American Rescue Plan Could Significantly Enhance Health Insurance Coverage
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home CHIP, Consumer Affordability, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Relief and Recovery, State Insurance Marketplaces /by Christina Cousart and Anita CardwellLast week, the House passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The $1.9 trillion relief package’s current proposals would change health coverage programs, including Medicaid, health insurance marketplaces, and continuation coverage offered through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).
If enacted, the changes could have significant ramifications for states and individuals served by these programs. States should be prepared to act quickly to implement and/or respond to the changes, some of which will be effective immediately upon passage.
ARPA is now before the Senate, which may make modifications and will review its provisions to determine if they meet budget reconciliation rules. Both House and Senate leadership have expressed strong interest in quickly passing the legislation, with passage possible by mid-March.
The following highlights key proposed Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) changes as well as provisions designed to help increase access to affordable care for individuals who have lost employer-sponsored insurance.
Key Medicaid and CHIP Provisions
Coverage of COVID-19 vaccines and treatment under Medicaid and CHIP:
- Requires Medicaid and CHIP coverage of COVID-19 vaccines and treatment without cost sharing for all eligible enrollees;
- Increases federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) to 100 percent for vaccine administration for one year after the end of the public health emergency (PHE); and
- Provides an option for states to provide coverage of COVID-19 vaccines and treatment without cost sharing for uninsured individuals at 100 percent FMAP.
Option to provide additional Medicaid and CHIP postpartum coverage:
- Allows states to extend Medicaid or CHIP coverage for 12 months after childbirth. (This option would be available for seven years).
Enhanced FMAP for mobile crisis intervention services:
- State option would provide Medicaid coverage for qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services.
- Provides 85 percent FMAP for these services. (This option would be available for five years.)
Temporary FMAP increase to incentivize Medicaid expansion:
- Provides 5 percentage point FMAP increase to states’ base FMAP rates for eight calendar quarters to states that opt to implement the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion after enactment of the American Rescue Plan. (This increase is in addition to the temporary 6.2 percentage-point FMAP increase available during the PHE provided by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act)
- FMAP increase applies to all Medicaid eligibility groups except the expansion group. Newly expanding states would receive the current 90 percent FMAP provided for the expansion group.
Temporary extension of 100 percent FMAP for care provided at Urban Indian Organizations and Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems:
- Provides 100 percent FMAP for eight calendar quarters for services provided at Urban Indian Health Programs or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System to Medicaid enrollees.
Sunset of Medicaid Drug Rebate Limit:
- Beginning in calendar year 2023, this provision would eliminate the cap on Medicaid drug rebates.
Temporary enhanced FMAP for home- and community-based services:
- Provides 7.35 percentage-point FMAP increase for one year to help states implement improvements to Medicaid home- and community-based services.
Creation of state strike teams for nursing facilities:
- Provides $250 million to the US Department of Health and Human Services for states to create strike teams to help nursing facilities manage COVID-19 outbreaks.
Key Private Market Coverage Provisions
Support for continuation coverage through COBRA:
- Provides federal funding so that individuals would only have to pay 15 percent of their premiums toward COBRA coverage. COBRA allows individuals who have experienced job loss to continue enrollment in their employer-sponsored health insurance plan for a period of up to 36 months. Normally, individuals pay 100 percent of COBRA premiums. Federal funding will be available through Sept. 30, 2021.
- Requires employers to provide updated information to qualifying employees about the program and be prepared to expedite review for any employees who are denied premium assistance.
Enhanced tax credits to purchase coverage through health insurance marketplaces:
- Provides a two-year enhancement to premium tax credits (PTCs) available to eligible individuals who qualify to purchase coverage through health insurance marketplaces. The enhancements both increase the amount of PTCs available at all income levels and eliminate the 400 percent earnings (of federal poverty level – FPL) limit to qualify for PTCs.
- Funding would cap monthly premiums at no more than 8.5 percent of an individual’s income.
- The PTC enhancements would be available for the 2021 and 2022 plan years. Individuals who are currently enrolled in marketplace coverage would be eligible for rebates to cover expenditures already made toward 2021 coverage.
- Disregards income above 133 percent of FPL for purposes of calculating eligibility for PTCs for any individual who receives unemployment compensation in 2021.
- For more information about these proposals, read the February, 2021 National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) blog, Congressional Proposals Could Improve Coverage Affordability and Access for Millions.
NASHP will follow the American Rescue Plan Act as it moves through Congress and will continue to share information on provisions that are critical to states.
The State of the States: Amid the Pandemic, Governors Tackle Health, Social, and Economic Issues
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Eligibility and Enrollment, Equity, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Immunization, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Allie Atkeson, Anita Cardwell, Rebecca Cooper, Gia Gould and Elinor HigginsGovernors use their annual state of the state addresses to showcase recent successes and define their policy priorities for the year ahead. By late February, 45 governors had delivered speeches outlining plans to address a wide range of health and related issues in the coming months. All mentioned their states’ responses to COVID-19, frequently praising frontline responders and public health agencies and applauding their states’ agile interagency actions to address the pandemic.
Echoing their 2020 health care and social determinant priorities, many governors continued to address social drivers of health. In 2021, they again prioritized education, livable wages, and justice – all areas that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Meanwhile, topics such as prescription drug costs, Medicaid expansion, and access to affordable and healthy food, while important, did not dominate the governors’ narratives this year.
View a chart highlighting governors’ goals on a variety of health-related policies here.
