State Approaches to Implementing Federal HIV Prevention Strategies
/in HIV/AIDS Featured News Home, Reports HIV/AIDS /by Eliza Mette, Mia Antezzo and Jodi ManzThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.2 million Americans over the age of 13 are living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the virus that causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Prevention of new HIV transmissions, along with diagnosis, treatment, and quick response to outbreaks, is among the key strategies identified by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to end the HIV epidemic in the United States.
Policy Actions for HIV Prevention
- Increase access to and provision of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) medication to individuals at increased risk of HIV infection.
- Implement syringe services programs (SSP) that provide a continuum of comprehensive harm reduction services to individuals who inject drugs.
Source: Hiv.gov
As part of the federal government’s goal of reducing new HIV infections by 90% by 2030, two policy approaches that states can employ for HIV prevention are highlighted: provision of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) medication and availability of Syringe Service/Exchange Programs (SSPs/SEPs). Both interventions are cost-effective and can lead to significant cost-savings for states over time, particularly as Medicaid bears the largest cost-burden for HIV care.
New HIV infections have decreased over the decades since the virus was discovered, but prevention of HIV transmission remains challenging for states. Nationally, 220 counties across 26 states are in the midst of or at risk of an HIV outbreak among people who inject drugs. Forty-eight percent of young people who inject drugs report sharing syringes, which significantly increases the risk of HIV transmission, and people who inject drugs make up about 10% of U.S. HIV diagnoses.
HIV Prevention Strategy for States: Providing PrEP
Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is an oral medication that, when taken consistently and as prescribed, reduces the risk of HIV infection by approximately 74% – 84% in people who inject drugs and nearly 99% in HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Providers are encouraged to prescribe PrEP as a preventive measure to patients who engage in sexual behavior or injection drug use that increases their risk of exposure to HIV infection.
Demographic disparities in HIV infections, 2018:
- 42% of new HIV diagnoses were among Black Americans, despite making up 13% of the population.
- 23% of the people living with HIV were Latino, despite making up 18% of the population.
- Gay and bisexual men received 69% of new HIV diagnoses.
- Transgender women are also at elevated risk for infection.
Build Provider Confidence and Capacity: Despite the number of individuals that qualify for PrEP services, there are not enough providers trained in prescribing and administering PrEP to realize the full prevention capacity of this intervention. The regions of the U.S. with higher rates of new HIV diagnoses also have lower rates of PrEP use, and just nineteen percent of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) operating in the country’s largest metropolitan areas have PrEP services available. Primary care providers (PCPs) are able to prescribe and provide PrEP in primary care settings but frequently report feeling ill-equipped or hesitant to prescribe PrEP. States have a number of strategies to improve provider confidence and increase capacity to prescribe PrEP:
- Use Project Echo to train more providers on PrEP. Project ECHO is an educational model through which a specialist provides clinical guidance via telemonitoring to another clinician rendering services to improve clinical capacity. Beginning in 2015, the Washington State Department of Health, in collaboration with the University of Washington, began incorporating PrEP into an existing HIV-specific Project ECHO program. In the first three years of the PrEP program, the program has held talks on PrEP and hosted case discussions which have supported community providers on PrEP related questions. As part of their prevention efforts, Washington also worked to identify clinicians in the community willing to prescribe PrEP and developed tools and other resources to healthcare systems, including a decision tree on how to pay for PrEP.
- Integrate PrEP into primary care. Recognizing the potential preventive impact of PrEP, New York integrated PrEP statewide within primary care and HIV specialty care The State Department of Health worked with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to design a PrEP toolkit for primary care providers and developed a PrEP provider directory. The state’s AIDS Institute published PrEP clinical guidelines on its website, which have since been updated, and NYC developed a PrEP provider FAQ resource and created an email address specifically for questions regarding PrEP. New York’s efforts to raise awareness about and provider confidence in PrEP resulted in a fourfold increase the number of Medicaid recipients receiving the medication.
- Encourage pharmacists to prescribe PrEP. As accessible community providers, pharmacist provision of PrEP can reduce barriers to access and at the same time, reduce stigma associated with the medication. California passed a law that allows pharmacists who have undergone training to provide PrEP without a prescription. The law also prevents health insurers from requiring prior authorization and mandates coverage of pharmacist-prescribed PrEP. Iowa’s telehealth PrEP (telePrEP) program similarly relies upon pharmacists to maximize access to PrEP services through a collaborative practice agreement with the University of Iowa. Colorado and New Jersey also permit pharmacists to prescribe and dispense PrEP.
Leverage TelePrEP: States are supporting telePrEP in order to increase access to HIV prevention services and reduce associated stigma. In Iowa, nearly three quarters of all HIV cases are within 10 of the state’s 99 counties, none of which are near large cities. The state’s Department of Public Health conducted a community assessment to inform the creation of a telePrEP program that mitigates transportation and location-based barriers to access. Louisiana has implemented a similar telePrEP program, and although the state is still working to improve program retention, data show that is has been successful in engaging hard-to-reach individuals; 61% of continuing clients were from rural parts of the state, and all of Louisiana’s nine health care regions were represented.
PrEP services can be cost-prohibitive; medications for PrEP can cost up to $2,000 per month for those without insurance. While most state Medicaid programs cover PrEP medications, the majority of states do not provide payment parity for the provision of telehealth services, although there are some exceptions (e.g., Arizona, Colorado, and New Hampshire). Iowa funds its telePrEP program using savings from HRSA’s 340B Drug Pricing Program. The program also received a four-year $2 million CDC grant in 2018, which has been used to expand the reach of telePrEP services and evaluate the program’s effectiveness and replicability.
Engage Community Health Workers: States are also leveraging community health workers (CHW) to increase access to Medicaid-reimbursable preventive services, including HIV prevention and treatment care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed a rule in 2013 to allow non-licensed practitioners, including CHWs, to deliver preventative services that are recommended by a physician. Louisiana and Rhode Island employ CHWs through Medicaid managed care organizations, FQHCs, community organizations, health departments, and others for HIV care.
CHWs fill non-clinical gaps in HIV prevention and treatment by connecting individuals to services community outreach and care coordination. A report prepared by Boston University with support from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) on integrating CHW into HIV care recommends active engagement between CHW and Ryan White Planning Councils, including through the development of leadership roles and career opportunities on the councils themselves. In Louisiana, HIV/AIDS is the second most common condition that CHW reported addressing in their work.
Other states are utilizing peer navigators to increase access to and comfort with PrEP. Florida relies on HIV peer navigators to connect patients with providers, field patient questions, and assist in connections to health care and social services. Florida’s use of HIV peer navigators has led to improved engagement and re-engagement in HIV care and treatment and more empowered HIV-positive clients. In Louisiana, patients are referred to the state’s telePrEP program through the state’s Health Hub where they can self-enroll or discuss directly with the state’s telePrEP navigator. Once a client is engaged in the program, a provider will e-prescribe PrEP to a client’s pharmacy, and the medication will be mailed directly to the patient. The telePrEP Navigator plays the vital role of keeping patients engaged by connecting with them regularly to ensure medication delivery and adherence, discussing any side effects, and scheduling follow-up appointments.
HIV Prevention Strategy for States: Supporting Syringe Services Programs (SSP).
SSPs provide comprehensive harm reduction services – screening and treatment for communicable diseases, referral to treatment for SUD and OUD, and sterile syringes and other equipment – and are cost-effective and produce cost savings for states. They have played an important role in decreasing HIV transmission among people who inject drugs by providing sterile injection equipment and safe syringe disposal and connecting individuals with needed treatment and other supportive services.
Although states have historically been able to use federal funds to support SSPs, federal rules previously prevented states from using those funds to purchase syringes. States may, however, use the recently announced $30 million appropriated through the American Rescue Plan Act for harm reduction services to purchase sterile syringes for SSPs. Of the 32 states with laws that specifically allow the operation of SSPs, Colorado, Ohio, Georgia, Delaware, and Rhode Island all require SSPs to provide HIV screening services to SSP clients. Other states, such as California, Florida, and New York, include language in their SSP authorizing statutes recognizing the role these programs play in preventing HIV transmission.
New York City realized a four percent annual reduction in new HIV infections among the injection drug user population when it increased its SSP capacity from 250,000 syringes/year to 3,000,000 syringes/year. Five months after Indiana opened SSPs in response to its 2015 HIV outbreak, only 22% of SSP clients reported sharing injection equipment, as opposed to seventy-four percent before the SSP opened. Almost all injection drug users surveyed indicated that they used the SSP; as a result of the uptake of SSP services, Scott County experienced a 96% reduction in new HIV infections by 2018, though the site was recently closed.
SSPs are cost-effective and can help states realize cost-savings over time because of the disease burden they prevent. An analysis of Kentucky Medicaid claims data showed that counties with syringe exchange programs (SEP) have lower rates of disease associated with intravenous drug use, including HIV and hepatitis C, indicating that the state’s SEPs are helping to decrease potentially costly communicable disease burden. Philadelphia and Baltimore’s SEPs together prevented over 12,000 new cases of HIV over the span of a decade, which translated into millions of dollars of savings for each city every year. States may use several strategies to maximize the potential of SSPs:
- Increasing legal access to sterile syringes. People who use drugs are frequently hesitant to use SSPs due to perceived risk of interaction with law enforcement, which may contribute to more syringe sharing and unsafe syringe disposal. Syringes, whether or not from SSPs, may be considered paraphernalia under some state statutes. Several states have taken steps to decriminalize possession of drug paraphernalia and personal use amounts of scheduled substances in an effort to reduce drug user interaction with law enforcement. New Mexico decriminalized possession of drug paraphernalia, lowering the penalty for possession with intent to use to a $50 fine and the penalty for possession with intent to deliver to a misdemeanor. Virginia exempts the possession of syringes obtained from a harm reduction program from the definition of illegal drug paraphernalia.
