health care administrator. Governors in Delaware, Michigan, Mississippi, and South Carolina shared plans to invest recently allocated federal funds to support workforce skills training initiatives, and Hawai’i’s Gov. Ige highlighted the launch of an online hub designed to connect unemployed individuals with career and training opportunities.
Governors also focused on the issue of supporting overall economic development. Delaware’s governor highlighted the state’s focus on championing small businesses to bolster job growth, including both “mom-and-pop” small businesses as well as cutting-edge technology companies, and Gov. Murphy of New Jersey commented similarly about supporting both technology start-ups and traditional small businesses. Other governors spoke about the role of planned tax cuts with the intention of supporting job creation, with governors in Colorado, Idaho, and Indiana mentioning this issue.
Some governors also focused on the issue of wages and highlighted plans to increase pay rates for state employees, such as law enforcement and teachers. The governors of Alabama, Kentucky and Missouri announced pay raises for all state workers, and Gov. McMaster commented that while overall compensation for South Carolina state employees should be reevaluated, salary increases should be determined by merit-based performance incentives rather than an across-the-board pay raise. Proposals to increase salaries for teachers specifically were raised by the governors in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Additionally, the governors of both Delaware and Pennsylvania advocated for an increase in the overall minimum wage in their states. Gov. Wolf noted that when factoring in inflation, minimum wage workers in Pennsylvania actually experienced a $2 pay reduction.
Medicaid, Coverage and Access
Despite the significant growth in state Medicaid programs during the pandemic, only five governors mentioned Medicaid in their speeches.
Several governors proposed Medicaid coverage and benefit expansions. In response to rising maternal mortality rates, governors in Georgia and Rhode Island advocated for extending postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months to provide coverage continuity during the critical postpartum period. Rhode Island Gov. McKeeintroduced a proposal to cover all kids regardless of immigration status through the state’s Medicaid program. Tennessee Gov. Lee announced a $25 million dollar investment to broaden access to dental services for over 600,000 Medicaid recipients as well as an additional $55 million to support the Medicaid Pathways to Independence program.
Only Kansas Gov. Kelly advocated for adoption of Medicaid expansion, providing the economic argument that, “Medicaid expansion won’t just protect small towns and their residents, it will keep health care professionals from moving to neighboring states… (without Medicaid expansion) we are sabotaging our rural communities and their efforts to recruit new jobs and residents”.
The broader topic of health coverage and access was mentioned by governors in six states — a significant decline from last year when 17 governors addressed these issues. Governors were largely focused on the need to improve rural health care access:
– New Mexico Gov. Lujan Grisham proposed the creation of a Rural Health Care Delivery Fund to provide support for health systems in counties with fewer than 100,000 residents. The fund would provide financial support for newly constructed hospitals in rural areas to compensate for operating losses incurred during the first five years of operation.
– South Dakota Gov. Noem aims to improve health care options for rural communities by extending telehealth flexibilities to emergency responders.
– Wyoming Gov. Gordon committed to improving care accessibility through improvements to the state’s Emergency Medical System.
– Gov. Evers of Wisconsin will invest $20 million to provide rural communities with flexible funding to increase staffing support and provide additional training to first responders.
Gov. Pritzker of Illinois commented on the state’s recent $3.8 billion dollar investment in hospitals serving high proportions of Medicaid patients to improve care in underserved communities.
Other health-related issues
Below is a snapshot of some of the other health-related topics that governors mentioned:
- Aging: Four governors mentioned issues related to the elderly population in their speeches. Mills of Maine announced plans to establish a Silver Cabinet (similar to the state’s Children’s Cabinet) to promote interagency action on long-term care issues. New Mexico’s governor proposed an initiative called New Mexi-Care to expand an existing state program that supports and reimburses caregivers for the care they provide to elderly family members, regardless of Medicaid eligibility. Also, although New York’s Gov. Hochul did not mention the topic of aging in her speech, in an accompanying document she outlined intentions to develop a state master plan for aging.
- Child Care and Family Supports: Nine governors commented on proposals to support the needs of families, such as Delaware’s Gov. Carney advocating for paid leave in the private sector as well as other governors promoting increased access to high-quality and affordable child care. Maine’s Gov. Mills noted plans to include $12 million in the state’s supplemental budget to increase child care workers’ wages, and also highlighted the use of American Rescue Plan Act funds to strengthen the state’s child care system, which includes stipends for child care workers as well as investments in child care facilities and early childhood education programs. Iowa’s Gov. Reynolds announced an expansion of the state’s Childcare Challenge, which is designed to increase access to child care options for families, and commented on progress in implementing recommendations from the state’s Child Care Task Force. North Dakota’s Gov. Burgum highlighted a new initiative that will be launched in the spring to help employers offer child care benefits to their employees and a soon-to-be finalized comprehensive state strategy for increasing access to high-quality, affordable child care. Utah’s Gov. Cox proposed creating a new government position to address the needs of parents and children, which will focus on parental leave, increased access to child care, and mentoring opportunities for parents. Also, Tennessee’s Gov. Lee highlighted recent funding for the state’s Healthy Starts Initiative, which focuses on maternal health and holistic care for both mothers and children.