However, the issues governors addressed do not exist in silos. Many of these important topics, including equity, broadband, mental health, and justice, are themes woven throughout their addresses. Below are highlights of the key themes that governors raised.
COVID-19 Recovery
Every governor framed his or her state of the state address through the lens of COVID-19. Of those, 34 governors discussed specific plans for COVID-19 recovery. Twenty-seven focused on plans for expedient and equitable vaccine distribution and 11 governors discussed plans for community recovery.
Governors emphasized the importance of getting doses into arms quickly while prioritizing an equitable distribution – they highlighted state plans to build pop-up and mass vaccination clinics and deploy their National Guard units to aid in vaccination efforts. Several governors also highlighted innovative plans for community recovery both during and after the public health emergency ends. For example, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York announced his plan to build a public health corps to facilitate vaccination operations and share learnings and best practices to ensure New York is better prepared for future crises.
Governors also highlighted the importance of partnerships during the pandemic – between a state’s executive and legislative branches to pass emergency relief bills, as well as collaboration with other states to share workforce and supplies, such as the Northeast partnership between Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
Education
Forty-one governors discussed education in their state of the state speeches — up from 34 last year. It is well documented that individuals with more and better education experience improved health outcomes, and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf identified education as a critical social determinant of health, saying “universal high-quality education leads to healthier people and healthier communities.”
The majority of governors addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children, educators, and families. Fourteen governors underscored the importance of fully funding K-12 schools despite the tight budgets that states are facing this year and 11 governors emphasized the importance of safely opening schools. Governors proposed a variety of approaches to encourage schools to reopen so that children could get back to learning in-person:
- Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey proposed tying school funding to in-person learning as a way to incentivize schools to re-open their doors.
- Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said his team has been “working with a number of lab partners to develop a weekly COVID testing program for kids, teachers and staff.”
- Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak said that getting back to the classroom was the reason his state had “prioritize[d] our educators for vaccinations.”
Fifteen governors expressed support for expanded early childhood education programs, pre-kindergarten options, and improved childcare for young children. Participation in early childhood education programs has been linked to better health, higher educational achievement, and higher socioeconomic status in adulthood. But this year, two governors were also promoting it as a necessary childcare option for working parents, particularly mothers, who have had to leave the workforce to take care of children during the pandemic.
Recognizing the contributions that teachers have made throughout the pandemic was also a recurring theme. Fifteen governors proposed additional compensation for teachers through raises, bonuses, or increased pensions. Though some of these pay increases are aimed at improving teacher recruitment and retention, several governors framed them as a way to acknowledge the additional job challenges presented by COVID-19. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, for example, proposed a budget that included “a 2 percent pay increase as a way to express our state’s gratitude to our teachers who rose to the challenge during an unprecedented time for our state.”
In addition to acknowledging the challenges of the past year, governors also emphasized the variety of supports that children and families would need to recover from the pandemic. Ten governors proposed new college scholarships to alleviate financial stress for students and families, five introduced plans to increase support for low-income students and English-language learners, and four discussed the need for increased mental health supports as students return to school.
Broadband
Thirty governors discussed broadband and the internet access during their state of the state addresses, up from 16 last year. The issue of broadband and internet access became a significant issue during the pandemic, especially as it related to equity in accessing on-line education and telehealth services. Maine Gov. Janet Mills noted that, “high-speed internet is as fundamental as electricity, health, and water. It is the primary way of connecting with others in the 21st century.” Though the digital divide existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health emergency highlighted the importance of access to reliable Wifi and exacerbated existing disparities. Seven governors specifically commented on the need to reduce the digital divide, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy commenting on the state’s progress from 2020, noting that in the past year it had worked to close the digital divide and today, 95 percent of students have the tools they need, and the state is working to close the gap to zero.
Thirteen governors also connected reliable broadband to education. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont noted how COVID-19 revealed that, “…too many students are left on the wrong side of the digital divide that exacerbates the achievement gap. Computers, internet access, and broadband – these are the tools essential to students’ success during COVID and for the foreseeable future.” At least 10 governors noted their fiscal support to ensure equitable access to broadband has increased across the state. Idaho Gov. Brad Little reiterated that for children to have a future, they need equal access to education. He spoke about how Idaho could benefit for years from a $50 million investment in broadband infrastructure, to support remote working and learning, especially in rural Idaho.
Eight governors also cited the urban/rural divide in broadband access and shared plans to expand broadband in rural areas. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s budget proposal would invest over $100 million in broadband expansion statewide, focusing specifically to provide access to rural communities that have been disproportionately impacted during the pandemic. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers noted that Wisconsin ranked 36th in the country for accessibility in rural areas and declared 2021 the “Year of Broadband Access.” His 2021-23 biennial budget proposes to invest around $200 million into broadband — nearly five-times the amount invested in the past three budget cycles combined.
Jobs, Livable Wages, and Unemployment Insurance
A total of 28 governors spoke about employment-related issues, focusing primarily on local economic growth efforts and workforce development to help connect individuals to higher-paying jobs. A few governors also commented on how their states’ unemployment systems were strained to capacity due to pandemic-related need.
Many governors mentioned planned investments in job training initiatives. Gov. Steve Sisolak commented on the creation of the Nevada Job Force that would engage leading businesses to fund and develop employment training programs, and also mentioned plans to establish a Remote Work Resource Center to connect individuals to job opportunities in other regions. Montana’s governor indicated that the current budget allocates funds for trades education by offering up to 1,000 scholarships a year and providing businesses with a 50 percent tax credit if they have employees who participate in the program. South Carolina’s Gov. McMaster proposed directing $60 million towards job skills training for high-demand manufacturing jobs and another $37 million for workforce scholarships and grants at technical colleges. Indiana’s governor advocated for continued investment in successful existing workforce development programs that have helped many individuals complete post-secondary education and obtain higher-paying employment.