- Funding to support HIV prevention, testing, and referral to treatment. Sustainable funding is a perennial issue for SSPs, as programs must frequently piece together budgets through multiple grant-based funding sources. However, when SSPs receive public funding, communities experience improved syringe distribution and increased access to treatment and prevention services, which results in reduced or maintained low rates of HIV. New York’s drug user health hubs are enhanced SSPs that provide a more comprehensive array of services, including HIV testing and treatment, as well as PrEP services. Drug user health hubs provide a bundle of Medicaid-reimbursable harm reduction services, such as Hepatitis C treatment, mental health services, and SUD services including MOUD.
Looking Ahead
Despite the progress that has been made toward preventing HIV infections and improving outcomes for HIV-positive individuals across states, the U.S. still experiences 38,000 new cases each year and spends $20 billion annually on HIV. One of the four goals of the HIV National Strategic plan is to reduce new HIV infections, but the U.S. will see an estimated 400,000 additional HIV diagnoses over the next decade if action is not taken.
Recent federal actions and resources can support states as they work to implement and expand HIV prevention strategies designed to reduce rates of new HIV infections. Funding allocated to states in the ARPA totals $30 million in new investments for harm reduction, and this renewed support of harm reduction services underscores the effectiveness of these approaches.
States have played a key role in preventing new HIV infections by strengthening and maximizing access to PrEP and harm reduction services, particularly for vulnerable populations. It is more important now than ever that states bolster HIV prevention infrastructure, as the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the provision of HIV preventive care. Despite the willingness and capacity to provide HIV care virtually, PrEP prescriptions and the number of new PrEP users both decreased between March and September 2020, and SSPs have had to reduce their in-person services due the pandemic, which has impacted syringe exchange and HIV screening.
Acknowledgements
This toolkit was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award under the National Organizations of State and Local Officials (NOSLO) cooperative agreement totaling $836,859.00. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by HRSA, HHS, or the U.S. Government. For more information, please visit HRSA.gov. The authors would like to thank HRSA project officer Diba Rab and her colleagues for their guidance and helpful feedback.
Q&A: How Louisiana Has Retooled its Harm Reduction Services for Vulnerable Populations during COVID-19
/in Policy Louisiana Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, HIV/AIDS, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Eliza Mette, Mia Antezzo and Jodi ManzAs drug overdose deaths accelerate during the COVID-19 pandemic, states are working to ensure that a continuum of services, including access to harm reduction programs, remain available to people with substance use disorder (SUD). The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) recently spoke to Louisiana’s Viral Hepatitis Coordinator Emilia Myers and STD/HIV/Hepatitis Program Deputy Director Anthony James to learn how the state is continuing to provide harm reduction services during the pandemic.
Louisiana authorizes cities, including New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and Alexandria, to operate syringe services programs (SSP). The state has helped maintain these programs by targeting federal grants and through close cooperation between state and community partners.
How have the challenges posed by COVID-19 impacted the day-to day operation of harm reduction services in Louisiana?
Louisiana has six active SSPs across the state. They have stepped up to the challenges of this pandemic and have continued to provide their services, essentially without interruption. They’ve been able to do so through some very innovative approaches, such as hotlines and mail-based naloxone services, and by moving away from brick-and-mortar SSPs. The Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) has worked to improve its relationships with SSPs and link them with their respective local health departments. One result of this manifested in New Orleans where, right when COVID-19 started to ramp up, the city started providing residences for folks who were experiencing homelessness. SSPs went out to the hotels that were housing people to bring harm reduction services to them.
We are also using federal State Opioid Response (SOR) grant dollars in collaboration with the Office of Behavioral Health to fund SSP navigators and federal Opioid Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) dollars in collaboration with the Bureau of Community Preparedness to fund Linkage to Treatment Coordinators (LTCs), who prioritize people who inject drugs (PWID) who have fallen out of hepatitis C treatment. If they are also willing to talk about their drug use, the LTC will conduct a Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). We’ve also been using OD2A funds for our marketing campaign to raise awareness of integrated and co-located care for OUD (opioid use disorder), hepatitis C, HIV, and SSPs to reduce harms associated with substance use disorder, which we hope to continue.
Luckily, there is buy-in to this work. About a year ago, together with the Office of Behavioral Health and Bureau of Community Preparedness, we developed a state health department-wide, harm-reduction crosswalk, which was an environmental landscape analysis of who’s doing what in infectious disease, who’s doing what in OUD, and how we can create no-wrong-door systems of care. We’ve had some modest gains as a result, including braiding select government funds, scaling up SSP-based OEND (overdose education and naloxone delivery), increasing opt-out hepatitis C testing at select human service district agencies and cross-training OBOT (office-based opioid treatment) providers statewide to deliver both medication-assisted treatment for OUD and treatment for hepatitis C and we are looking to build on our momentum. Our state agencies have innovative leaders that make connections for more effective public health and behavioral health collaboration and care touch points, and we’re fortunate to have trailblazers that keep this work moving along.
How have people with comorbid HIV and hepatitis C diagnoses been affected by COVID-19, and how has the state responded?
We know folks who are coinfected are one of the populations most vulnerable to unemployment, poverty, lack of access to health care, and they generally have a lot of competing priorities between trying to take their medications and live their lives. Anecdotally, we are seeing more people accessing SSPs and needing supplies, and SSPs are trying to accommodate that increased demand. With an increase in utilization of SSP services, we hope there will not be an increase in overdoses and or increases in HIV and hepatitis C transmission. I think COVID-19 has really turned access into a challenge and created additional burdens for vulnerable populations, so we have to look at the issue through a health equity lens. There are a lot of systemic challenges and barriers that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, and people’s health has become a lesser priority because they’re trying to survive day to day.
Within our Hepatitis C Elimination Plan activities [featured in an April 2020 NASHP case study], we have seen decreases in testing and treatment as a result of the pandemic. Before we launched our program, 61 people per month were starting curative treatment. After implementation, we were seeing on average 478 people per month starting treatment. At the start of the COVID-19, that number dropped back down to an average of 155 people per month, but since September 2020, testing and treatment utilization has picked back up. This has forced us to learn how to get testing and treatment outside of brick and mortar treatment facilities, because people are anxious of going into health care systems. Because of funding reductions and other impacts of COVID-19, we revisited our hepatitis C strategy to ensure we were focused on realistic and achievable objectives for the second year of the plan, and reassess what Years 3 through 5 will look like. COVID-19 has forced us to pivot and continuously innovate hepatitis C service delivery. We will use this as an opportunity to leverage our response and facilitate a larger push in harm reduction.
How does Louisiana’s harm reduction approach support health equity and reduce disparities?
In both the LDH and STD/HIV/Hepatitis Program mission statements, we focus on addressing health equity and racial disparities across the board. Disparities in health care exist and are associated with worse health outcomes, for example the HIV/HCV coinfection diagnosis and prevalence rates are disproportionally higher among Black males primarily in the Baton Rouge and New Orleans areas. Looking at the mono-hepatitis C surveillance data, there hasn’t been a lot of variability in who’s being diagnosed by race. We see disparities in rates of infection by age – we have baby boomers and people who inject drugs getting infected, so we have this bimodal distribution. In an effort to address these disparities in the context of the current hepatitis C/OUD syndemic, we have to pinpoint shortcomings in hepatitis action towards people who actively use drugs and expand primary prevention through harm reduction because treating your way out of a hepatitis C epidemic isn’t feasible. PWID are increasingly researched, but their ability to tell their own stories and provide input into the programs and services they utilize has been historically limited due to stigma. Louisiana is changing that by leveraging community wisdom through community advisory boards to inform evidence-based service delivery. We move this work forward through a core set of values to help us ensure that the services that we and our community partners provide are moving in an equitable direction.
How has the pandemic necessitated or encouraged new strategies or partnerships?
One of our strategies has been offering provider training. We’ve leveraged Project ECHO to train providers how to leverage telemedicine to treat and manage hepatitis C virtually, revamping remote care. There has been a lot of engagement from clinicians.
There was also a decline in hepatitis C and HIV testing at the start of COVID-19. Our community-based partners have conducted risk mitigation strategies to safely re-engage people in testing. Now that they’ve been able to get PPE, they are able to conduct testing in community settings again.
We are also prioritizing data sharing and maximizing opportunities to form strong partnerships, because the syndemic of hepatitis C, HIV, and drug overdose is really intertwined, and COVID-19 has only made things more challenging. Reinforcing our partnerships and leveraging data sharing, in addition to amplifying the voices and wisdom of community members, is helping us make these programs work for the people who rely on them.
What would you say are your greatest lessons learned from COVID-19?
We really need to lean into interdisciplinary telemedicine for comprehensive care, especially for the hard-to-reach communities in high-burden regions of the state. COVID-19 has caused so much slow down, but also additional time to re-assess what we’re doing. In this context, developing robust telemedicine programs will be critical. The next challenge will be how to integrate offerings into clinical care beyond the COVID-19 pandemic so that a “one-stop-shop” PWID service bundle will become an increasingly ordinary part of care with movement towards the goal of reducing disparities in infectious diseases and opioid use disorder treatment access.