- Child Welfare: Eight governors spoke about the child welfare system, including the governors of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee who mentioned potential new investments to support caregivers. Ducey in Arizona mentioned plans to provide resources to extended family members caring for children who would otherwise be in the foster care system, and Georgia’s governor proposed a 10 percent provider rate increase for all foster parents, relative caregivers, and child caring and placing agencies. In Washington, Gov. Inslee said that his budget would include $80 million to support foster care youth with complex needs and help them transition out of foster care. Gov. Kelly noted that Kansas was one of the first states to implement the Family First Prevention Services Act and the recent creation of the Division of the Child Advocate to help ensure that youth in the child welfare system are healthier and safer.
- Environmental Actions: Seventeen governors discussed their plans to protect the environment, including plans to address climate resiliency and ensuring clean air and water for residents. Ten governors discussed plans to improve water quality. Kansas shared the state’s new water plan, a five-year blueprint to ensure the state has a reliable, quality water supply to support the needs of Kansas communities, including their farming economy. Ten governors discussed their plans to address climate change and promote climate resiliency. Delaware’ Gov. Carney announced the state’s new Climate Action Plan. Six governors discussed actions to reduce carbon emissions or become carbon neutral, and four governors noted deadlines by which this must occur. Ige reflected that Hawai’i was the first state to commit to a net-negative goal by 2045 and re-committed to doubling down on this effort.
- Food Access: Eight governors commented on the issue of food security, distribution, and production. Alaska’s Gov. Dunleavy spoke about plans to create a Food Security Task Force to help promote the state’s agriculture and mariculture industries and minimize disruptions in the food supply chain by supporting state-grown products. In response to rising food costs, governors in both Illinois and Kansas advocated that their state’s grocery taxes should be suspended, and Utah’s governor proposed a $160 million grocery tax credit for families. Maine’s Gov. Mills announced that her proposed budget will include plans to fund universal free meals in schools and promote school and community gardens.
- Public Health: Three governors addressed the topic of public health, with the governor of Indiana mentioning a number of public health issues, including that the state’s Public Health Commission will be publishing recommendations on ways to modernize and strengthen the state’s overall public health system. Also, given that the state ranks 46th in obesity, 46th in smoking, and 40th in childhood immunizations, he emphasized the importance of investing in preventive measures to minimize future costly health complications. Additionally, he noted plans to continue focusing on reducing infant mortality and strengthening childhood lead screening efforts. Nebraska’s Gov. Ricketts highlighted plans to use $200 million from the American Rescue Plan Act for public health emergency response efforts. South Carolina’s governor also noted plans to use federal funds for investments in upgrading water and sewer systems and commented on how these enhancements can improve the overall public health of communities.
- Transportation: Seven governors spoke about transportation infrastructure investments from a health-focused perspective. Five governors mentioned initiatives to support clean transportation, with Delaware’s Gov. Carney and Michigan’s Gov. Whitmer highlighting plans to dedicate resources to support electric vehicles and Washington’s Gov. Inslee proposing to invest nearly $1 billion to fund a range of transportation programs that reduce pollution. Additionally, Indiana’s Gov. Holcomb spoke about investing in commuter rail projects as well as committing $150 million to expand the state’s walking, hiking, and biking trails.
- Violence Prevention: Thirteen governors commented on the issue of violence prevention. The governors of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York emphasized the importance of gun violence prevention, and the governors of both Colorado and Illinois focused on community-based violence prevention initiatives. Alaska’s Gov. Dunleavy requested state legislators to fund the People First Initiative, which includes addressing the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault, human trafficking, and missing and murdered Indigenous individuals.
Conclusion
As the United States enters the third year of the pandemic, governors’ 2022 state-of-the-state speeches reflect the realities of health and economic recovery. Compared to 2021, states have access to additional resources through ARPA, and their priorities remain centered on addressing the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic with an emphasis on behavioral health, education and jobs and wages. As state legislatures convene and enact budgets, the National Academy for State Health Policy will continue to track many of these topics in the coming months.