In recognition of pandemic-caused job loss and the greater number of individuals relying on unemployment insurance (UI) who sometimes had difficulty accessing these benefits, governors in Illinois, Kansas, Wisconsin pledged to invest resources into UI system improvements. Governors in Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Tennessee stressed the importance of continuing to support small businesses as they begin to rebuild post-pandemic. Georgia’s governor commented that the state should promote “…job creation from those industries that are critical to health care and building on Georgia’s momentum to become a leader in all sectors of the health care industry.”
Environmental Actions
Twenty-three governors addressed environmental issues — down from 30 in 2020. Only Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington drew the explicit connection between the changing climate and the emergence of novel diseases like COVID-19, while most governors focused on the economic opportunity of investing in clean and alternative energy. Among governors’ top priorities was improving access to clean water:
- Gov. John Carney of Delaware: “We’ll again propose a $50 million investment in a new Clean Water Trust Fund. We will make sure that all Delaware families have access to clean drinking water. And we will place a special focus on those hard-to-serve families across our state.”
- Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan: “Last year, I announced the MI Clean Water Plan, a $500 million investment in Michigan’s water infrastructure. Direct dollars to communities for safe, clean water to residents. And it supports over 7,500 Michigan jobs. It’s time for the legislature to pass these bills so we can start rebuilding Michigan’s water infrastructure. I will keep working so every family in Michigan has clean, safe water.”
Behavioral Health
Twenty-two governors mentioned behavioral health in their state of the state speeches, including the effect of COVID-19 on mental health and substance use disorder. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey identified impacts of COVID-19 “beyond the disease itself… opioid abuse, alcoholism, addiction, mental health issues, the sheer loneliness of isolation, suicide: there has been no daily count of these human costs, but they are real and they are devastating.”
Nine governors mentioned significant investments in their state’s behavioral health care infrastructure and services and eight governors addressed substance use disorder (SUD) prevention and treatment as a priority.
- Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said the state is investing “$46 million investment to expand 96 beds at the Taylor Hardin facility in Tuscaloosa and another $6 million for an additional crisis diversion center.”
- In Montana, Gov. Greg Gianforte plans to use tax revenues from the sale of recreational marijuana, state and federal funding to create a $23.5 million fund to provide a continuum of SUD services.
- Missouri Gov. Michael Parson plans to invest in their workforce with “$20 million for 50 new community mental health and substance use disorder advocates and six new crisis stabilizations centers across the state.”
- Maine Gov. Janet Mills announced, “$7.5 million for mental health and substance use disorder, including community mental health and $2 million for our OPTIONS Initiative to dispatch mobile response teams to those communities that have high rates of drug overdoses — something that is more important than ever, given the increase in overdose deaths in Maine and the rest of the nation during the pandemic.”
Ten governors emphasized the impact of school closures on children’s mental health and made commitments to addressing the problem. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s budget includes “$6.5 million in our mental health safety net which will be focused on providing services for school-aged children struggling with mental health issues.” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s budget includes a proposal so that all children in school have access to a mental health counselor.
Governors identified technology as an important tool in the delivery of behavioral health services. Four governors identified telehealth to increase access to behavioral health services and two governors mentioned support lines for their residents.
- Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, discussing telehealth stated, “….which isn’t just a useful innovation in a time of social distancing. It’s a convenient tool for folks who want to receive care from the comfort of their own homes, and it’s literally a lifesaver for many Coloradans in rural areas who may live far away from doctors and clinics and hospitals.”
In her state of the state address, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced, “the nation’s first text-only abuse and neglect hotline for New Mexico children, providing them an outlet that research has shown they may be more comfortable using.”
Legal System Reform
In 2020, the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor highlighted the need for criminal justice reform. This year, 22 governors referenced justice in their state of the state speeches, more than in 2020. Criminal system reform is a key health issue as corrections-involved individuals have high rates of chronic conditions and poor mental health outcomes.
In addition to legal system reform, governors addressed infrastructure investments in correctional facilities, expanding re-entry programs and treatment courts and the death penalty. Governors in four states, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey and Virginia, have plans to legalize marijuana.
Ten governors mentioned reforming their state’s criminal legal system through a variety of policies, including banning chokeholds, limiting no-knock warrants, and eliminating mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam addressed expungement in his speech stating, “rooting out inequities includes expunging the records of people who were convicted of this and certain other crimes in the past.”
Governors in Alabama, North Dakota and Tennessee addressed re-entry programs. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s budget includes “$4.7 million for additional day reporting centers and evidenced-based programming for community supervision. This approach ensures that re-entry to society is done in the most safe and effective way possible for those who were formerly incarcerated.” Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte’s budget includes an investment in [drug] treatment courts. He stated, “…we must prioritize and invest in treatment courts. Treatment courts work. They reduce recidivism. They reduce drug use. They increase public safety. And they are much more cost effective than incarceration.”