Q&A: A Deep Dive into New York’s Drug User Health Hubs with New York’s Allan Clear
/in COVID-19 State Action Center New York Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Equity, HIV/AIDS, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Eliza MetteThe COVID-19 pandemic poses unique risks to people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Overdose risk increases when using individuals are in isolation and injection drug users are at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality due to increased rates of other infectious diseases and negative health effects from substance use.
State-supported comprehensive harm reduction programs that often provide sterile syringes, naloxone to reverse opioid overdoses, and education and counseling have shown encouraging results and remain critical during the current crisis. As policymakers face tough budget decisions in the coming months, understanding the value of harm reduction services will be increasingly important.
The National Academy of State Health Policy (NASHP) recently spoke to Allan Clear, director of the New York State Department of Health’s AIDS Institute’s Office of Drug User Health to identify the effectiveness of these programs. The institute’s Office of Drug User Health operates the state’s Syringe Exchange Program, Expanded Syringe Access Program, Opioid Overdose Prevention Program, Increasing Access to Buprenorphine Program, and Drug User Health Hubs. Clear has worked with people with substance use disorders (SUD) for decades and ran one of New York’s first syringe exchanges.
Describe the history of harm reduction in New York.
We had been doing underground needle exchange in New York City. The state Department of Health had been monitoring what we were doing and recognized that syringe exchange was of value and important in terms of the HIV epidemic. When the Foundation for AIDS Research said it was going to fund programs in New York City, that’s when the AIDS Institute stepped in, developed regulations, and amended the public health law on syringes, which allowed us to move forward legally and with the blessing of the government.
Learn how states address Co-Occurring hepatitis C, HIV, and SUD:
Read the NASHP report, Tackling the Trifecta: State Approaches to Addressing Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders, HIV, and Hepatitis C.
Register for the NASHP webinar, Tackling the Trifecta: How States Are Addressing Co-Occurring SUD, HIV, and Hepatitis C, from 2-3 p.m. (ET) Tuesday, May 26, 2020. It features a discussion by state officials about harm reduction during COVID-19.
You don’t see it in documents, but New York state has invested heavily in harm reduction over the years, so our overriding philosophy in the AIDS Institute and Office of Drug User Health is a harm reduction approach.
Why is there an emphasis on people who inject drugs as a distinct service population?
I personally don’t think harm reduction would be necessary if we treated people who use drugs in the way we treat people with ‘medical’ problems. We have a health care system which we call “drug treatment,” which has been developed completely outside of the health care system, which I think is fairly unusual. If you have a pain in your neck or a pain in your stomach, you go to your doctor. If you have a substance use issue, you have to completely navigate an unknown and foreign system to find help. And that help is not in any form of outreach – it’s just waiting for you to find it. And then it’s a very imprecise and inaccurate response to your medical problem. The drug treatment system has never really gotten behind efforts that embrace people who use drugs, as opposed to people who desire to stop using drugs, and people sort of dip in and dip out of the treatment system. And I commend [our] agency for saying, “we do drug user health.”
Describe the inception of the drug user health hub program.
The best health care delivery system for people who use drugs would be the existing health care system. Ideally, we would destigmatize drug use to the extent that it becomes a normal thing for people who use drugs to get a compassionate response and quality health care when they enter the health care system. However, at this moment in time, we don’t have that, so we have to develop a system that exists outside of the mainstream medical system. This is why in New York, we have 24 syringe exchange programs (SEPs), and 12 of them are designated as drug user health hubs.
What is the process for becoming a drug user health hub?
[There is no formal certification process. Selected programs are given additional funding to enhance their regular programming in order to incorporate low-threshold medical care – an approach that offers services without attempting to control a patient’s intake of drugs and provides counselling only if requested.] The office approached a SEP in Albany, that already had a Law Enforcement-Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, so, they added on extra case management staff to work with the pre-arrest diversion from the Albany police department. The office also approached a SEP in Buffalo, which had been extremely hard hit by overdoses. They used the money to build up capacity to respond to overdoses internally and to conduct outreach and anti-stigma work within the community, as the Buffalo police department was not carrying naloxone at the time. In Ithaca, they did a great deal of work around exploring drug policy reform and decided to do low-threshold buprenorphine program at their SEP. Over time, we’ve added another nine programs.
What are some of the most important services provided by a drug user health hub?
There are also so many restrictions and problems for doctors to prescribe buprenorphine that there’s a big shortage of providers who are willing to do it. We sort of saw buprenorphine as a frontline medication that prevents death from heroin or opioid overdose, and what we have been promoting is that we provide the medication and then find out what the person wants.
[Clear and his colleagues discovered that once people are properly treated and given assistance with resume drafting and interview techniques to help them return to the workforce, they were more amenable to addressing their secondary health needs, including hepatitis C. Describing the individuals that benefit from the services the hubs provide, Clear said, “people would come back and would be interested in other health care – they want other elements of their care addressed. They now have found a venue where they are welcome and where they get the care that they need.”]
How do the efforts of the Office of Drug User Health play into addressing infectious disease?
[Using the opioid overdose reversal drug naloxone as an example, SUD and infectious disease are intertwined.] Naloxone is not really about HIV – it’s obviously about keeping people alive who consume opioids. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, people who inject drugs drove the epidemic here, and now we’re down to something like less than 2 percent a year of new infections among people who inject drugs. The other element in there now that we talk about a lot is invasive infections, so MRSA, staph infections, endocarditis, all of which are on the increase among people who use drugs. We’re doing a lot of work around supporting staff in emergency departments (EDs) to recognize signs of SUD, conduct screening in the ED to see if someone does have an OUD, or if someone shows up with a staph infection to investigate their injection practices.
How would you apply what you’ve seen over the years to the work that needs to be done systemwide?
I’ve been around since the start of the AIDS epidemic and have seen the response and know how to address serious health epidemics for people who use drugs, and here we are – two and a half decades later – still trying to integrate health services …for people who use drugs into a health system that is not receptive to them. It makes me think, “Why didn’t we learn our lesson? Emerging from the AIDS epidemic, why didn’t we make those changes that were sustainable?” I’m hoping that we can, certainly with our office and the relationships we have built with other entities. We should be able to do something that is lasting and transformative.
Tackling the Trifecta: State Approaches to Addressing Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders, HIV, and Hepatitis C
/in Policy Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health IT/Data, HIV/AIDS, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Quality and Measurement, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health /by Eliza Mette, Jodi Manz and Kristina LongIn response to an increase in HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in individuals with substance use disorders (SUD), including opioid use disorders (OUD), state policymakers are employing multifaceted strategies to address this syndemic, collaborating with public and private partners to prevent the spread of infectious disease and provide access to evidence-based treatment. This report explores innovative approaches Louisiana, New York, and West Virginia have taken to address co-occurring HIV and HCV infections and SUD – providing both rural and urban perspectives – and highlights their resourceful use of funding streams, leveraging of data, and advancing community readiness.
Background
The opioid epidemic has left no state untouched. In 2017, over 70,000 people died from drug overdoses,[1] 11.4 million people improperly used opioids, and 2.1 million people suffered from an opioid use disorder.[2] In addition to the thousands of overdoses and overdose deaths attributed to opioids, another result of the nation’s substance use disorder crisis has been an increase in rates of infectious diseases in people who inject drugs (PWID), including hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, which can be transmitted by sharing contaminated syringes.[3]
Of particular concern is the fact that most new cases of hepatitis C are related to injection drug, and a previously consistent 25-year downward trend in rates of HIV infection among PWID is beginning to plateau.[4] The cumulative costs of treatment for these two conditions in the United States is quite high:
- The total annual cost of providing treatment and services to people living with HIV was $21.5 billion in FY 2019,[5]
- And the total annual health care cost for managing chronic hepatitis C in the is estimated to be $15 billion.[6]
In contrast, allocating the equivalent of the cost of treatment for a single person living with HIV ($400,000) to harm reduction[7] strategies would lead to the prevention of 30 new HIV cases – a significant cost-savings beyond the clear benefit of disease prevention for individuals and communities.[8] States at the forefront of addressing the opioid epidemic are increasingly interested in providing not only treatment, but also access to comprehensive prevention services in order to safeguard public health and make good use of limited resources.