Massachusetts Health Policy Commission Takes Steps to Hold High-Cost Health System Accountable
/in Health System Costs Massachusetts Blogs, Featured News Home Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs /by Johanna ButlerIn January, for the first time in its history, the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission (HPC)’s Board voted to require the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system to submit a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) because of the system’s substantial contributions to the state’s health care cost increases. The HPC’s comprehensive analysis of MGB cost data and decision to require the PIP comes at the same time as MGB is seeking approval from the state’s Department of Public Health to expand its hospitals and create new ambulatory facilities throughout the state. In taking this action, the HPC is addressing an identified cost trend with the PIP as well as raising concerns aboutMGB’s proposed expansions currently being reviewed through the state’s certificate of need process.
HPC to Require First Performance Improvement Plan for Large Health System
The HPC is an independent state agency charged with monitoring health care spending growth in Massachusetts and providing policy recommendations regarding health care delivery and payment reform. Among other activities, the HPC oversees the state’s cost-growth benchmark program and conducts cost and market impact reviews (CMIRs) to understand how significant transactions between providers may impact the health care market. If the HPC identifies a referred provider that has total health status-adjusted medical expenses that exceed the established benchmark for health care cost growth, the HPC may require that provider to complete a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
In January 2022, for the first time in its history, the HPC Board voted to require a PIP from MGB, which will require MGB to identify the causes of the health system’s spending growth, a savings goal, and specific action steps that MGB can take to achieve the goal. In making this decision, the HPC Board found that MGB’s spending performance has likely impacted the state’s ability to meet its health care cost growth benchmark, which has been exceeded in 2018 and 2019. The Board determined that if not addressed, spending at MGB will likely result in the health care costs continuing to exceed the state’s benchmark target. From 2014 to 2019, MGB had more cumulative commercial spending in excess of the benchmark than any other provider, totaling $293 million. The largest provider group within the MGB system has spending levels substantially higher than insurer network averages and is consistently among the highest in the state for the top three commercial payers.
Through the HPC’s review process, MGB had opportunities to provide its own data and present factors that may be contributing to high costs. For example, MGB stated that pharmacy costs are a consistent driver of medical expenditures. However, through reviewing medical expenditure data from 2017 – 2018, the HPC found that pharmacy was not a top driver of costs.
MGB now has 45 days to file a proposed PIP with the HPC, request a waiver, or request an extension. Once the HPC receives the proposed PIP, the Board will vote on whether to approve it based on a variety of factors. If approved, MGB is subject to ongoing monitoring during an 18-month implementation period. After those 18 months, if the HPC Board finds the PIP is unsuccessful, it may require further action from MGB and can also levy a fine up to $500,000 for non-compliance.
Other states will be watching how the PIP process unfolds in Massachusetts. Following the Commonwealth’s lead, a number of other states have begun to implement cost-growth benchmark programs, including most recently in Nevada and New Jersey, where Gov. Steve Sisolak and Gov. Phil Murphy signed executive orders to establish benchmarks at the end of 2021. In 2021, Oregon’s cost-growth benchmark program was enhanced to include more enforcement mechanisms including the ability to require performance improvement plans like Massachusetts and fine payer or provider organizations that exceed the benchmark for three out of five years.
HPC Reports that Proposed Health System Expansions Will Raise Costs
In addition to requiring a performance improvement plan, the HPC board also voted in January to submit a public comment on three pending Mass General Brigham Determination of Need (DoN) applications, Massachusetts’ version of certificate of need.
In early 2021, MGB filed DoN applications for three substantial capital expenditures, totaling $2.3 Billion, including the expansion and renovation of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital (Faulkner), as well as the creation of three new ambulatory sites across the state.
In determining whether to grant a DoN, the Department of Public Health (DPH) considers, among other factors, if an applicant has “sufficiently demonstrated that a proposed project will meaningfully contribute to the Commonwealth’s goals for cost containment, improved public health outcomes, and delivery system transformation.” DPH required an Independent Cost Analysis (ICA) to be conducted on each of the three applications, funded by MGB, which were released at the end of December.
While the HPC does not have formal authority over the DoN process, it can produce expenditure analysis and submit public comments. Leveraging its data analysis capacities and types of data similar to that used in its Cost and Market Impact Reviews, the HPC conducted its own analysis of the proposed MGB projects and ultimately concluded that the that the expansions are not in line with state’s cost containment goals.
The HPC found that in total, the proposed expansions would increase inpatient beds at MGH by 16.6% to 18.9% and beds at Faulkner by 45.6%. Based on conservative projections, the projects are likely to increase yearly commercial health insurance spending in Massachusetts by $46 million to $90.1 million.
