Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine Helps States Boost Supply, But Messaging Remains Critical
/in COVID-19 State Action Center Blogs, Featured News Home COVID-19, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health, Vaccines /by Ariella LevisohnThe US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recent approval of the one-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine, which is easier to store and transport than others and reportedly causes fewer side effects, offers opportunities for states to improve vaccination outreach.
At a time when supply remains one of the largest barriers to vaccine administration, the new J&J vaccine helps boosts supply and allows more people to be vaccinated. However, efforts to distribute the newest vaccine have been complicated by mixed messaging around its efficacy. States, with federal guidance, are working to emphasize the benefits of the J&J vaccine and the importance of getting vaccinated as soon as any vaccine is available.
Background
In clinical trials, the J&J vaccine had a 72 percent efficacy overall in the United States, with an 85 percent efficacy against severe COVID-19 infection. While there is some public concern that the J&J vaccine has a lower efficacy than Pfizer and Moderna’s, experts are stressing two facts:
- The (J&J) vaccine has a high efficacy against severe disease and is just as effective at preventing hospitalization and mortality as the older vaccines. Those who do get COVID-19 after J&J vaccination are likely to only experience only mild symptoms.
- Unlike the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines approved in December, J&J was tested in Brazil and South Africa in the presence of the new 1.351 variant. It proved to be highly effective at preventing infection and severe disease from these COVID-19 variants.
J&J Vaccine Advantages
In addition to its success against virus variants, the J&J vaccine has a number of different characteristics that make it easier to transport, store, and administer than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
First and foremost, the vaccine requires one dose rather than two. State officials have shared that scheduling second doses, reminding patients to come in for their second dose, and following up when individuals miss their appointments have been significant challenges in their vaccine rollout. The one-dose J&J vaccine eliminates this issue.
Additionally, the J&J dose is easier to store and can be kept in a regular refrigerator for up to three months. This makes it possible that more and different types of health care providers, such as those working in rural health centers or with communities that have limited access to health care, can keep the vaccine in their facilities so their patients can receive the COVID-19 vaccine from providers whom they view as trusted sources.
Many J&J recipients also report fewer side effects from the vaccine, making the vaccine ideal for individuals who cannot afford to miss a day of work because of severe side effects, or who might not be connected to a health care professional who can help treat symptoms if needed.
Importance of Messaging
Throughout the pandemic, federal and state governments and public health leaders have struggled to find a balance between managing public expectations and encouraging measures that prevent the spread of COVID-19. The introduction of the J&J vaccine has again highlighted the importance of crafting messages for the public to counter any misinformation about its efficacy.
After concerns began arising about the efficacy of the J&J vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that jurisdictions use the following language when promoting the J&J vaccine, “All the available vaccines have been proven effective at preventing serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 disease.” The CDC also encourages individuals to get the first vaccine available to them. States are beginning to craft their own messages to reach their residents.
Before opening up new vaccine appointments, the Washington, DC Department of Health sent an email using the CDC’s language to all residents who signed up for vaccine alerts. The email noted that individuals will be able to see which vaccine is being administered at each site before choosing an appointment, but emphasized that all vaccines are effective at preventing “serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19,” and that residents are “highly encouraged to take the first vaccine available to them.” All appointments were booked within minutes, suggesting that Washington, DC residents were willing to take whichever vaccine was available.
In Iowa, Gov. Kim Reynolds received the J&J vaccine during a news conference to help promote the vaccine and emphasized her trust in the vaccine before her constituents. She also addressed concerns about the J&J vaccine’s efficacy, noting, “This information is misleading, and quite frankly, it’s irresponsible to position any vaccine as a less desirable option when it’s undergone the same rigorous clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy and has received approval by the FDA and the CDC.”
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington State also issued a statement about the J&J vaccine in a recent interview, where he acknowledged the lower efficacy rates in clinical trials, but also praised the advantages of this vaccine compared to others. “It’s going to save your life, which we think is a pretty high value. It has a downside of slightly lower efficacy to prevent you from getting a headache — but you only have to have one shot instead of two,” he explained.