Louisiana
In Louisiana, the number of opioid-related overdose deaths nearly tripled between 2012 and 2018 and exceeded 450 in 2018 – a 13.5 percent increase from the previous year.[9] Louisiana is experiencing a concurrent hepatitis C and HIV crisis:
- Between 2007 and 2017, 40,263 people received a hepatitis C diagnosis,[10] and the Louisiana Office of Public Health estimates that injection drug use is currently putting 112,424 more Louisianans at “very high risk” of infection.[11]
- There is significant co-morbidity within this population – in 2017, the state recorded at least 1,290 Louisianans who were co-infected with HIV and HCV.[12]
To address these challenges, Louisiana developed a statewide Hepatitis C Elimination Plan. The plan was created by the Louisiana Office of Public Health (OPH) in collaboration with the Louisiana Department of Health, the state Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS), and state and national experts.[13] This comprehensive plan acknowledges the role of SUD in the state’s hepatitis C epidemic and the risks associated with intravenous drug use, and it aims to diagnose 90 percent and treat 80 percent of Louisianans living with hepatitis C within five years.[14] It also details a range of cross-cutting strategies that engage the private and public sectors, the health care industry, and community-level partners.[15]
Key features of Louisiana’s hepatitis C elimination strategy and related efforts to address SUD and its co-morbidities include:
- Restructuring reimbursement for hepatitis C treatment: Historically, Louisiana has paid for hepatitis C medications by the dose, incurring significant costs in its effort to pay for treatment for Medicaid enrollees or who are corrections-involved.[16] In response, the state’s HCV Elimination Plan features an innovative purchasing agreement between Louisiana and Asegua Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gilead Sciences Inc., a biopharmaceutical company.[17] Referred to as a “modified subscription model,” this agreement sets a capped cost for all HCV medication administered to the state’s Medicaid and corrections-involved populations.[18] The methodology incentivizes the state to identify and treat as many people as possible, as the marginal cost of each additional patient is essentially zero.[19]
Louisiana estimates that approximately 34,000 Medicaid enrollees and 5,000 incarcerated individuals in state corrections facilities have chronic hepatitis C; however, fewer than 3 percent of those 34,000 Medicaid enrollees were treated in 2018.[20] Under its agreement with Asegua, Louisiana aims to treat 10,000 Medicaid-enrolled and corrections-involved individuals by the end of 2020, and 30,000 individuals by 2024.[21] Preliminary claims data indicate that 2,900 people have initiated treatment since the July 15 start date, considerably more than the number of people treated in all of 2018.[22]
- Leveraging data to track and address co-morbid conditions: The Louisiana Public Health Information Exchange (LaPHIE)[23] was first implemented in 2008 as a partnership between OPH and Louisiana State University Health Care Services Division.[24] OPH maintains comprehensive HIV surveillance data that is updated daily through lab reporting. If a patient enters a participating hospital and a provider opens that patient’s electronic medical record to provide services, the provider will be notified if the patient has not received timely HIV care and prompted to take appropriate action.[25] LaPHIE is also bi-directional: any action taken by the provider with respect to the patient, whether it be a referral or a link back into care, is incorporated into the patient’s electronic medical record (EMR) and returned to OPH, which then updates the state’s HIV surveillance data.[26] This system is designed to strengthen care retention and improve disease management for patients living with HIV by engaging them at different care sites across the region. Improved HIV care management, with the aim of making a patient’s viral load undetectable, has the potential to not only improve an individual’s health status but also reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission to others.
Louisiana recently received funding to expand LaPHIE’s innovative functionality to include hepatitis C surveillance data and is now in the process of building out this new capacity.[27] State officials view the Hepatitis C Elimination Plan as a call to action to Louisiana hospital systems, whose participation in the LaPHIE surveillance system has dropped in recent years.[28]
- Focusing on high-risk populations: Louisiana has been successful by targeting limited state resources on particularly high-need populations:
HIV Prevalence and Diagnoses Attributed to Injecting Drug Use

- Individuals with SUD: In conjunction with its Hepatitis C Elimination Plan, Louisiana’s STD/HIV/Hepatitis Program updated its contracts with community-based organizations to require combined HIV, syphilis, and HCV screening and linkages to treatment for individuals with new diagnoses.[29]
- Individuals who are corrections-involved: OPH has worked closely with the Louisiana DPS&C to develop a treatment model for HCV and HIV, including linkage to care.[30] The DPS&C has offered opt-out HCV screening for all new individuals as they enter the state correctional system since 2008 and opt-out HIV screening for individuals upon release since 2014. OPH provides supplies and training for both of these initiatives.[31] Starting in October 2019, OPH launched a population-level screening project with DPS&C through which OPH offers screening for hepatitis A, B, and C, HIV, and syphilis in every state-run facility, and plans to complete screening all current state inmates by mid-2020.[32] OPH also supports a corrections-based, pre-release program leveraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Part B funding from HRSA – specialists work with inmates living with HIV prior to their release and connect them with case management and support services in the communities to which they are discharged.[33] Louisiana is exploring the possibility of building a similar system for people with hepatitis C as part of its elimination plan.
- Individuals with HIV: Recognizing that people with SUD and related comorbidities often have insufficient dental care that can contribute to poor health outcomes, the Louisiana Health Access Program (LA HAP)[34] leveraged Ryan White Part B resources and worked with Guardian Dental to increase access to comprehensive oral health care for people with HIV.[35] Prior to this collaboration, people with HIV regularly encountered barriers to adequate dental care, including low annual caps, unexpected bills, and limitations on covered services.[36] The state was supported by the Health Services and Research Administration (HRSA) to structure a self-insured plan that would reduce unmet oral health care needs of people infected with HIV.[37] As a result, more than 2,000 individuals have been able to access a comprehensive set of services that address oral health care issues related to HIV infection.
West Virginia
West Virginia has one of the highest rates of drug overdose and mortality in the country. Compounding this crisis, injection drug use in West Virginia has contributed to the quintupling in new HIV diagnoses from 2014 to 2019.[38] Injection drug use is the second-leading cause of transmission for new HIV diagnoses for men and women in the state, according to most recent data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).[39] In 2018, Cabell County, on the state’s western edge, reported 81 new cases of HIV, which qualified it as an active HIV cluster – all 81 new HIV infections were tied to injection drug use.[40] As a very rural state that has been highly affected by the opioid crisis and its comorbidities, West Virginia has taken a decentralized approach in its harm reduction efforts, providing guidance and certification standards to communities to assist them in developing and administering programs at the local level.[41] Since 2011, when the state’s first harm reduction program opened,[42] West Virginia has navigated the challenges of operating syringe exchange programs, which is an evidenced-based, albeit sometimes controversial, approach.
HIV Prevalence and HIV Diagnoses Attributed to Injecting Drug Use
Source: West Virginia Opioid Summary, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2016
Rural areas can face particular challenges in developing and sustaining harm reduction programs. Transportation is limited, confidentiality can be elusive in small towns, and the stigma associated with drug use can be heightened in rural, conservative communities.[43] In West Virginia, Kanawha County started the Kanawha-Charleston harm reduction program through its
department of health, offering syringe exchange in addition to comprehensive harm reduction services.[44] At its height, the program provided services to over 400 individuals weekly, effectively maximizing access to sterile syringes, preventing new HIV cases, and screening for HCV.[45] However, highly publicized public opposition, which was attributed to an uptick in crime and increase in discarded syringes in the area where the organization worked, ultimately led to the closure of the program in early 2019.[46]
West Virginia’s experience with the site in Kanawha County suggests that state support for community-level harm reduction programs can be most successful when they are community-specific.[47] Noted one West Virginia state official, “At the state level, you can’t just say, this program will work everywhere, or look at what other states have done and assume that it will work everywhere – state policymakers and public health officials have to tailor [the program] to the individual, unique communities that they serve.”[48] Those states in which syringe exchange (as a component of harm reduction) is more controversial are faced with the added challenge of finding the balance between the need for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach and implementing more limited models that are acceptable to local communities.[49] Providing messaging that helps to educate communities about the benefits of harm reduction services, including syringe exchange, may also be important in building community support.
Standardizing processes, engaging communities: In an effort to support implementation of harm reduction programs, West Virginia created Harm Reduction Program Guidelines and Procedures, which establish core certification requirements that these programs must meet in order to receive Department of Health and Human Resources’ funding.[50] To be certified, the program must outline all services provided, demonstrate compliance with state laws, rules, and local ordinances, and provide documentation of the involvement of the local health department.[51] The organization must also coordinate with local law enforcement and document any concerns they may have.[52] An integral step outlined in the guidelines is assessing the community’s readiness and building the community’s support prior to implementation.[53] The guidelines also offer several strategies to engage community stakeholders and encourage community buy-in prior to implementing harm reduction programs.[54] Although these programs do not need to be certified in order to operate in West Virginia, sites that complete the certification process are more likely to programmatically align with the state’s eight core strategies for successful harm reduction programs:
- Build community support prior to implementation of a harm reduction program and maintain support for the duration of the program;
- Conduct routine program and process evaluation;
- Have a detailed community syringe retrieval in place for non-sterile syringes found in the community;
- Emphasize harm reduction as a Pathway to Care;
- Emphasize increasing stability and reducing risk among harm reduction participants and fostering supportive relationships with harm reduction program personnel;
- Train caring and supportive staff to provide consistent messaging of safe injection practices, overdose prevention, and infectious disease screening;
- Recommend dispensing syringes in person, not via proxy; and
- Have a mechanism to get patients in treatment when they are ready.[55]
Incremental changes: Despite the programmatic and public relations challenges that harm reduction programs have sometimes faced in West Virginia, communities are gradually embracing these programs. New sites are opening, existing programs are experiencing higher client engagement,[56] and the state has allocated State Treatment Response and State Opioid Response federal grant funding to support harm reduction programs in recent years.[57] This community-by-community approach has allowed the state to increase access to treatment for SUD and prevent the spread of infectious diseases.[58] In its work with local communities, West Virginia has also leveraged CDC’s and HRSA’s HIV/AIDS Bureau’s HIV cluster detection and response service in order to identify at-risk communities, assist local health departments as they identify prevention and service system gaps, and allocate resources accordingly to be responsive to new outbreaks.[59]
New York
New York has a long history of innovation in preventing the spread of infectious disease associated with injection drug use. In particular, the state invested early in its Syringe Exchange Program,[60] creating the foundation for a comprehensive harm reduction approach. Through these efforts, only 2 percent of new HIV infections per year are reported among PWID.[61] Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Ending the Epidemic plan includes achieving zero new HIV infections among PWID and a plan for the first-ever decrease in HIV prevalence in New York by the end of 2020.[62]
HIV Prevalence and HIV Diagnoses Attributed to Injection Drug Use
A lasting result of this early investment is New York’s Harm Reduction Initiative, a program funded by the state’s Department of Health, AIDS Institute.[63] This program funds comprehensive harm reduction programs for individuals living with SUD and the people and communities that support them, including New York’s innovative Drug User Health Hubs.[64]
*New York Opioid Summary, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2016
Supporting integrated models of care: Drug User Health Hubs are enhanced syringe exchange programs that offer a broad range of services, driven by the particular needs of the population in the surrounding community.[65] Hubs are intended to increase access to physical and behavioral health services, including medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for people with opioid use disorder (OUD).[66] Services are offered at hub sites and through referral.[67] Hubs provide services and support with an emphasis on prevention and responding to opioid overdose.[68] Services can include:
- Medical services: Includes accessible buprenorphine; wound care; HCV testing, diagnosis, and treatment; and rapid assessment of a client’s needs.