This evidence will be considered in the state’s DoN review. Massachusetts DPH has four months to review the MGB’s application, with the option of a two-month extension (the clock was paused during the independent cost-analyses). A final decision on MGB’s proposed expansion is expected sometime this Spring or early Summer.
Impact of HPC’s Actions for Other States
Other states that are implementing cost-growth benchmark programs may consider Massachusetts a model for applying the benchmark infrastructure to examine proposed mergers and use collected data to bolster existing Certificate of Need (CON) programs. Across the country, 35 states have CON programs in place, although they vary dramatically based on which facilities are subject to CON, the range of activities that trigger a CON review, and the information considered during review. A primary challenge to state CON programs is having access to relevant cost data and analysis capacity to properly study the impact on care delivery and the expense of proposed expansions.
Massachusetts offers an example for other states interested in creating infrastructure that allows cost-growth benchmarks and CON programs to work with one another. While cost-growth benchmark programs are successful at studying spending growth, they provide a retrospective rather than prospective look at health care costs in a state. CON programs continue to be one of the few, albeit limited, tools to control future expansions, consolidation, and growth in costs. Leveraging data and analysis from cost-growth benchmark programs, may allow for more in-depth CON review processes.
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 StaffTennessee’s Care Coordination Tool: Marshaling Data to Help Providers Coordinate Care
/in Care Coordination Tennessee Blogs, Featured News Home Care Coordination, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home /by Neva KayeFor many years, states have worked to ensure that Medicaid participants have access to patient-centered medical homes (PCMH). In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorized state Medicaid programs to create health homes to improve and better coordinate the full range of services needed by Medicaid beneficiaries with chronic health needs. Capitalizing on these opportunities, Tennessee almost simultaneously implemented both a PCMH program to meet the primary care needs of all Medicaid beneficiaries and a health home program to coordinate behavioral and physical health services for beneficiaries with high behavioral health needs (Tennessee Health Link or THL). The PCMH program began in January 2017 and THL began in December 2016.
TennCare (Tennessee’s Medicaid agency) recognized both PCMH and THL providers needed comprehensive information about the service needs and services received by their Medicaid patients to be most effective. However, in the absence of a state health information exchange (Tennessee’s statewide HIE disbanded in 2012), there was no ready source of that data nor was there any existing organization seeking to turn data into the information providers could use to enhance performance. To meet this need, TennCare developed a care coordination tool (CCT) that marshalled data from diverse sources to help both PCMH and THL providers meet the primary and behavioral health care needs of their Medicaid patients. This brief is based on research and an interview with TennCare representatives.
What is the CCT?
The CCT is a cloud-based application that draws from Medicaid claims data, encounter data from TennCare’s contracted managed care organizations (MCOs), immunization data from the Tennessee Department of Health’s (TDH) statewide immunization information system (TennIIS), and information about admissions, discharges and transfers (ADTs) provided by hospitals via data exchange partners, Tennessee Hospital Association (THA), East Tennessee Health Information Network (etHIN) and Community Hospital Systems (CHS). This information, as presented by the CCT, helps providers identify and fill gaps in patient care. It also speeds notification of hospitalizations and emergency department visits enabling providers to more quickly provide transitional and follow-up care when these events occur. Specifically, the types of information in the CCT include:
- Name and available demographic information for Medicaid beneficiaries who are members of a provider’s panel
- Claims based clinical data drawn from both claims and encounter data, including medication and diagnosis history, as well as records of visits to providers.
- ADT information from emergency departments and hospitals.
- Immunization data for children under 2 years and those 9-13 years of age.
- Each provider’s performance on the quality measures to which PCMH and THL value-based payments are tied.
- Care alerts that identify ‘past due’ services needed by an individual patient such as, mammogram, follow-up to a hospital discharge, or an update to the patient’s comprehensive person-centered care plan.
PCMH and THL providers are eligible for bonus or outcome payments based on each organization’s performance on total cost of care, and a set of efficiency and quality measures. The method of calculating efficiency and the specific quality metrics included in the set varies between THL and PCMH providers—and among PCMH providers by the mix of children and adult Medicaid beneficiaries attributed to the practice. Although the CCT is an optional tool for providers participating in the THL and PCMH programs, it provides a platform for providers to act on near real-time data and shows the impact of their work on the quality and efficiency measures by which provider performance is measured. (More information on payment can be found in TennCare’s PCMH and Health Link operational manuals.)