Federal and state governments are also navigating the tension between the value of setting aside allocations of the J&J vaccine for individuals who face more barriers to getting two doses, and the danger of targeting a vaccine that some constituencies believe is less valuable to more vulnerable and historically marginalized populations.
Conclusion
Supply remains a key concern in state and federal vaccination efforts. However, President Biden’s announcement that the United States will have enough supply to vaccinate the entire adult population by May, in part due to J&J’s partnership with Merck to ramp up manufacturing, creates even more pressure to ensure that public health messaging effectively promotes the benefits of all vaccines equally.
In the meantime, the J&J vaccine arrives as many states are broadening their vaccine eligibility guidelines. According to National Academy for State Health Policy analysis, 35 states are now vaccinating individuals age 65 and older and 43 states are vaccinating teachers and/or childcare providers. During the first week of March, 11 states began vaccinating teachers, and four states expanded eligibility to individuals age 50 and older. This new vaccine can help ensure that newly eligible individuals can be vaccinated promptly, bringing the nation closer to herd immunity.
Acknowledgements: This blog is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award totaling $250,000 with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS. The contents are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS or the US government. CDC General Terms and Conditions for Non-research Awards, Revised: February 2021.
State Strategies for Vaccinating Individuals Experiencing Homelessness against COVID-19
/in COVID-19 State Action Center Blogs, Featured News Home COVID-19, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health, Vaccines /by Ariella LevisohnIndividuals experiencing homelessness often face more barriers to obtaining a COVID-19 vaccination than others. As more vaccines become available and supplies increase, new and emerging best practices for vaccinating individuals in homeless shelters may help states more efficiently vaccinate other hard-to-reach or medically vulnerable populations, such as those living in rural areas or congregate settings.
Introduction
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classifies individuals experiencing homelessness as a high-risk population. Homeless shelters are congregate settings, which can facilitate the rapid spread of COVID-19 infection, and many individuals who are homeless also suffer from other medical conditions that put them at high risk of COVID-19-related complications. While some states group all individuals residing in congregate settings into one vaccination priority category, others specifically identify individuals in homeless shelters as a priority population. As a result, these individuals’ vaccination eligibility differs between states.
According to a recent analysis by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), 34 states explicitly include residents of homeless shelters as a priority population. A few states, including Wyoming and Washington, DC, explicitly prioritize “individuals experiencing homelessness.” Washington State lists “people experiencing homelessness that access services or live in congregate settings (e.g., shelters, temporary housing)” in its latest vaccine prioritization plan.
Every state has changed its eligibility criteria and prioritization guidelines as the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have issued new recommendations based on the constantly changing vaccine rollout picture. Some states have identified these individuals in their plans and moved this population up in priority, while others have instead reprioritized other populations. For example, Wyoming recently moved individuals experiencing homelessness up in their prioritization. Arizona elevated individuals with high-risk medical conditions living in shelters as well all adults in congregate settings. Wisconsin added individuals in homeless shelters and in transitional housing to a priority phase of the state plan after previously not prioritizing this population. As of March 1, 2021, 15 states were vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness.
Challenges
In addition to the general vaccine distribution challenges states are facing – such as limited vaccine supplies, tracking data on doses administered, personnel shortages, and vaccine hesitancy – vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness has its own difficulties:
- Conflicting priorities: On top of concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of the health care system, many individuals experiencing homelessness are hesitant to receive the vaccine because they see other challenges – such as housing status, food insecurity, and financial instability – as more immediate concerns.
- Transportation barriers: Many individuals experiencing homelessness face transportation barriers that prevent them from traveling to mass vaccination clinics.
- Tracking second doses: For those who receive the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, the state must figure out how to track where individuals are to ensure they receive their second dose and are fully immunized. It is particularly challenging for states to track second doses for individuals who are only in a shelter temporarily, or primarily live on the street.
- Limited technology: Many people living on the street or in shelters do not have internet access, and therefore cannot sign up for vaccine appointments through state websites.
- Connection to health care providers: Individuals experiencing homelessness are less likely to be connected to health care providers or health care systems, making it more difficult to get an appointment or find out when they are eligible.