- Opioid overdose prevention/aftercare for an overdose: Includes training and provision of naloxone overdose reversal kits; training on safer injection practices and provision of syringes; facilitation of appropriate referrals from Emergency Departments and first responders, etc.
- Law enforcement diversion: Includes the law enforcement diversion of PWID who have committed low-level infractions to Drug User Health Hubs.
- Anti-stigma activities: Features hub employees who engage with local providers to encourage a harm reduction focus in their provision of care to PWID, and with local communities to destigmatize injection drug use and create a welcoming environment for all community members.[69]
The goal of New York’s hubs is to transform the state’s syringe exchange programs into locations that can provide comprehensive, easily accessible medical services to PWID.[70] In many health care settings, patients are required to receive psychosocial counseling in order to be prescribed medications to treat OUD.[71] Recognizing that this can be a substantial disincentive to getting treatment, New York’s Department of Health (NYSDOH) began a buprenorphine-first approach, providing medications for treating OUD as a first step, without initially requiring other services.[72] Individuals can receive buprenorphine only, or opt to concurrently access services that can include counseling and other medical treatments as needed, such as those for soft tissue infections, hepatitis C, HIV, and diabetes.[73] As part of the state’s Strategy to Eliminate Hepatitis C, the NYSDOH Bureau of Hepatitis Health Care funds patient navigator positions in seven different hubs in upstate New York.[74] These individuals provide guidance to people living with hepatitis C as they navigate the health care system, and help link them to care and treatment.[75]
Leveraging Medicaid for prevention: In 2018, New York implemented a Medicaid state plan amendment (SPA) that allows the state’s harm reduction programs to deliver certain Medicaid reimbursable services, including medication management and treatment adherence counseling for MAT, HIV and HCV infections, mental health conditions, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection.[76]
A product of a partnership among the NYSDOH AIDS Institute’s Office of Drug User Health, the Office of Health Insurance Programs, and community partners, the SPA came to fruition after extensive negotiation and revision.[77] Initially, it was required to have a physician perform the harm reduction services covered under the SPA, but the state was able to modify staffing requirements, recognizing that many harm reduction programs in the state do not have medical providers on staff.[78] The approved SPA permits licensed clinical social workers, certified peers, and direct service providers with relevant experience to provide Medicaid-reimbursable harm reduction services under the SPA.[79]
The NYSDOH also recently amended the requirements that community-based organizations must satisfy in order to become licensed health care facilities, allowing organizations such as syringe exchange programs, to provide and bill Medicaid for primary care services.[80] Syringe exchange programs have historically been unable to directly deliver primary health care services and have been required to contract out these services in order to deliver them on-site – a model that was not financially sustainable for most.[81] The change permits these organizations to fully integrate Medicaid-reimbursable primary care, including HCV and HIV screening, assessment, and treatment within the harm reduction setting.[82] State officials see the ability to deliver primary care in these nontraditional settings as necessary to achieve the goal of disease elimination.[83]
Considerations for States and Conclusion
While states have taken different approaches to addressing the opioid crisis and its related increase in infectious disease incidence, these three states’ approaches provide some common themes that can be implemented elsewhere:
- Robust data is critical to address the complex co-morbidities associated with SUD. Unlike HIV surveillance, which remains relatively well-funded and robust, hepatitis C surveillance typically does not have consistent funding nor a robust infrastructure across states. However, some states are taking steps to improve their infrastructure and leverage new technology. For example, Louisiana is adapting its HIV surveillance strategy and standards to include hepatitis C surveillance, and in so doing has turned a passive registry into an “active and rigorous system of care,” according to one state public health official. Similarly, New York is in the process of improving its hepatitis C surveillance infrastructure as part of its statewide elimination plan. In West Virginia, the CDC’s HIV cluster detection and response team has been an important resource to help the state accurately track HIV outbreaks and appropriately allocate resources.
- Medicaid plays an important role in prevention and treatment. One Louisiana state official observed, “Our plan to eliminate hepatitis C hinged on the increased insurance coverage that Medicaid expansion has provided our residents.” Medicaid expansion in Louisiana was critical in expanding access to comprehensive HIV prevention and treatment, as newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries were able to transition away from reliance solely on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. Louisiana used Medicaid funding to shift and alleviate costs and was able to provide expanded services to people with HIV. New York, similarly, has been able to leverage Medicaid to create a harm reduction benefit, which has expanded the ability of the state’s syringe exchange sites to engage in prevention activities.
- Solutions must be tailored to local needs. Because the OUD crisis looks very different in different places, policymakers must be responsive to specific drivers and factors that shape a community’s experience. In response to the challenges it experienced in implementing sustainable harm reduction programs in West Virginia, the state developed certification guidelines that it ties to state funding. In so doing, the state ensures that the majority of harm reduction programs in West Virginia assess and engage with their local communities prior to implementation. Similarly, one of the mandates of New York’s Drug User Health Hubs is to work with the communities in which they operate to reduce the stigma associated with substance use, and better involve community members who inject drugs.
Conclusion
The concurrent increase in the incidence of blood-borne infectious diseases is just one consequence of an OUD crisis that has had a far-reaching impact on the nation. By implementing evidence-based, community-tailored prevention and treatment policies, states can prevent new infections, better address co-morbid SUD and infectious diseases, and reduce state costs. Through coordination and targeted resources, states are developing sustainable prevention and treatment policies that can address the complexity of factors at the intersection of SUD and infectious disease.
Notes
[1] “Opioid Overdose,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 18, 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/index.html.
[2] “The opioid epidemic and emerging public health policy priorities,” American Medical Association, October 31, 2019, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/opioids/opioid-epidemic-and-emerging-public-health-policy-priorities.
[3] “Persons Who Inject Drugs (PWID)s,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, July 19, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/pwid/index.html.
[4] “Syringe Services Programs (SSPs),” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 23, 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-summary.html.
[5] “U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: Trends Over Time,” Kaiser Family Foundation, March 2019, https://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-trends-over-time/.
[6] “Syringe Services Programs (SSPs),” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 23, 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-summary.html.
[7] “Department of Health and Human Services Implementation Guidance to Support Certain Components of Syringe Services Programs, 2016,” Department of Health and Human Services, 2016, https://www.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/hhs-ssp-guidance.pdf.
[8] “Harm Reduction for HIV Prevention,” Avert, March 2019 https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-programming/prevention/harm-reduction.
[9] Louisiana Department of Health Opioid Steering Committee, “Louisiana’s Opioid Response Plan,” Louisiana Department of Public Health, 2019, http://ldh.la.gov/assets/opioid/LaOpioidResponsePlan2019.pdf.
[10] Sam Burgess, “Louisiana’s Hepatitis C Elimination Plan,” Louisiana Department of Health, 2019, https://www.nastad.org/sites/default/files/Uploads/2019/2019-am-burgess.pdf.
[11] Ibid.
[12] “Louisiana Hepatitis C Elimination Plan: 2019-2024,” Louisiana Department of Health, August 2019, https://www.louisianahealthhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HepCFreeLA.pdf.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ted Alcorn, “Hepatitis C Drugs may Serve as Model,” The Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/louisianas-deal-for-hepatitis-c-drugs-may-serve-as-model-11568347621.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Gretchen A. Meier, “Using the Drug Pricing Netflix Model to Help States Tackle the Hep C Crisis,” USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, August 16, 2019, https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/using-the-drug-pricing-netflix-model-to-help-states-tackle-the-hep-c-crisis/.
[20] “Solicitation for Offers for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers to Enter Into Contract Negotiations to Implement Hepatitis C Subscription Model,” Louisiana Department of Health, http://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/SFO/SFOWrittenAnswersManufacturers.pdf.
[21] Gretchen A. Meier, “Using the Drug Pricing Netflix Model to Help States Tackle the Hep C Crisis,” USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, August 16, 2019, https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/using-the-drug-pricing-netflix-model-to-help-states-tackle-the-hep-c-crisis/.
[22] Interview with Louisiana.
[23] The Louisiana Public Health Information Exchange was originally funded by HRSA.
[24] Interview with Louisiana.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] “Louisiana Hepatitis C Elimination Plan: 2019-2024,” Louisiana Department of Health, August 2019, https://www.louisianahealthhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HepCFreeLA.pdf.
[30] Interview with Louisiana.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Louisiana Health Access Program, 2018, https://www.lahap.org/dental/.