Multiple data sources produce more useful data
“Reach out to providers early…find out their wishlist. What is it that would help them take care of their patients better?”
—TennCare representative
Designed for PCMH and THL providers, the CCT ultimately offers a single consolidated source of information about providers’ panel members, even when members are enrolled in different MCOs. The CCT includes information to help providers identify their members’ primary care needs, any services that have been delivered by other providers, hospital and emergency department ADTs, and more. TennCare obtains much of this information from the claims and eligibility data contained in the agency’s Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). However, TennCare recognized there are still challenges which exist with incorporating multiple data sources for the CCT. One challenge is the sometimes significant lag between when a service was delivered and when data about that service appears in claims data. Another common barrier for providers and other users of the tool is the lack of connectivity between the CCT and their electronic health records (EHRs), which may mean users need to enter the same information in both the CCT and EHR. Both challenge providers’ ability to use the CCT to obtain the information they need to care for their patients.
TennCare’s partnerships with other organizations that maintain other data sources is a large factor in the agency’s success. The THA became the agency’s first partner when, in 2017, TennCare began contracting with the association to obtain near real-time ADT data to populate the CCT. Because TennCare needed complete ADT information it then worked with the THA to draw in those hospitals that were not already submitting data to the THA. For example, TennCare issued guidance to hospitals requiring them to submit ADT data to qualify for the directed payment of funds that were formerly distributed as unreimbursed hospital cost pool payments. 100% of hospitals in Tennessee now submit ADT data to the THA. Thus, the THA was able to create a more complete data set by partnering with TennCare.
In 2019, TennCare also began contracting with the Tennessee Department of Health (TDH) to incorporate specific immunization data from the statewide immunization information system (TennIIS) into the CCT. This data is used to supplement claims data which populates performance on specific Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) immunization measures and to identify patients in need of immunizations. Like the THA, the TDH benefits from the contract, as it commits TennCare to working with the TDH to improve the quantity and quality of data submitted to the registry by providers and furthers the shared work of both TennCare and the TDH of improving immunization rates for children in Tennessee.
“One of the biggest draws was that live ADT feed. It helped care coordinators keep up to date with admissions, emergency department use, and discharges so that they could follow-up in real time.”
—TennCare representative
Although these specific data sources may not be available in other states, it is likely that others are. TennCare representatives advise thorough planning is necessary to identify the information needed in the tool—both at launch and in the future. Identifying the partners and resources needed to access data outside of the Medicaid agency’s control also requires thorough planning. Further, developing mutually rewarding partnerships (and contracts) takes time. It is important to have a long-term plan in place early in development.
The CCT is a large investment, but state costs are offset by federal matching funds
The CCT is a large investment. Its development required leadership and dedication of a wide range of staff. Multiple TennCare departments were involved, including the chief medical office, behavioral health operations, information systems, legal, and others. The CCT’s development required the input and feedback of providers and MCOs that would ultimately benefit from the tool. In addition to the contracts with the CCT vendor (HealthEC), THA and TDH, TennCare information system (IS) contractors were also utilized for design and implementation. TennCare representatives estimate that a group of 15-20 were heavily involved in development, but many others were called in as needed.
Of course, the largest part of the investment is the cost to develop and maintain the CCT. TennCare conducted a procurement to select the first vendor to develop and operate the CCT—this contract was awarded in 2016. The second CCT, launched in November 2020, was procured through a current TennCare IS contractor. TennCare representatives feel the new CCT better meets their vision for the tool and the needs of THL and PCMH organizations.
Based on their experience, TennCare representatives advise states seeking to develop a tool to ensure that the selected vendor has qualifications to accurately provide and process the data as inaccuracies will quickly lead to distrust of information flowing through a tool. TennCare representatives advised that it is important for states to:
- Set basic qualifications for vendors and involve knowledgeable information technology staff in determining whether potential vendors meet those qualifications.Select a vendor already working with large, multi-site locations and processing many different types of data from multiple data sources.
- If state plans include generating HEDIS measures it is important the vendor have a National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Measure Certification.
“After you choose a vendor, set strategy immediately. The strategy should be as detailed and inclusive as possible, but general enough to grow to what you need in the future.”
—TennCare representative
- Seek input from the providers who will be using the tool, for example by convening technical assistance groups of providers to help with design or conducting end user testing with providers.
- Conduct detailed reference checks on potential vendors to find out their strengths and weaknesses.