- Vaccine Storage: In order to reach individuals living on the street, providers need to be able to transport doses to encampments and other areas where individuals frequently live. However, the vaccines’ refrigerated storage requirements make bringing doses directly to individuals on the street difficult.
States are working diligently to determine strategies and best practices for vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness. As supply increases and becomes less of a barrier to vaccine administration, it is critical to address access-related barriers that may prevent some individuals from receiving the vaccine and exacerbate existing health disparities.
State Approaches
As with most decisions related to vaccine distribution, eligibility criteria for priority populations has been left to states. Of the limited states already vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness, many have turned to private organizations to aid in vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness. In these cases, the state distributes doses to nonprofit organizations that work to address homelessness or provide health care to the homeless, and these organizations take the lead in organizing clinics and administering doses.
Since early February 2021, the Washington, DC Department of Human Services has partnered with Unity Health Care, the District’s largest network of federally qualified heath centers, to hold vaccination clinics at homeless shelters. Unity Health Care is also trying to vaccinate individuals living on the street when possible through case managers and outreach teams. Washington, DC is eliminating certain barriers to vaccination for individuals experiencing homelessness, including waiving the requirement to provide an ID at appointments, giving individuals waterproof wallets in which to keep their vaccination cards, and providing free transportation to clinics located at some homeless shelters.
In Connecticut, the state and local health departments are coordinating vaccination efforts in congregate facilities – including homeless shelters – affiliated with the state, and partnering with private nonprofits to actually administer the doses. Some hospitals and cities in Connecticut are also using mobile vaccination clinics to reach individuals in congregate settings.
In Massachusetts, the nonprofit Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP) is playing a crucial role in vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness in the Boston area. BHCHP is leveraging the City of Boston’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) – which connects to their electronic health records system Epic – in conjunction with the state’s Immunization Information System (IIS) to track first doses administered and to send out second dose text reminders. Shelter can access these reminders and provide outreach to patients to make sure they get their second doses. BHCHP is also using their grant funding and their own funding to incentivize vaccinations among the populations they serve, including providing gift cards, clothing, and snacks and combatting vaccine hesitancy by training individuals experiencing homelessness to provide peer counseling. To date, the nonprofit reports it has been successful at ensuring individuals return for their second doses. BHCHP also announced plans to start vaccinating individuals living on the street. They hope to use a van to store doses while they drive to areas where individuals on the street often live.
As states try to simultaneously provide information about vaccination clinic locations, recruit and train personnel to administer vaccines, monitor individuals after vaccination, and plan mass clinics, nonprofits are a valuable resource for reaching specific populations. Many private organizations, especially those already working to address homelessness and housing insecurity, have existing relationships with individuals experiencing homelessness and are already trusted service providers. They have been providing outreach to these communities throughout the pandemic and are poised to take on some of the work of vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness.
Looking Forward
Because demand for the vaccine still exceeds supply, states are challenged to prioritize their populations. States have to make tough decisions that promote health equity, decrease infection rates, promote vaccine efficiency, and prevent deaths. States that have not yet started vaccinating individuals experiencing homelessness can learn from others that are already vaccinating this population so that they can more effectively reach those living in shelters and on the street.
As states – and their partnering nonprofits – pilot strategies like mobile vaccine clinics and offer incentive payments and peer counseling in order to reach individuals experiencing homelessness and encourage vaccinations, these and similar initiatives can inform efforts to vaccinate other hard-to-reach populations.
Acknowledgements: This blog is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award totaling $250,000 with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS. The contents are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS or the US government. CDC General Terms and Conditions for Non-research Awards, Revised: February 2021.
How States Use Federal Medicaid Authorities to Finance Housing-Related Services
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Allie AtkesonTo address the housing needs of their Medicaid enrollees, states can leverage a variety of federal Medicaid authorities to deliver housing-related support services to individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions. This report explores the various federal waivers states used to increase supportive housing and reduce their Medicaid costs.