[35] Interview with Louisiana.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Catherine Slemp, “Health Advisory # 162,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, October 2019, https://oeps.wv.gov/healthalerts/documents/wv/WVHAN_162.pdf.
[39] “West Virginia Opioid Summary,” National Institute on Drug Abuse, March 2019 https://www.drugabuse.gov/opioid-summaries-by-state/west-virginia-opioid-summary.
[40] Kyle Swenson, “Unraveling an HIV cluster,” The Washington Post, November 3, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unraveling-an-hiv-cluster/2019/11/03/66cf4526-f5af-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html.
[41] “Harm Reduction Program (HRP) Guidelines and Certification Procedures,” West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, 2018, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/Documents/hcp/HRP_Guidelines_2018.pdf.
[42] “West Virginia Harm Reduction Programs At-A-Glance,” West Virginia Office of Epidemiology and Prevention Services, 2018, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/about/wv_hrp.pdf.
[43] Sean T. Allen et al., “Understanding the public health consequences of suspending a rural syringe services program: a qualitative study of the experiences of people who inject drugs,” Harm Reduction Journal, May 21, 2019, https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-019-0305-7.
[44] Kara Leigh Lofton, “Diving Deep into Harm Reduction Part 1: Why W.Va’s Largest Needle Exchange Closed,” West Virginia Public Broadcasting, November 26, 2018, https://www.wvpublic.org/post/diving-deep-harm-reduction-part-1-why-wva-s-largest-needle-exchange-closed#stream/0.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Interview with West Virginia.
[48] Ibid.
[49] HHS resources for Syringe Services Programs may be accessed here: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/policies-issues/syringe-services-programs.
[50] West Virginia Harm Reduction Programs At-A-Glance,” West Virginia Office of Epidemiology and Prevention Services, 2018, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/about/wv_hrp.pdf.
[51] “Harm Reduction Program (HRP) Guidelines and Certification Procedures,” West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, February 1, 2018, https://dhhr.wv.gov/oeps/harm-reduction/Documents/HRP_Guidelines_2018.pdf.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Bureau for Public Health, “White Paper: The Need for Harm Reduction Programs in West Virginia,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, November 6, 2017, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/training/hrp_white_paper.pdf.
[57] “Announcement of Funding Availability – Harm Reduction,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Public Health, May 17, 2019, https://dhhr.wv.gov/bhhf/AFA/Documents/AFA%20FY%2019/Harm%20Reduction%20AFA%20FINAL.pdf.
[58] Bureau for Public Health, “White Paper: The Need for Harm Reduction Programs in West Virginia,” West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, November 6, 2017, https://oeps.wv.gov/harm_reduction/documents/training/hrp_white_paper.pdf.
[59] Interview with West Virginia.
[60] “Policies and Procedures: Syringe Exchange Programs,” New York State Department of Health Aids Institute, September 2016, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/consumers/prevention/needles_syringes/syringe_exchange/docs/policies_and_procedures.pdf.
[61] Interview with New York.
[62] “Ending the AIDS Epidemic in New York State,” New York State Department of Health, January 2020, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/ending_the_epidemic/.
[63] “Drug User Health,” New York State Department of Health, August 2017, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/general/about/substance_user_health.htm.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid.
[68] “Drug User Health – Drug User Health Hubs,” New York State Department of Health, October 2019, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/consumers/prevention/.
[69] “Drug User Health,” New York State Department of Health, August 2017, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/general/about/substance_user_health.htm.
[70] Interview with New York.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Interview with New York.
[75] “New York State Hepatitis C Elimination Task Force,” New York State Department of Health, April 2019, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/hepatitis/hepatitis_c/elimination.htm.
[76] “New York State Plan Amendment,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, August 10, 2017, https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/state_plans/status/non-inst/approved/docs/app_2017-08-10_spa_13-19.pdf.
[77] Interview with New York.
[78] Ibid.
[79] “Harm Reduction Services,” New York State Department of Health, May 2018, https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/redesign/2018/docs/harm_reduction.pdf.
[80] Interview with New York.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Ibid.
Acknowledgements: The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank Louisiana, New York, and West Virginia state officials who generously shared their time and insight during the preparation of this report. The authors also thank Trish Riley and Kitty Purington of NASHP, as well as Carolyn Robbins and her colleagues at the Health Resources and Services Administration for their guidance and helpful feedback.
This project was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UD3OA22891, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. The information or content and conclusions are those of the authors 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.
How the President’s Proposed FFY 2021 Budget Would Impact Critical State Health Programs
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, CHIP, CHIP, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health System Costs, HIV/AIDS, Housing and Health, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health /by NASHP StaffThe President’s budget request for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 proposes a 10 percent reduction in the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) budget. A signature piece of the budget features the President’s Health Reform Vision, which includes $844 billion in cuts over 10 years to implement the Administration’s efforts to provide “better care at lower costs.”
While the proposed budget is subject to Congressional review and expected to change, it is important for states to consider how the Administration’s priorities could affect public health programs. The following highlights some of the key budget proposals that impact state health programs.
Prescription Drugs
- Increases oversight of the 340B Program. The proposal gives explicit oversight authority to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) with the goal of creating enforceable standards for participation and ensuring 340B benefits low-income and uninsured patients. Part of the increased funding for oversight ($34 million) will come from a new user fee on covered entities based on 340B sales.
- Bipartisan drug pricing proposals. The budget includes an allowance of $135 billion in savings for bipartisan Congressional drug pricing proposals. The Administration specifically supports efforts to improve the Medicare Part D benefit by establishing an out-of-pocket maximum and lowering out-of-pocket costs for seniors, as well as reforms to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and regulatory measures to bring lower-cost generics and biosimilars to market.
Health Insurance Markets
- Encourages expansion of coverage in the small-group market through Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (MEWAs). Provides additional funding to the Employee Benefits Security Administration to encourage adoption of policies to boost insurance coverage for small businesses. Specifically, the budget suggests promotion of MEWAs – an arrangement made when multiple employers coordinate to offer benefits to their employees – for example, association health plans are a type of MEWA. State regulation of MEWAs varies, though largely they are exempt from many requirements imposed on other health plans, including consumer protections codified under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This investment follows prior action taken by this Administration to promote association health plans.
Medicaid
- Reductions in overall program funding. Proposes to cut $920 billion over 10 years from Medicaid.
Eligibility and Enrollment
- Requires work and community engagement initiatives. To receive Medicaid benefits, the budget proposes requiring all able-bodied, working-age, Medicaid-eligible individuals to find employment, participate in job training, or volunteer. It estimates this will generate $152.4 billion in savings over 10 years.
- Gives states the ability to change certain program elements and eligibility determination processes. Proposes to allow states to implement certain changes to Medicaid benefits and cost sharing, including making non-emergency medical transportation optional and allowing states to use state plan authority rather than a waiver to increase copayments for nonemergency use of emergency departments. Proposes to permit states to apply asset tests for individuals who are financially eligible for the program through the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) standard. States would also be permitted to conduct eligibility redeterminations for MAGI-eligible individuals more frequently, to align with the soon-to-be released proposed rule on Medicaid eligibility determination processes.
- Requires documentation of immigration status prior to receipt of Medicaid. Proposes that before they receive Medicaid coverage, individuals must provide evidence of citizenship or satisfactory immigration status. While states will still be allowed to provide coverage during a reasonable opportunity period, they will not be able to receive federal match for these individuals during this time. This is estimated to save $2.6 billion over 10 years.
- Reduces maximum allowable home equity for Medicaid eligibility. Eliminates states’ ability to set a higher home equity limit for individuals seeking long-term care coverage through Medicaid, which is estimated to save $34.3 billion over 10 years.
Payments and Financing
- Changes the ACA’s financing for the expansion population. Indicates that it will end the “…financial bias that currently favors able-bodied working adults over the truly vulnerable.” While no specific details were provided about how precisely this would be accomplished, language in the budget brief references allowing states with expansion populations to elect a block grant or per capita cap to finance their coverage. No details were provided as to whether the existing federal match rate for expansion adults would be reduced, to what base rate that reduction would be, or when this change would be enacted by Congress.
- Reduces the federal match rate for Medicaid-eligible workers. Reduces the federal match rate for Medicaid-eligible workers from 75 percent to 50 percent by FFY 2024.
- Prohibits Medicaid payments to public providers in excess of costs. Proposes to limit Medicaid reimbursement for health care providers operated by a governmental entity to no more than the actual cost of providing services to Medicaid beneficiaries.
- Increases transparency of Medicaid financing and supplemental payments. Supports the finalization of a recently proposed rule that would require more data on states’ financing of Medicaid supplemental payments.
- Gives the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) increased ability to recoup Medicaid improper payments and recover Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) overpayments. Permits CMS to issue disallowances for payments made due to noncompliance with provider screening and enrollment requirements and collect overpayments made to states for ineligible or misclassified Medicaid beneficiaries.
- Continues Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) reductions. Current law reduces Medicaid DSH allotments between FFY 2020 and FFY 2025. The budget proposes to continue DSH allotment reductions through FFY 2030 and estimates this will save $32.4 billion over 10 years.
- Modifies Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMD) payment exclusions. Allows states that meet certain criteria and requirements to receive federal Medicaid reimbursement for covered services provided to adults with serious mental illness living in IMDs, which is estimated to cost $5.4 billion over 10 years. Also, if a group foster home is considered a qualified residential treatment program (QRTP) and qualifies as an IMD, these QRTPs would be exempted from the IMD payment exclusion.