- Have a strategic training and engagement plan for the 12 months post go-live
Although the investment was large, the original CCT implementation qualified for 90/10 federal matching funds under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. As part of the Medicaid agency’s MMIS, TennCare receives 75/25 federal matching funds for the new HealthEC CCT. This funding greatly reduced the cost to the state. (Note: HITECH funding is only available through 2021, but other opportunities will remain to secure 90 percent funding for design and development of HIE and HIT.)
There is evidence of success
One measure of success is whether providers use the tool. As of June 2021, all PCMHs, THLs, and MCOs have registered at least one staff person to use the tool and a total of 662 MCO, PCMH, and THL users have registered. TennCare representatives report the enhanced ADT data was a big draw for these providers. TennCare offers monthly trainings to some users and individualized assistance to others. TennCare and its contractor have also developed a learning library that includes recorded trainings and quick reference guides to help providers use the CCT to accomplish tasks such as identifying frequent emergency department users.
The most important measure of success, however, is whether using the CCT produces improved cost and quality outcomes. This question is difficult to answer due to the multiple influences in reducing cost and improving quality. However, TennCare did evaluate both the PCMH and THL programs, and agency representatives believe there are indications in these evaluations that using the CCT did produce improved outcomes. Key findings from these evaluations include the following.
- The state’s evaluation of the PCMH found evidence of improved quality, increased access to primary care, and increased follow-up visits following emergency department and inpatient visits.
- The state’s evaluation of the THL program found indications of improved access to primary care among THL members. It also found the THL members had lower inpatient and emergency department visit rates then a comparison group of similar Medicaid program participants who were not enrolled in the program.
“There are some members THL providers cannot find. With ADT, they can locate and maybe enroll the member if they show up at the hospital.”
—TennCare representative
While these changes cannot be directly attributed to use of the CCT, TennCare representatives believe it did play a role by, as designed, helping providers identify gaps in care and providing the information needed to improve follow-up and coordination. This belief is bolstered by findings from focus groups and interviews with PCMH and THL providers. These providers frequently mentioned the importance of the tool for care coordination, especially the ADT data. Also, many of the providers wanted even more information, suggesting they see great value in the information provided by the CCT. There is anecdotal evidence the information in the CCT helped providers identify the specific primary care and behavioral health needs of their patients and facilitate access to care.
Summary
TennCare’s experience illustrates how state Medicaid agencies can develop IT tools that successfully help providers improve the care delivered to Medicaid beneficiaries, even in the absence of a statewide HIE. TennCare’s success was rooted in meeting provider needs. The agency considered end user needs and preferences during the CCT’s development, provides accurate and near real-time data to improve care coordination efforts, and focuses on giving providers the information they need to improve performance linked to payment. To accomplish this, TennCare looked to data sources outside those operated by the Medicaid agency to create a more timely and complete set of data and developed a strong partnership with the state’s IS agency. Finally, access to enhanced federal matching funds offset the cost of the investment.
Acknowledgements: The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank the state officials from Tennessee who contributed to the brief as well as Health Resources and Services Administration Project Officer Diba Rab and her colleagues for their feedback and guidance. We also thank the state officials from Montana and the staff of the Montana Healthcare Foundation whose interest in improving the care delivered to Montana Medicaid participants led to the creation of this brief. Finally, the author wishes to thank Hemi Tewarson, Kitty Purington, Jodi Manz, and Luke Pluta-Ehlers of NASHP for their contributions to the paper. This project was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under co-operative agreement number UD3OA22891, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. The information, 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.
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.
Independent Analysis Finds Montana Has Saved Millions by Moving Hospital Rate Negotiations to Reference-Based Pricing
/in Policy Montana Blogs, Featured News Home Consumer Affordability, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs, Hospital/Health System Oversight, Making the Case for Action, State Employee Health Plans, Value-Based Purchasing /by Johanna ButlerA new, independent analysis of the Montana state employee health plan’s transition to reference-based pricing – which limits hospital prices to a multiple of what Medicare pays – found significant savings for the state in the two years after its implementation. Further, there is no evidence that utilization artificially increased as a result of the new payment model, which could occur if hospitals needlessly push more services onto patients to offset lower reimbursement rates, and, to date, there have been no hospital closures in the state.
Facing rising health care costs and dwindling reserves, Montana’s state employee health plan implemented Medicare referenced-based pricing for its approximately 31,000 members in July 2016. The state set out to address the prices the plan was paying for hospital outpatient, inpatient, and physician services instead of reducing plan costs by increasing employees’ out-of-pocket costs or adopting coverage restrictions.
Prior to implementing reference-based pricing, Montana’s third-party administrator negotiated hospital reimbursement rates as a discount off a hospital’s chargemaster rates, similar to traditional negotiations used by most health insurers when contracting with hospitals. However, because hospitals do not have to follow a standard formula or legal requirements for setting chargemaster prices, these rates can be set much higher than what it actually costs a hospital for providing services, even after the plan’s negotiated discount.