Health and Social Equity
COVID-19 has laid bare health and social inequities, and 2021 state of the state addresses shows that achieving equity is a bipartisan goal – 21 governors discussed strategies to work towards equity. Reducing racial and ethnic disparities is of great interest to governors, several discussed racism and racial injustice, describing how communities of color, including tribal communities, were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, and they expressed their commitment to improvement. To address this, two governors announced new positions dedicated to increasing equity:
- Delaware Gov. John Carney created a new position, Director of Statewide Equity Initiatives, designed to make sure those in state government are leading with equity. He noted, “…We’ve also worked hard to build a cabinet that looks like Delaware. We created the position of Chief Diversity Officer to focus on recruitment and retention of a diverse state workforce.”
- Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb announced, “We’ll get our state’s first-ever cabinet-level Chief Equity, Inclusion, and Opportunity Officer to improve and report on diversity outcomes across state government.” He also announced the state’s plan to launch a diversity data dashboard.
Equity was also woven into governors’ speeches around various topics. Eleven governors addressed equity in access to jobs and health care, seven governors addressed the impact of inequities and education, five governors discussed the intersection of equity and women and children’s health – including New Jersey and Indiana’s governors announcing programs to reduce infant and maternal mortality. Seven governors discussed increasing equity in broadband and internet access and closing the digital divide:
- Hawaii Gov. David Ige announced that his legislative package includes a bill to create a Broadband and Digital Equity Office. This office will help enable the state to identify and secure Hawaii’s share of federal funds to enhance broadband infrastructure and digital equity programs.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham stated, “We will enact an equity-first budget for public education, ensuring money reaches students and schools in proportion to the socioeconomic needs of families in the community, laying the path to a public education system that truly delivers for students now and a hundred years from now, no matter their zip code, their family circumstances or the color of their skin.”
Medicaid, Coverage and Access to Care
While all states have experienced Medicaid enrollment growth due to the pandemic’s economic effects, only nine governors explicitly mentioned Medicaid in their speeches. Only Nevada’s Gov. Steve Sisolak commented on the program’s increased enrollment, and he indicated that the upcoming budget would reverse provider rate reductions due to revenues surpassing initial projections. Governors in Missouri and Oklahoma mentioned their states’ plans to implement Medicaid expansion in response to ballot initiatives that were passed last year, and as in the prior year, Gov. Laura Kelly in Kansas again advocated for the state to take up expansion.
Tennessee’s governor highlighted the state’s recently approved Medicaid block grant waiver and also noted planned investments in the health care safety net and extensions of Medicaid coverage for adopted youth and during the postpartum period. Oklahoma’s Gov. Kevin Stitt mentioned the state’s move toward Medicaid managed care as “the best way forward” and Indiana’s governor commented that implementing a managed long-term services and supports program within Medicaid would help families more easily navigate care options.
The broader topic of health coverage and access to care was cited more frequently than Medicaid, with 17 governors commenting on this issue. Most commonly, governors focused on the crucial role that telehealth has served over the past year in maintaining access to both health and behavioral health services. Governors in Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, and Texas advocated that expanded telehealth capacity should be sustained and strengthened after the pandemic, and Gov. Charlie Baker commented on Massachusetts’ recent actions to make its telehealth changes permanent.
Colorado’s Gov. Jared Polis noted plans to once again try to pursue a public option to expand coverage, commenting: “And we look forward to adding an affordable Colorado Option that will give Coloradans — especially in rural communities — more choice and savings, when it comes to selecting a health care plan.” Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed expanding access to affordable coverage by eliminating premiums for 400,000 low-income New Yorkers, and New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham mentioned plans to create a Healthcare Affordability Fund that could potentially provide health coverage to 23,000 uninsured New Mexicans within a year.
Housing and Homelessness
Sixteen governors addressed housing or homelessness in their 2021 speeches. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the United States’ existing affordable housing crisis. Additionally, people experiencing homelessness are at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. The CARES Act Emergency Rental Assistance Program allocated funding to states for rent and mortgage relief.
Six governors discussed their eviction prevention programs and eviction moratoriums. New Jersey Gov. Chris Murphy commented “as the pandemic literally hit people where they live, we instituted strong prohibitions against evictions and utility cutoffs to protect our families. We provided rental assistance to nearly 20,000 individuals and families facing immediate challenges.” In addition to eviction prevention, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker “dedicated a record $275 million to help pay utility bills for those suffering COVID-related income loss. Homelessness is never acceptable, but in a pandemic it’s downright barbaric.” Two Governors, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown addressed homelessness, Gov. Andrew Cuomo stating, “homeless shelters must be available, safe and secure. It’s not just our moral obligation, it is our legal obligation.”
Eight governors addressed expanding access to affordable housing. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam stated, “it’s also time to help people by taking more action on affordable housing. We have made record investments in the Virginia Housing Trust Fund that helps make more affordable housing available.” Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s budget includes a $250 million dollar investment in affordable housing, homelessness prevention and rental assistance. Governors also identified strategies to address property taxes, exclusionary zoning and the cost of land as barriers for affordable housing.
Health Care Costs
Eleven governors addressed health care cost and affordability — down significantly from 2020, when 21 governors addressed the issue. This year, governors focused on lowering health costs for consumers affected by the economic impact of the pandemic. Several introduced strategies to lower consumers’ premium costs:
- Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York proposed the elimination of health care premiums for more than 400,000 low-income New Yorkers.
- Gov. Phil Scott of Vermont directed his Department of Health Insurance Regulation to determine whether Vermonters are eligible for premium rebates due to low health care utilization during the pandemic.
- Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey highlighted the state’s successful launch of its State-Based Marketplace, which has lowered premiums for hundreds of thousands of New Jersey residents.
- Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico mentioned plans for a Healthcare Affordability Fund that would dedicate resources to lowering health insurance premiums and protect consumers from burdensome out-of-pocket costs.
Governors in Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and Utah seek to curb their state’s health care spending through cost and/or quality benchmarks. Vermont Gov. Phil Scott proposed setting a cap on annual price increases for health costs. In New Jersey and Utah, governors expressed their commitment to improving price transparency and data sharing, emphasizing the importance of building resources to help consumers better understand health care costs.
Only four governors addressed rising prescription drug prices – a significant decrease from last year when 12 governors addressed the issue.
Health Care Workforce
This year, eight governors addressed health care workforce issues, with most proposing solutions to meet the increasing demand for providers during the pandemic. Governors in three states proposed educational initiatives to bolster health care workforce development, including a grant program introduced by Gov. Mike Parson of Missouri to fund new health care associate degree programs at community colleges. Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska shared plans to expand the health care workforce by formalizing flexibilities implemented during the pandemic that allow licensed health care professionals from other states to practice in Nebraska, and governors from Kentucky, Idaho, and Nevada committed increased funds to address provider shortages. Two governors remarked on the importance of their volunteer workforce, with Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia calling on retired nurses and doctors to contribute to the COVID-19 vaccination effort.
Other Health-Related Issues
A sampling of other health-related topics that governors mentioned included:
- Transportation: Twelve governors talked about the need for modernized and healthy transportation systems. Indiana’s governor promoted his plan to convert old train tracks into hiking and biking trails, and Colorado’s governor made the connection between multi-modal transit options, electrification of transportation, and cleaner air.
- Child Welfare: Six governors discussed the child welfare system, highlighting progress and the need for more reform. Arkansas’ governor made a commitment to preventing abuse and protecting vulnerable children in the foster care system. Tennessee’s governor announced an extension of Medicaid coverage for foster children that would ensure a more seamless transition to family’s health plans during the adoption process.
- Violence prevention: Arkansas’ governor urged state legislators to pass hate crimes legislation, Georgia’s governor highlighted the need to address sex trafficking, and Alaska’s Gov. Mike Dunleavy indicated that his budget fully funds the state’s domestic violence and sexual assault programs and includes $7 million to help prosecute individuals who commit sexual assault and domestic violence crimes. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte addressed the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous individuals, who make up 7 percent of the population but account for 26 percent of missing persons.
- Medical supplies: New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo commented on the state’s medical supply chain being too reliant on overseas manufacturing and noted plans to incentivize state businesses to produce medical supplies.
- Food: Eight governors discussed food security, production, and distribution. Several governors commended the additional food security supports that were put in place to meet families’ needs during the pandemic. Oregon’s governor talked about new funding for wrap-around services in schools, including nutrition support.
- Wellness promotion: Oklahoma’s governor said that state leaders should address the high rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease among state residents.
Despite the significant challenges of addressing COVID-19, states are continuing to pursue innovative policies and initiatives to address a wide range of health and health-related issues, with many proposals developed directly in response to disparities highlighted by the pandemic. The National Academy for State Health Policy will continue to track many of these topics in the coming months.
2021 State of the States: Amid the Pandemic, Governors Tackle Health, Social, and Economic Issues
/in Policy Charts, Maps Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Consumer Affordability, COVID-19, Eligibility and Enrollment, Equity, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Housing and Health, Immunization, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by NASHP StaffCongressional Proposals Could Improve Coverage Affordability and Access for Millions
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Consumer Affordability, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, State Insurance Marketplaces /by Christina CousartLast week, Congress released a series of legislative proposals designed to respond to COVID-19’s ongoing public health and economic crises. The proposed legislation, expected to be voted on in early March, is a direct response to the Biden Administration’s American Rescue Plan and includes several provisions that could significantly impact eligibility and coverage sold through the health insurance marketplaces.
Tax Credit Increases for Purchasing Coverage through Marketplaces
The legislative proposals would institute a significant increase in tax credits available to consumers to help them pay for coverage sold through the health insurance marketplaces. Currently, premium tax credits (PTCs) are available to individuals and households who earn between 100 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) and who purchase coverage through the health insurance marketplaces. (During 2021, individuals earning $12,880 to $51,520 or a family of four earning $26,500 to $106,000 a year would qualify for tax credits.)
Tax credits are allocated on a sliding, income-based scale so individuals and families are only required to pay 2 to 9.5 percent of their income for insurance (based on the cost of a second-lowest cost silver-level health plan available to that household).
The proposed changes increase the amount of PTCs available by both reducing the required contribution percentages to zero to 8.5 percent and by eliminating the 400 percent of FPL income cap, so that no household would be required to pay more than 8.5 percent of its income for coverage sold through a marketplace.
A recent report estimated similar changes could increase marketplace enrollment by more than 4 million individuals. The change would be retroactively applied, meaning individuals would be eligible for the additional subsidy amount retroactive to Jan. 1, 2021. These changes would be temporary, only applying to tax years 2021 and 2022. In addition, the proposal would create a new eligibility category whereby any individual receiving unemployment benefits in 2021 would be eligible for the maximum amount of PTC available. Specifically, the change would require that any income above 133 percernt of FPL be disregarded for the purposes of PTC calculation.
In a recent letter to Congressional leaders, 19 state-based marketplace (SBM) leaders agreed that policies that enhanced subsidies and removed the income cap would be some of the most effective tools to improve coverage affordability and access. However, significant work to make these changes will be required. Marketplaces must rapidly update eligibility and enrollment systems, modify consumer shopping tools such as cost calculators and websites, and conduct the education and outreach necessary to make consumers aware of the changes. The proposed legislation includes $20 million in grants to the SBMs to make the necessary IT changes.