Background
Housing is an essential social determinant of health. Evidence shows a strong association between access to safe, affordable, and stable housing and positive health outcomes. Housing with supportive services, known as permanent supportive housing, supports individuals with complex medical needs and reduces emergency department use. Supportive housing also helps individuals remain stably housed over the long term.
There is also a strong return on investment for states that implement permanent supportive housing programs. By investing in supportive housing, states and localities can reduce health care, homeless shelter, and corrections costs. For example, Oregon reported a 12 percent savings in Medicaid expenditures one year after moving 1,625 individuals into affordable housing with support services. Many states support housing’s role in health by funding housing-related services in their Medicaid programs.
NASHP recently finished its three-year Health and Housing Institute with state officials from Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oregon and Texas. The institute’s goal was to break down agency silos within states and strengthen services and supports that assist low-income and populations with complex conditions in becoming and remaining successfully and stably housed. Maximizing policy levers and authorities available through the Medicaid program was critical to increasing housing-related services and tenancy supports.
Priority Populations
States are currently engaged in supportive housing initiatives for people with disabilities, mental health diagnoses, substance use disorder (SUD), multiple chronic conditions, and those experiencing or at-risk of homelessness.
States are also focused on deinstitutionalization due to mandates set by the 1999 Supreme Court case, Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources et al. vs. L.C.. The case stated that institutionalization of individuals with disabilities who can be served in the community is unjustified segregation. Research indicates that community-based settings are more cost effective, less restrictive, and provide better outcomes for individuals with disabilities than institutions. As a result, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued guidance, known as the Olmstead Letters, to help states identify services that support deinstitutionalization.
Medicaid and Housing-Related Services
Medicaid provides services for individuals with low incomes as well as specific populations, including those with intellectual, developmental, and physical disabilities. People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness generally qualify for Medicaid, especially in states with expanded programs for low-income adults. There is also increased national attention and resources for supportive housing for people with SUD. In November 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services released a report on housing-related services and supports under state Medicaid programs as a part of the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act. This report identifies federal authorities to provide housing-related services to people with SUD.
While Medicaid cannot pay for housing development or rent, with the exception of security deposits in some states, it can support services for enrollees to find and sustain housing. These services, defined by each state, can include:
- Education and training on the role, rights, and responsibilities of the tenant and landlord;
- Early detection and intervention for behaviors that may jeopardize housing, such as late rental payment and lease violations;
- Assistance with the housing recertification process; and
- Coordination with services and service providers for primary care, SUD treatment, mental health providers, and vocational and employment support.
Medicaid authorities allow states to test approaches to program financing and delivery by waiving Medicaid statutory requirements, and amending existing state plans. The following explores how states use Medicaid Section 1115 Demonstration waivers, 1915(b) Managed Care Authorities, 1915(c) Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waivers, 1915(i) HCBS state plan amendments, the 1915(k) Community First Choice Option, and Health Homes to finance housing-related services.
Federal Medicaid Authorities for Housing-Related Services
Section 1115 demonstration waivers allow for “experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects that are found by the Secretary to be likely to assist in promoting the objectives of the Medicaid program.” Section 1115 demonstrations allow states to test innovative models and address social determinants of health and are considered to be more flexible than other federal Medicaid authorities. Section 1115 waivers also allow states to target services for population groups and within specific geographies.
Section 1115 waivers must be budget neutral to the federal government, meaning the federal contribution cannot exceed the amount without the demonstration initiative. Savings generated from the demonstration can also be invested in other innovations, such as coverage expansions in state Medicaid programs. States are also required to conduct monitoring and evaluation of their 1115 demonstrations, findings that can be useful to other states looking into implementing similar demonstration waivers. Most 1115 waivers are approved for a five-year period and can then be renewed for up to three to five years.
Trends across housing-related 1115 waivers show that states target different groups, but primarily focus on individuals with high emergency department use, SUDs, and serious mental illness (SMI).
- Virginia recently added eviction prevention and housing transitional services for individuals with serious behavioral and physical health needs at risk of homelessness through a 1115 demonstration waiver. These services include:
- Individual housing and pre-tenancy services: Includes a housing assessment, financial literacy education, application assistance, an individualized housing support plan, and identification of resources to obtain housing.