In moving to reference-based pricing, Montana established payment rates for inpatient and outpatient services that are a multiple of Medicare’s payment rate for the Montana acute care hospitals. Before the reference-based pricing agreements, Montana paid a range of 191 to 322 percent of Medicare rates for inpatient services and 239 to 611 percent of Medicare rates for hospital outpatient services. The reference-based pricing agreements lowered the range in prices paid by the health plan to 220 to 225 percent for inpatient services and 230 to 250 percent for outpatient services.
Optumas, an independent consulting firm with expertise in health care reform, used publicly available data to analyze the financial impact of the plan’s transition to reference-based pricing. Using data for the three fiscal years before and after the implementation of reference-based pricing (SFY 14 through SFY 19), Optumas calculated what the plan would have paid under traditional (without reference pricing) negotiations based on a discount off chargemaster rates and compared the estimated payments to what the Montana plan actually paid under reference pricing.
Through these comparisons, Optumas was able to estimate savings associated with the reference-pricing initiative. In total, the plan’s estimated savings for inpatient services were $30.3 million and outpatient services savings were $17.5 million – for a combined savings of $47.8 million. This savings enabled the plan to become more financially sustainable and achieved Montana’s financial goal without pushing costs onto employees or reducing coverage.
Using Medicare rates as a benchmark not only saves Montana tax dollars, but the state employee health plan is subject to more transparent price increases. Instead of being tied to opaque hospital chargemaster price increases, the Montana state employee health plan relies on Medicare’s published pricing methodology, which is updated annually, geographically adjusted, and publicly available.
State employee health plans interested in lowering hospital costs without significantly disrupting coverage may be able to use Montana’s reference pricing approach to reduce health care costs. Reference-based pricing could also be used by commercial purchasers or by states working to cap prices in public-option plans.
To learn more, read Optumas’ report, Independent Evaluation – Estimating the Impact of Reference-Based Hospital Pricing in the Montana State Employee Plan.
The National Academy for State Health Policy is planning a webinar to explore these findings.
A hospital chargemaster is the standard list prices for hospital services. Chargemaster rates are essentially the health care market equivalent of Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) in the car buying market.
Montana’s reference-based pricing agreements with hospitals:
- Generated estimated savings of $47.8 million across inpatient and outpatient services (SFY 17-SFY 19);
- Lowered prices paid for hospital outpatient services from a range of 239-611 percent of Medicare rates to 230-250 percent of Medicare rates; and
- Lowered prices paid for hospital inpatient services from 191-322 percent of Medicare rates to 220-225 percent of Medicare rates.
Independent Analysis: Estimating the Impact of Reference-Based Hospital Pricing on the Montana State Employee Plan
/in Policy Montana Consumer Affordability, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs, Hospital/Health System Oversight, Making the Case for Action, State Employee Health Plans, Value-Based Purchasing /by NASHP StaffResources for States to Address Health Equity and Disparities
/in Policy Toolkits Accountable Health, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Community Benefit, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Featured Policy Home, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health Health Equity /by NASHP WritersMany states are transforming their health care delivery systems to improve health and control costs. Reducing health disparities — and addressing their social and economic causes — is at the heart of many of these efforts.
Hospital Transparency: State Efforts Reveal More Comprehensive Financial Data than Current Federal Requirements
/in Health System Costs Blogs, Featured News Home Consumer Affordability, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs, Hospital/Health System Oversight, Making the Case for Action, Quality and Measurement, Value-Based Purchasing /by Amanda Attiya and Maureen Hensley-QuinnFederal efforts to increase hospital price transparency are falling short as hospitals fail to fully comply with requirements. However, states with transparency laws that give them access to comprehensive hospital financial data are using the pricing information to more fully analyze hospitals’ fiscal health and inform states’ cost containment efforts.
In August 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a rule based on then-President Trump’s executive order that required hospitals to publish their chargemaster pricing online. CMS released an additional rule in 2019, which went into effect at the beginning of this year, expanding the types of charges a hospital is required to disclose to include gross charges, discounted cash prices, and negotiated rates, all of which need to be disclosed through a comprehensive, machine-readable file and a consumer-friendly shoppable services file.
However, not all hospitals are heeding these federal directives, and the threat of the $300-a-day fine is proving to be an insubstantial motivator to larger health systems. An investigation shows that New York City’s five largest systems are only partially – if not at all – complying with the federal requirement. A recent study of 1,000 hospitals across 27 states found that 30 percent of hospitals were entirely noncompliant, and additional hospitals only complied with one form of required disclosures. To date, the Biden Administration has not taken any public position on the executive order nor the rules.