Protections for Individuals who Misestimated 2020 Income
The Congressional proposals include a provision that would protect consumers from tax penalties related to receipt of an inaccurate amount of PTCs. PTCs are calculated based on an estimate of an individual’s expected income for the upcoming tax year. Typically, consumers who underestimate their incomes and receive more PTCs than they should have are subject to a financial penalty of up to $2,700 for incomes up to 400 percent of FPL. There is no penalty cap for individuals earning above 400 percent FPL.
The proposal recognizes the unprecedented unpredictability of many individuals’ income in during the pandemic and waives penalties for the 2020 tax year. Concerns about excessive penalties and income miscalculations in 2020 were raised by SBM leaders in a letter sent to the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Services (read their letter here).
Congressional committees are currently finalizing legislative language and could vote as soon as early March. If passed, the federal government and the SBMs will need to work at a rapid pace to make the policy and system changes necessary for implementation. SBM officials are also making plans to adopt changes that will enable access to more affordable coverage for the populations they serve.
The National Academy for State Health Policy will continue to monitor and report on the proposed legislation as it moves through Congress and the SBMs as they begin the groundwork necessary to implement the proposals.
Federal and State Special Enrollment Periods Increase Access to Insurance Coverage
/in Policy California, Colorado, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington Blogs, Featured News Home Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, State Insurance Marketplaces /by Christina CousartState Medicaid and CHIP Strategies to Protect Coverage during COVID-19
/in COVID-19 State Action Center Charts, Featured News Home CHIP, CHIP, COVID-19, Eligibility and Enrollment, Eligibility and Enrollment, Essential Health Benefits, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Population Health /by Gia GouldState-based Marketplace Strategies for Insurance Market Stabilization and Improvement Submitted to the Biden Transition Team
/in Policy Eligibility and Enrollment, Essential Health Benefits, Health Coverage and Access, Medicaid Expansion, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP StaffThe National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), in consultation with state-based health insurance marketplaces leaders, has submitted a list of priority strategies to President-elect Biden’s transition team to improve marketplace operations.
These “action items” are designed to lower costs, stabilize individual and small group health insurance markets, improve access to coverage, and enhance the consumer’s experience when purchasing small group or individual market coverage.
View or download the list of action items submitted to President-elect Biden’s transition team.
Read a blog about the submission, NASHP Outlines Priorities for the Biden Transition Team to Improve Health Insurance Markets.
NASHP is home to the State Health Exchange Leadership Network, a consortium of state leaders and staff dedicated to operation of the SBMs. These recommendations draw upon the experience of SBM leaders who have spent the past decade building and operating successful platforms for the procurement of health insurance coverage.
NASHP Outlines Priorities for the Biden Transition Team to Improve Health Insurance Markets
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Consumer Affordability, Eligibility and Enrollment, Essential Health Benefits, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Medicaid Expansion, State Insurance Marketplaces /by NASHP StaffPresident-elect Biden has pledged to build on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide more insurance choices, reduce costs, and make the health care system less complex and more accessible.
Since launching in 2013, more than a dozen state-based health insurance marketplaces (SBMs) have had the flexibility to develop efficient and cost-effective strategies to serve more than 4 million Americans.
Drawing on its years of experience working with SBMs, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) has developed a list of priority actions that the incoming Biden Administration could take to address its goals of providing high-value, affordable, and accessible coverage to Americans.
Read/download the complete list of actions items submitted to the Biden transition team here.
SBMs have become tested sources of innovation, leveraging a variety of strategies to more efficiently and effectively deliver coverage options to consumers through:
- Strategic and targeted marketing and outreach campaigns, and
- Development of tools, resources, and policies tailored to the needs of local consumers and insurance markets.
NASHP is sharing the SBMs’ lessons learned with the Biden transition team in an action item report. They are summarized below.
There are 15 state-based marketplaces (SBMs) in the United States, with more states transitioning to the model. SBMs exercise more control over their operations, outreach, and marketing than states that use the federal marketplace, and often offer lower-priced health plans.
Explore State-based Health Insurance Marketplace Performance.
Immediate Actions to Address the COVID-19 Crisis
As COVID-19 surges across the country, Americans continue to reel from the impact of the pandemic, including income fluctuations, unemployment, and loss of once-secure benefits, including employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). At a time of continued financial uncertainty and when many individuals must navigate unfamiliar coverage options and eligibility processes, it is unreasonable to also impose roadblocks or penalties that hinder consumer’s ability to obtain or maintain needed coverage.
Flexibility from the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) to ensure that consumers are not unduly penalized during tax season because of inaccurate income reporting estimates could provide needed relief to families already experiencing financial hardship (read the NASHP blog, State-Based Marketplace Leaders Ask for Federal Reinforcement of Insurance Markets during COVID-19). Broadening special enrollment periods (SEP) to make it easier for individuals to enroll in coverage in the event of job or income loss could also ease the burden on individuals and families who lose ESI and need coverage. As evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of individuals who enrolled during SEPs in 2020, consumers are seeking open access to coverage and will need flexible enrollment channels as circumstances continue to fluctuate.