- Individual housing and tenancy-sustaining services: Updating individual housing support plans as needed, assisting in securing independent living supports, educating about roles and responsibilities of tenants and landlords, making home modifications, linking to community resources, and providing annual pest eradication treatment as needed.
- Community transition services: Provides up to $5,000 per member per lifetime to help individuals obtain an independent community-based living setting. Allowable expenses include security deposits, home furnishings, and home modifications.
1915(b) Managed Care Authority
A section 1915(b) waiver is one avenue for states to implement a managed care program among other provisions. This waiver allows states to waive requirements for comparability, statewide access, and freedom of choice and it can be approved for two years. Savings achieved through managed care can be used to provide housing-related services.
As identified by the SUPPORT Act report, few states leverage the 1915(b) authority for housing-related services.
- In Colorado, the state’s Community Mental Health Services Program includes Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). ACT teams, staffed by licensed clinicians and peer specialists, provide 24/7 individualized services to adults with a serious mental health diagnosis including housing assistance.
1915(c) Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waivers
Section 1915(c) HCBS waivers are designed to provide services in community-based settings rather than institutional settings. These waivers must provide services that cost less than services offered in institutions, protect individuals’ health and welfare, have adequate and reasonable provider standards, and are individualized and person-centered.
States can operate multiple HCBS waivers and define target groups by age or diagnoses and choose the maximum number of enrollees allowed. HCBS services can be offered to individuals earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). HCBS waivers can cover housing, pre-tenancy services, tenancy-sustaining services and transition services. States primarily use 1915(c) waivers to cover individuals with disabilities – not individuals at risk of homelessness, with chronic conditions, or SUD. This is due to the waivers’ requirement that individuals meet an institutional level of care for services. Some states, including Louisiana, operate different waivers for children and adults.
Louisiana currently operates four 1915(c) HCBS waivers:
- Children’s Choice Waiver: Covers housing stabilization and transition services for individuals with autism, intellectual disabilities (ID) and developmental disabilities (DD) for ages 0-20.
- New Opportunities Waiver: Provides housing stabilization, transition services, and $3,000 per member per lifetime maximum for security deposits and essential home furnishings.
- Residential Options Waiver: Covers in-home caregiving, community living supports, one-time transitional services, housing stabilization, and transition services for individuals of all ages with autism, ID and DD.
- Supports Waiver: Promotes housing stabilization and transition services for individuals of all ages with autism, ID, and DD.
1915(i) State Plan Home- and Community-Based Services
The 1915(i) state plan authority is similar to 1915(c), but allows states to provide HCBS services through a State Plan Amendment (SPA), rather than a waiver. States cannot limit the number of individuals eligible or geography for services and beneficiaries qualify through needs-based criteria, rather than institutional criteria used for the 1915(c). States can use age, disability status, diagnosis and/or Medicaid eligibility group to target their benefit for individuals earning below 150 percent of FPL.
The 1915(i) state plan option is considered to be more broad than the 1915(c) option, however states may struggle to create targeted service programs due to eligibility requirements. States can use risk of homelessness as a needs-based criteria, however eligibility must include other levels of functionality, such as behavior, cognitive abilities and medical risk factors.
- North Dakota’s 1915(i) state plan amendment (SPA) was recently approved to provide community transitional services and housing support services to individuals with a mental health or SUD or disability. Services include benefit application, lease applications, one-time expenses for furnishings and modifications, financial literacy training and education on the roles of landlords and tenants.
1915(k) Community First Choice (CFC) Option
The CFC state plan option was established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA and allows states to provide person-centered home- and community-based attendant services and supports. States receive a 6 percent increase to their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for this option. States cannot cap the number of individuals participating and cannot target special populations. Eligible individuals must:
- Be eligible for Medicaid under the state plan;
- Meet an institutional level of care;
- If not entitled to nursing facility services, have an income below 150 percent FPL; and
- Enroll voluntarily.
Under the option, states can finance transition costs such as security deposits and home furnishings and other expenditures that support and individual’s independence.