Other Proposed Medicaid Changes
- Eliminates Money Follows the Person (MFP) evaluation and reduces financing for the program, which provides funding to states to help transition people to home and community-based settings from institutions.
- Creates new MFP state plan option. Provides states the ability to establish an MFP program with an enhanced federal match for the first five years of services if they spend less than 50 percent of their long-term service and supports funding on home- and community-based services in the previous year.
- Extends Medicaid managed care waivers. Permits states to grandfather managed care authorities in waivers and demonstration programs if a waiver has been renewed once before and there are no substantive changes.
Proposals Affecting Individuals Dually Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid
- Coordinates review of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans marketing materials. Allows for joint state and CMS review of marketing materials for Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans.
- Revisits Part D special enrollment period for dually eligible individuals. Clarifies the special enrollment period (SEP) for Medicare Part D to allow CMS to apply the same annual election process for all eligible individuals, but maintains the ability for dually eligible beneficiaries to opt into integrated care programs or to change plans following auto-assignment.
Children’s Health Insurance Program
- Creates a shortfall fund to replace Child Enrollment Contingency Fund. Calls for creation of a shortfall fund containing unused annual appropriations that could be distributed to states that need additional CHIP funding. This fund serves to replace the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund as of FFY 2022; the Performance Bonus fund would also be eliminated that year.
- Aligns Medicaid and CHIP policies on suspending and reinstating coverage for enrollees under age 21 who are incarcerated and released from custody. The Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act contains a policy requiring states to suspend coverage for youth under age 21 enrolled in Medicaid who are incarcerated instead of terminating coverage. The budget proposes extending this requirement to CHIP programs with the goal of providing access to health coverage upon release.
Children’s Health
- Increase in Maternal and Child Health Services (MCH) Block Grant funding to offset reduction in other HRSA-funded programs to support children. Proposes a $60 million increase over FFY 2020 levels for the Title V MCH Block Grant, however this increase is combined with $97 million in reductions in other HRSA-funded programs for children, including: Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration, Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, and Emergency Medical Services for Children. This assumes states will fund the types of activities these programs previously funded through their MCH Block Grant programs.
- Continue funding and disseminating research into neonatal abstinence syndrome. Proposes $2.25 million to continue the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) work to investigate neonatal abstinence syndrome and share findings to improve care and outcomes for children and families.
- Maintains Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program. Maintains MIECHV program at current levels.
- Level funding proposed for Children’s Mental Health Services grants. The budget proposes $150 million to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) – consistent with FFY2019 funding – for Children’s Mental Health Services for state, tribes, and communities through competitive grant awards that promote collaboration between juvenile justice, child welfare, and education systems. Up to 10 percent of these funds are proposed for a new demonstration initiative that will target those at risk for developing serious mental illnesses.
Maternal Health
The overall budget proposes $116 million for the President’s Improving Maternal Health in America Initiative. The initiative focuses on health outcomes for all women of reproductive age by improving prevention and treatment, healthy pregnancies and births by prioritizing quality improvement, health futures by optimizing post-partum health, and improved data and bolster research to inform interventions.
- Promotes state innovations to improve maternal health outcomes. Expands the State Maternal Health Innovation Grant Programby $30 million, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM) by $10 million, and the Rural Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies (RMOMS) program by $10 million. There is a $50 million increase ($80 million total for FY 2021) to HRSA to improve the overall quality of maternal health services.
- Advances state efforts to combat maternal mortality and morbidity. The proposed budget invests $24 million in the CDC to expand maternal mortality review committees to all 50 states and DC.
Women’s Health
- Allows states to provide postpartum coverage for pregnant women with substance use disorders (SUDs). Proposes to make it easier for states to offer pregnant women diagnosed with SUD full Medicaid benefits for one year postpartum, which would cost $205 million over 10 years.
- Maintains funding for family planning and health related services. Provides $286 million for the Title X family planning program but prohibits certain entities that provide abortion services from using the funding.
Prevention and Public Health
Substance use disorder and the opioid epidemic
- Increases grant funds to states for SUD prevention, treatment, and recovery:Adds $85 million over the FY20 budget for State Opioid Response (SOR) grants, bringing the total to $1.6 billion, and includes language to emphasize opportunities to expand activities to address methamphetamine and other stimulants. This increase, however, is coupled with decreases or total elimination of other SUD-related grants, which may lead to states re-aligning their existing activities into this grant.
- Reduces substance use prevention funding to states:Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) grants to states have been reduced by over $109 million, eliminating all by SPF prescription drug funds, which were maintained at $10 million. This appears to assume that state prevention activities can be picked up in the increased SOR grant funds.
- Eliminates Medication-Assisted Treatment for Prescription Drug and Opioid Addiction (MAT-PDOA) grantsas part of the Targeted Capacity for Expansion (TEC) program that is designed to fill gaps in treatment capacity for communities. This $89 million reduction appears to assume that these treatment activities can be picked up in the increased SOR funding. Other funding within the program for peer-to-peer grants and special projects will be maintained at $11.2 million.
- Eliminates $30 million in federal funding for Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)program grants, shifting payment for these services to states and third-party payers.
- Maintains funding for the Recovery Community Services Programs (RCSP)that will continue and enhance efforts to develop recovery networks and collaboration with peer organizations.
- Maintains level funding to states through the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grantat a total of $1.9 billion.
- Maintains level funding of $8.7 million for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTP) that provide methadone– funding also supports training and technical assistance for providers.
- Continues grants to nonprofitComprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers: Maintains $2 million in grants to nonprofit SUD treatment organizations as part of a four-year project that provides a continuum of treatment services.
- Supports State and Tribal Youth Implementation grants: Maintains nearly $30 million to fund 11 new grants and continue 35 existing grants that support states and tribes to address gaps in SUD treatment for youth and caregivers.
- Maintains level funding for justice-involved populations with SUD: Provides $89 million for 54 new and 92 existing drug courts and also supports 11 new and five existing Offender Reentry Program grants.
- Maintains Building Communities of Recovery programswith $8 million for 20 new and eight continuing grants that support recovery services.
- Maintains level funding to prevent and reverse overdoses:
- Provides a continued $41 million in funding to the First Responder Training program through $41.0 million in grants to states, localities, and tribes for purchasing and training of overdose-reversal drugs.
- Provides a continued $12 million through grants to states to purchase and distribute naloxone kits and provide overdose reversal training.
- Funding for Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) Act activities
- $5 million to fund hospitals and emergency departments for alternative pain management treatments intended to decrease opioid prescribing;
- $4 million to train emerging prescribers via 117 grants to medical schools and teaching hospitals to develop curricula to educate students on MAT and providing SUD treatment;
- $4 million to implement post-overdose bridges to SUD treatment; and
- $4.5 million project to 15 select states, to provide an enhanced FMAP (80 percent) for five of those states for some SUD services.
- Supports a tool that warns about emerging issues:Adds $10 million for the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), a surveillance system that can warn about emerging SUD and behavioral health crises.
- Increase of $18 million, for a total of $25 million, for the Assertive Community Treatment for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness program to help 33 communities establish, maintain, or expand efforts to engage patients with serious mental illness through emergency and inpatient settings.
- $25 million for Assisted Outpatient Treatment to expand SAMHSA’s existing grant program. The program has achieved favorable outcomes in reductions in hospitalization, emergency department visits, and substance use, and increases in mental health functioning.
- $35 million increase, including a new 5 percent set-aside, in all states and territories to build crisis systems for individuals in mental health crisis. States will continue to spend at least 10 percent of the funds on early interventions for those experiencing a first episode of psychosis.
- $225 million ($25 million increase) for certified community behavioral healthcenters –clinics certified by SAMHSA and funded through a prospective payment model, similar to federally qualified health centers (FQHC).
- Provides direct support for rural communities to address SUD needs:Maintains level funding for the Rural Communities Opioid Response Program (RCORP), providing a total of $110 million in grant funds to communities to address prevention, treatment, and recovery while building infrastructure and capacity. Adds new pilot programs to address the unique and emerging needs of rural communities responding to the opioid and SUD crises.
- Supports infectious disease prevention and surveillance in high-risk regions:Increases existing funding by $48 million for activities that reduce the transmission of infectious disease and the incidence of potentially fatal cardiac and skin infections as a consequence of the opioid epidemic.
- Maintains $475 million and builds on existing support for data capacity in states and other jurisdictions: Through Opioid Abuse and Overdose Prevention funding, CDC will continue to support states in tracking both fatal and non-fatal drug overdoses and prescribing patterns.
- Shifts Drug-Free Communities funding to CDC: Moves $100 million from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) that was previously administered by SAMHSA as prevention grants, into the CDC budget.
- Proposes a $350 million block grant program for states to address chronic disease priorities, including tobacco control and prevention, nutrition and physical activity, heart disease and stroke, diabetes, and arthritis.
Chronic disease prevention and management
- Supports training for behavioral health workforce:Maintains $139 million within Behavioral Health Workforce Development (BHWD) Programs that train professionals in under-served communities (including at health centers) and supports an addiction medicine fellowship.
- Expanded support for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative:
- $137 million (an increase of $87 million) for HIV prevention services in FQHCs, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), outreach efforts, and care coordination in approximately 500 community health centers.
- Additional $95 million allocated for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program.