Simplifying and streamlining enrollment for qualified individuals:
While insurance subsidies, including advanced premium tax credits (APTC), are available to most individuals who earn between 100 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), many are not able or are reluctant to access these benefits because of barriers that hinder access due to confusing eligibility and enrollment rules, often perpetuated by complex federal policies. These policies feature discrepancies between how eligibility is determined for various federal programs, including APTCs and Medicaid, as well as policies that deter qualified legal immigrants from enrolling in programs, such as the public charge rule. Additionally, complications in assessing the affordability of employer coverage — either for families that fall into the family glitch or those that are interested in exploring the use of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) — limit the ability of both employers and families to fully explore coverage options that can or should be available to them. Simplifying or rescinding policies that add to enrollment complexities will ensure that more individuals accurately receive the benefits that they qualify for.
Initiatives to prevent market segmentation:
Health insurance markets function most efficiently when they have a robust pool of enrollees across which to balance costs and risk. To generate this mix, the ACA consolidated the market, requiring all individual market plans to be sold in one risk pool (similarly, small group coverage must also operate using a single risk pool). However, recent actions taken by the Trump Administration have enabled the proliferation of alternative forms of coverage, including short-term, limited-duration, and association health plans, and health care sharing ministries. These alternatives are usually not required to meet the same rules as traditional insurance, including guaranteed coverage of certain benefits or protections for those with pre-existing conditions, nor are they required to participate in the single insurance risk pool. Yet, they do compete with insurance products, drawing individuals (often young and healthy) out of the insurance risk pool.
This latter competition may be exacerbated by the growth of direct enrollment entities – third-party enrollment entities that may opt to direct consumers to coverage alternatives. Issues may also arise from the federal government’s recent reinterpretation of the “guardrails” governing Section 1332 state innovation waivers, which opened the opportunities for waivers that allow for coverage alternatives.
Limiting the avenues by which these unregulated products can cut into or harm insurance markets will support the development of healthier, balanced markets and thereby lower costs to consumers.
Restoring and enhancing equal access to coverage and services:
Policies set in place under the ACA sought to ensure equal access to coverage and health services regardless of health status or other traits commonly used to discriminate against consumers, including race, sex, age, or national origin. Recent federal actions rolled back some of those protections, including actions that rescinded protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, as well as steps to improve language accessibility. Other actions reduced protections for consumers by providing an avenue for insurers to deny new enrollments in the case of enrollees who owe outstanding premium payments.
Individuals are given only limited windows in which to enroll in coverage, and barriers that prohibit them from enrolling during that time restrict their access to critical coverage. This is especially troublesome at a time when financial hardships from COVID-19 may have caused delays in timely premium payments. To enable access to coverage and better protections for consumers, it is important to reinstate or enhance consumer protections that improve access and safeguard against discriminatory practices.
Preserving market stability:
Above all, markets require consistency, otherwise insurers act to compensate for both real and perceived changes to their markets, especially ones that are expected to reduce enrollment or drive up costs. A drastic example of this was seen in 2017 when the federal government ceased payments to issuers to support to the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) program, followed closely by Congressional repeal of the individual mandate penalty. Premiums inflated, as insurers sought to offset predicted losses. Several states intervened, instituting policies to mitigate the effect of CSR losses, and in some cases passing their own individual mandates. To maintain market stability and avoid premium spikes, future policies (e.g., changes to the CSR program, premium adjustments, actuarial value calculators, or the poverty threshold) must be designed to minimize market impacts if they are enacted.
While many of these actions relate to reinforcement of federal requirements to ensure access to and stability of insurance markets, states will undoubtedly continue to lead as innovators and regulators of their markets. States will need the maximum flexibility available to them to continue to experiment and make changes to their markets to accommodate the evolving needs of their consumers and insurance markets. This includes continued flexibility over SBM operational functions, like open enrollment windows, as well as broader opportunities to innovate, like flexibility available through Section 1332 state innovation waivers (as conceived prior to the recent reinterpretation of the waiver guardrails). As new federal leadership emerges, NASHP will continue to monitor the actions of states and the federal government as both work to build better, stronger, health care systems.
While the Supreme Court Appears Likely to Uphold the Affordable Care Act, States Still Face Uncertainty
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Consumer Affordability, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, Medicaid Expansion, State Insurance Marketplaces /by Anita CardwellLast week, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of California v. Texas about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate to purchase health insurance coverage, which some states are challenging because Congress eliminated the tax penalty associated with the mandate.
Based on the justices’ questions during oral arguments, many legal analysts consider it unlikely that the entirety of the ACA will be struck down. However, exactly how the Supreme Court will rule cannot be predicted — as evidenced by the court’s 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius that made the ACA’s Medicaid expansion a state option. With a decision not expected until spring 2021, states must operate their health programs under a veil of uncertainty in the coming months and be prepared for a range of possible rulings.
Background
Spearheaded by Texas, 18 Republican-led states and two individuals are challenging the ACA’s constitutionality, and the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is also supporting the challenge. Their main argument centers on a change that was made through the 2017 enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which included a provision to reduce the ACA’s individual mandate penalty to zero dollars. They contend that because the 2012 Supreme Court case NFIB v. Sebelius upheld the constitutionality of the ACA based on Congress’ taxing power, now that there is no revenue associated with the mandate penalty, it can no longer be considered a tax and consequently the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also argue that because the individual mandate is so crucial to the ACA, the entire law should be ruled unconstitutional.
Defending the ACA is a group of Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and the Democratic-led US House of Representatives.
- For a detailed report on the background and evolution of the case, read the Kaiser Family Foundation’s report, Explaining California v. Texas: A Guide to the Case Challenging the ACA.