A hospital chargemaster is the standard list prices for hospital services. Chargemaster rates are essentially the health care market equivalent of Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) in the car buying market.
• NASHP’s model law and reporting template offer a more robust health system financial picture than the current federal price transparency effort.
• NASHP also tracks state legislative efforts to increase hospital transparency and contain costs.
For state agencies seeking to better understand rising health care costs, the price of shoppable services is a relatively small piece of the hospital financial puzzle. The federal regulation falls short of requiring other key metrics and data points that states need for oversight and/or for informed policymaking, such as bad debt, net gains/losses, profit margins, charity care, and more.
Additionally, neither the federal executive order nor subsequent regulations outline any sort of standardization for reporting the required data. Having a consistent standard for accounting documents – such as balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash reserves – would provide comparability and clarity that states would be able to utilize in a multitude of ways. So even if hospitals comply with the current federal requirements, state officials will still lack access to the information they need to fully understand hospital financials and effectively combat rapidly rising health system costs in their states.
Building on a number of state hospital transparency efforts to date, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) has developed a reporting template and model legislation states can use to require health systems to provide comprehensive, standardized financial data that can inform policymaking and help state agencies better understand what is driving rising hospital costs. Connecticut and Oregon have been collecting hospital financial data for several years –their experiences informed the development of NASHP’s model law and reporting template, and they may be useful to other states.
The Connecticut Office of Health Strategy collects data to evaluate increased hospital expenditures against their revenue to determine if such expenditures are necessary and warranted. Connecticut also uses this data to help answer key questions about hospitals’ ability to continue to meet their debt obligations, pay their employees and vendors, and continue to provide quality care to patients. The standardized data Connecticut collects also helps the state evaluate the changing health care market, which includes health system mergers and acquisitions, increased capital costs, and the differences between increased expenses and revenues.
Assessing hospital financials helps states develop a range of cost containment strategies, from payment and care delivery reforms to policies designed to restrict cost growth. For example, hospital financial reporting serves as a critical companion to Connecticut’s cost-growth benchmark program by helping to contextualize claims reporting data when evaluating system costs over time. When paired with quality measures, all-payer claims database information, facilities fee reporting, discharge data, and cost benchmark data, hospital financial transparency has given Connecticut a fuller, more accurate picture of the health market’s performance statewide. Financial data on its own may not necessarily reveal price variation over time, but when tied with other data, such as reporting on payer mix (public vs. private payers) differences, states can better evaluate their hospital market’s performance.
With hospital costs making up a significant portion of health care spending, states have been interested in tracking the impact of hospitals’ payer mixes and the proportion of hospital costs on overall premium dollar changes over time, especially when compared to federal data. The Oregon Health Authority has been collecting hospital financial data for years and in 2014 began publishing quarterly reports. Oregon documented a rise in state health spending at an average of 6.5 percent per person per year from 2013 to 2017, compared to a 4.5 percent annual increase at the national level. This discrepancy between federal and state-level health cost annual increases encouraged Oregon to develop cost-containment strategies. Additionally, while hospital profit margins were about 7.3 percent statewide in 2019, some Oregon hospitals reported losses that year, which were quickly identified in the state’s standardized financial reporting format.
Oregon has also been able to utilize its financial data to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its statewide health systems. As have many states, Oregon observed a decrease in hospital utilization in the second quarter of 2020, caused by the suspension of elective procedures and stay-at-home orders. This resulted in a steep reduction of about 80 percent in net patient revenue during April. Combined with data collected on hospital financial reserves, Oregon was able to prepare for the potential of rapid consolidation – which frequently leads to increased prices impacting consumers and boosting premiums.
While it’s unlikely that hospital transparency efforts on their own will produce lower health care costs, states may want to consider the value of this approach in collecting comprehensive health system data – particularly as care utilization has changed over the past year and its effect on the system remains unknown. NASHP’s model law and reporting template, informed by state experiences, offer a more robust health system financial picture than the current federal price transparency effort.
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. 























































































































