- Cuts CDC’s total discretionary budget authority by $1.289 billion, compared to 2020 funding levels.Program-level cuts would be $175 million. Other changes include:
- A cut of $427 million for chronic disease prevention and health;
- An increase of $40 million for influenza monitoring and prevention; and
- The creation of the America’s Health Block Grant as a means of reforming state-based chronic disease programs.
- Proposes a new user fee on e-cigarettes. The budgetcontains $812 million in user fees to support FDA’s anti-tobacco programs, which includes a new $100 million fee to be collected from e-cigarette manufacturers. It also proposes to move the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products to a newly created agency within HHS.
Programs Addressing Social Determinants of Health
Some components of the HHS and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budgets could affect states’ abilities to address health through housing and other social determinants of health initiatives.
- Cuts HUD funding by $8.6 billion — a 15.2 percent decrease from the 2020 enacted budget.
- Proposes changes to federal investment in rental assistance.The budget request would increase rental assistance to $41.3 billion, which would maintain services for all currently enrolled HUD-assisted households. Uniform work requirements would be placed on “work-able” households.
- Adds funds to the Rental Assistance Demonstration program, which supports transitioning public housing to housing voucher and project-based rental assistance units.
- Increases funding for lead-safe healthy homesby $69 million to $240 million.
- Supports reductions to existing programs:
- Cuts $80 million from Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS, and
- Would eliminate the Community Development Block Grant.
- Proposes policy and financial changes for safety net programs.The budget cuts $15.3 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and cuts approximately $1.1 billion from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. Would apply consistent work requirements for federally funded public assistance programs, including SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF.
Long-term services and support
- Cuts family caregiver services by $35 million, which provides grants to states and territories to fund various supports that help family caregivers care for older adults in their homes.
- Cuts state councils on developmental disabilities by $22 million, which are charged with identifying the most pressing needs of people with developmental disabilities.
- Reduces National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research by $21.6 million.
- Cuts state health insurance assistance programs by $16 million, which are state programs that receive federal funding to provide free, local health coverage counseling to people with Medicare.
Health Care Infrastructure and IT
- Supports rural health care infrastructure. Authorizes up to $2.5 billion for loans to assist communities with developing or improving public services in rural areas, including rural health clinics. Allows critical access hospitals to voluntarily convert to rural stand-alone emergency hospitals, which would enable those facilities to draw in Medicare payments at emergency department rates without the additional burden of maintaining in-patient beds.
- Promotes price transparency and health IT interoperability. Finances several agencies to enable implementation of policies related to the President’s Executive Order to encourage price transparency. This includes $51 million to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology for efforts to advance interoperability, electronic information sharing, and to align patient health and cost information.
Other Programs
- Enforces conscience protection laws. Makes permanent the Weldon Amendment, which prohibits government agencies — including state agencies that receive federal money — from discriminating against entities or individuals who refuse to provide or refer for abortions. Expands the authority of the Office of Civil Rights enforce the Weldon Amendment.
Other proposals addressed in the Administration’s budget include:
- Access to better care at lower costs;
- Personalized care;
- Protection for pre-existing conditions;
- Policies to encourage choice and affordability of coverage; and
- Policies to address surprise medical bills.
#NASHPCONF18: As the HIV Population Ages, States Redesign their Long-Term Services Programs
/in Policy New York, South Carolina Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, HIV/AIDS, Long-Term Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Palliative Care, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home /by Lyndsay Sanborn and Rachel DonlonPeople living with HIV (PLWH) are living longer due to advances in antiretroviral therapies and disease management. In 2016, 47 percent of PLWH in the United States were over age 50. This population often needs long-term services and supports at an earlier age due to increased risk of dementia, chronic illness, and the social isolation still associated with HIV infection. This aging population’s unique health care service and support needs are ushering in a new wave of state initiatives that work both within and outside traditional systems.
At the National Academy of State Health Policy’s annual conference earlier this year, state leaders met during a daylong preconference, Covering the Waterfront: Innovative State HIV Policy Approaches, from Prevention to Aging in Place, to share the strategies and challenges they face as they work to support PLWH across their lifespans.
New York and South Carolina have longstanding Medicaid that provide home- and community-based services (HCBS) to an aging PLWH population. Policymakers from those states described how these programs address the needs of their older :


While PLWH are living longer and often able to age in place in their communities, many will eventually need care from long-term care facilities. Officials expressed concern that these facilities may be ill-equipped to handle this population — a 2015 scan of state long-term care facility regulations found that very few states require these facilities to train their staff in how to care for PLWH. State policymakers discussed the need to enhance provider and staff training and address the persistent stigma associated with HIV infection often found among long-term care facility staff as key priorities for future work.
For more information about how states are working to improve the lives of PLWH, including older adults, explore NASHP’s Toolkit: State Strategies to Improve Health Outcomes for People Living with HIV.
Additional resources from the Health Resources and Services Administration’s HIV/AIDS Bureau:
HRSA Care Action: The Graying of HIV
Aging with HIV: Care Challenges
Engaging and Retaining Older Adults in HIV Care
States Share their PrEP Prevention Initiatives to Reduce New HIV Infections
/in Policy Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan Reports Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, HIV/AIDS, Population Health /by Erin Kim and Lyndsay Sanborn
Download: How Can States Stop HIV Transmission? Increase Access to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)
Conference Presentations 2018
/in Policy Annual Conference, Blogs Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Blending and Braiding Funding, Care Coordination, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, CHIP, CHIP, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Healthy Child Development, HIV/AIDS, Housing and Health, Integrated Care for Children, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Long-Term Care, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Prescription Drug Pricing, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Safety Net Providers and Rural Health, Social Determinants of Health, State Insurance Marketplaces, State Rx Legislative Action, Value-Based Purchasing /by NASHP StaffBelow is a full list of the Conference speaker presentations.
Preconference Sessions
- Sandra Robinson
- Daniel Cohen
- Kevin Cranston
- Kristina Larson
- Jacqueline Clymore
Heather Hauck
Joseph Kerwin
Pete Liggett
David Neff
Michael Wofford
Karen Robinson
Opening Plenary
Conference Sessions
Thursday Morning Plenary: Understanding the Health Care Cost Conundrum
Session 1: Making Waves in the Individual Market: How Did We Get Here?
Session 2: Sailing the Seas: State Efforts to Stabilize the Individual Market
Session 3: May the (Work) Force Be with You
Session 4: Cha-Ching! Lowering Rx Costs
Session 5: Medicaid Work Requirements: Considerations for States
Session 6: Shifting Sands at the Provider Level, What’s a State to Do?
Greg Poulsen
David Seltz
Erin Taylor
Session 7: Smart Shopping: How States Can Help Consumers
Session 11: Cross Currents: Integration of Oral Health and Primary Care
Session 12: A Class Act: Coming Together to Improve School-Based Health Services
Session 13: Staying Afloat: Keeping Moms Connected to Opioid and Substance Abuse Services
Session 14: Eat, Stay, Live: Connecting the Dots in the Social Determinants of Health
Session 15: Innovations in Rural Health Policy Options: Getting Care Where You Need It
Session 16: Getting to Shore: Using Data for Population Health
Session 17: Raising the Bar: Value-Based Purchasing to Address Population Health
Session 21: The Next Wave: Integrating Services for Individuals with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities
Session 22: Growing Pains, Seeing Gains: Improving Youth Transitions
Session 23: Shore it Up: Strengthening the Long Term Services and Supports Workforce
Session 24: Put a Lid on It: Containing Long Term Services and Supports Costs
Session 25: All the Right Moves: Transitioning Individuals Out of Psychiatric Institutions
Session 26: More Gain, Less Pain: Managing Pain without Opioids and Managing Opioid Addiction
Three-Part Series: Improving Care for People Living with HIV: Opportunities for State Medicaid-Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Collaboration
/in Policy Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin Reports Administrative Actions, Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, HIV/AIDS, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Prescription Drug Pricing, Quality and Measurement, State Rx Legislative Action /by Lyndsay SanbornStates play critical roles in ensuring that people living with HIV (PLWH) have access to quality care through their Medicaid and Ryan White HIV/AIDS programs. PLWH can be among the most medically complex individuals covered by state health programs, and their care can cost five-times more than the average Medicaid beneficiary. Given limited resources, state policymakers are working to develop policies and strategies to ensure that care to PLWH is accessible, well-coordinated, and effective.
This three-part series explores policy levers and strategies that states are utilizing to focus limited resources and provide comprehensive and accessible care to PLWH.
- State Strategies to Improve Collaboration Between Medicaid and AIDS Drug Assistance Programs: This report explores how Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington, DC, and Wisconsin are using policy levers to more effectively deploy limited resources and provide better care to PLWH.
- States Strengthen Medicaid-Ryan White Collaboration to Improve Care Coordination for People Living with HIV: This report explores how Medicaid and Ryan White HIV/AIDS Programs in California, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin have partnered to improve care coordination services for people living with HIV.
- Maintaining Access: State Strategies to Coordinate Eligibility between Medicaid and Ryan White Programs: This report examines how Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Phoenix (AZ), Texas, and Vermont have coordinated eligibility between Medicaid and Ryan White HIV/AIDS Programs in order to help ensure consistent access to care for people living with HIV.
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. 























































































































