- For information about the potential implications for state health policy if the entire ACA is struck down, read this National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) blog, You Can’t Unring a Bell – Implications for States if the Supreme Court Upends the Affordable Care Act and view/download this slide deck, A Review of the ACA’s Key Provisions and the Potential Implications of the Supreme Court’s Overturning the Law.
Key Questions before the Supreme Court
- The court must first determine if at least one state or individual plaintiff has standing to bring the lawsuit.
- If they do, then the court will decide whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional — and if the justices decide it is, then the ACA will stand.
- If a majority of the court rules that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then its next decision relates to severability.
- The court will decide whether the individual mandate can be severed, leaving the rest of the ACA in effect without the mandate.
- Or, if a majority of justices decide it cannot be severed, then they will determine whether only parts of the law or all of it must be struck down. (It also is possible that the Supreme Court could send the issue of severability back to the lower courts to determine.)
Key Points from Oral Arguments
Do plaintiffs have standing? A number of the justices’ inquiries focused on the question of standing — specifically whether the challengers have a legal right to sue because the mandate as it exists now causes substantial harm to them. The challengers’ argument is that the 18 states have standing because of increased costs associated with the mandate, such as when more individuals enroll in Medicaid to comply with it and the administrative costs of filing paperwork needed to meet the ACA’s reporting requirements. The two individual plaintiffs contend they have standing because they believe they are obligated to purchase health coverage due to the mandate and incurred costs in doing so.
As noted in SCOTUSBlog’s analysis of the oral arguments, the justices appeared somewhat divided on the issue of the challengers’ claim of standing, and their discussion centered on the Trump Administration’s additional argument that the plaintiffs have standing because they are injured by other parts of the ACA that are directly connected to the mandate. As noted by Justice Elena Kagan, given that Congress often passes legislative packages that cover many different issues, it would be significant “…if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, then it allows you to challenge anything else in the statute.”
Speaking on behalf of the states defending the ACA, California Solicitor General Michael Mongan argued that the two individual plaintiffs lack standing because, without an enforcement mechanism, the mandate no longer compels them to purchase insurance. Regarding whether the 18 state challengers’ have standing, Mongan argued they have not demonstrated that they have faced greater costs due to the mandate.
Is the individual mandate constitutional? The state challengers’ main argument is that because the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision centered on whether the mandate was a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power, with the mandate no longer generating federal revenue, it is now unconstitutional. Also, the challengers argued that the specific language used in the text of the mandate obligates individuals to purchase coverage, despite the fact there is no longer a penalty for not buying health insurance.
In contrast, the ACA’s defenders argued that the mandate is not a command to purchase health coverage, and that because Congress removed the financial penalty associated with the individual mandate, it is “toothless” and effectively inoperative. Mongan noted that Congress has “routinely created inoperative provisions … And they haven’t been viewed as constitutionally problematic because they don’t alter legal rights or responsibilities or bind anyone.”
Justice Kagan cited the court’s 2012 ruling that the mandate was constitutional, and that with the TCJA’s removal of the mandate’s financial penalty, “…Congress has made the law less coercive…” She added that because of this, it does not seem valid to now deem the mandate unconstitutional.
Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA? The challengers argued that even though there is no enforceable penalty now, the text of the ACA indicates that the individual mandate is inextricably tied to its functioning. Some of the justices appeared to agree with this assessment, noting that in the 2012 case, the ACA’s defenders contended that the mandate was essential for ensuring successful operation of the ACA.
In response, the ACA’s defenders highlighted the ACA’s carrot-and-stick approach — noting that even though the financial penalty (the stick) has been nonexistent since 2019, enrollment in the health insurance marketplaces has remained relatively stable, most likely due to the “carrots” (the marketplace subsidies and insurance protections) emerging as more effective than originally anticipated. Additionally, they noted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined in 2017 that the ACA’s insurance markets would continue to function the same regardless of whether Congress chose to reduce the penalty amount to zero or fully eliminate the mandate provision.
Noteworthy because of their potential to side with the court’s three liberal-leaning justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to question the argument by the challengers that the elimination of the mandate penalty effectively invalidates all of the ACA. They emphasized that it did not seem that Congress intended the entire ACA to fall when it zeroed out the mandate penalty under the TCJA considering it chose not to repeal the full law at that time. Justice Kavanaugh also commented that the court’s prior decisions related to severability could serve as an argument for not striking down the entire ACA if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, saying, “I tend to agree with you that it’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place…”
Next Steps
A decision may not come until the end of the court’s term in June 2021 and there are a range of potential outcomes. However, as a Health Affairs analysis of the oral arguments pointed out, it appears likely that if even if the court decides the individual mandate is unconstitutional, many of the justices’ comments related to the severability of the mandate appear to indicate that the court could decide to keep the rest of the ACA in place.
As states await the outcome, state-based marketplaces and Medicaid programs are focusing on enrolling individuals in coverage, while also continuing to respond to the challenge of increasing COVID-19 cases and preparing for the distribution of an eventual COVID-19 vaccine. The incoming Biden Administration will need to be poised to work with states to respond to the implications of the court’s ruling if parts or all of the ACA are struck down.
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. 























































































































