- Oregon and Maryland cover these housing-related services in their CFC programs.
Section 2703 of the ACA allows states to develop health homes for Medicaid enrollees with chronic conditions. States can implement a health home through an SPA. Health home services are eligible for a 90 percent-enhanced FMAP for the first two years of the SPA. Health home services include these six core services;
- Comprehensive case management;
- Care coordination;
- Health promotion;
- Comprehensive transitional care and follow-up;
- Individual and family support; and
- Referral to community and social services.
Health homes do not expire like waivers and SPAs. As of December 2020, 21 states and Washington, DC were operating 37 health home models. Six states terminated their SPAs and are no longer offering health home services.
- California’s health home program provides housing transition and tenancy-sustaining services for individual with chronic conditions, mental illness, or chronic homelessness as defined by its SPA. Multi-disciplinary care teams must include a housing navigator to “…foster relationships with housing agencies and permanent housing providers, including supportive housing providers; partner with housing agencies and providers to offer the member permanent, independent housing options, including supportive housing; connect and assist the member to get available permanent housing; coordinate with member in the most easily accessible setting.”
State Examples
Conclusion
To address the housing needs of their Medicaid enrollees, states can leverage a variety of federal Medicaid authorities. These authorities allow states to target housing-related services for individuals with disabilities, SUD, SMI, and other chronic conditions. Research from supportive housing programs in Seattle, Santa Clara, CA, and New York City show that supportive housing programs help individuals achieve sustained housing.
It is also expected that there may be a shift in the approval of Medicaid authorities under a new Administration. Section 1115 waiver demonstrations generally reflect priorities identified by leadership at CMS. Under the Trump administration, 1115 waivers could be used to support work requirements and payments for individuals in institutions for mental disease, despite the deinstitutionalization priority recommended under Olmstead.
The Biden administration, supportive of the ACA and Medicaid expansion, is expected to support continued flexibility for states through 1115 waivers without block grants or work requirements. This additional flexibility could include coverage expansions and additional services, such as housing supports.
While these authorities allow for the financing of services for specific individuals, states cite the ability to work across health and housing sectors and data sharing as other important tools for supportive housing. The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) will begin a second health and housing institute this spring to support additional states in strengthening their services and supports that assist low-income and vulnerable populations in becoming and remaining successfully and stably housed.
For more information about NASHP’s health and housing efforts, visit its Housing and Health Resources for States center or contact Allie Atkeson.
Acknowledgement: 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 U2MOA394670100, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the US government.
Eye on the Storm: Two NASHP Staffers in Texas Reflect on Weathering Winter Storm Uri
/in Policy Texas Blogs, Featured News Home COVID-19, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Eskedar Girmash and Sarah LanfordLast month, Winter Storm Uri caused catastrophic power outages across Texas. National Academy for State Health Policy staff Eskedar Girmash and Sarah Lanford, who work remotely from Dallas and Houston during the pandemic, were both without power for four days as temperatures fell to single digits and they lost access to water. At least 58 people died trying to stay warm, and more than 13 million Texans lost access to safe drinking water and were under a boil-water notice for days after the storm passed.
Sarah Lanford: We lost power at my home in Houston at 1:30 a.m. on Monday, Feb. 15, and did not regain it until mid-day Thursday, Feb. 18. As a lifelong Texan, I’m used to being without power for weeks at a time after hurricanes, but never in cold weather. I have never been as worried for my safety as I was on Monday evening, when the temperature in our house dipped below 40 degrees and we could not get warm despite many layers of clothing and blankets. We eventually decided to sit in the car in our driveway for the remainder of the evening, where heaters and seat warmers kept us warm until we were able to safely make our way to my grandmother’s house. Fortunately, my family is in a closed COVID-19 bubble, which we were able to maintain throughout the week, and my grandmother had already received her vaccine. The following day, we sat near my grandmother’s fireplace under layers of blankets. We tried to conserve our phones’ batteries in case we needed to communicate with anyone, and we read books by flashlight. Power came on and off, but we never knew when it would come or go. We flushed the toilet sparingly and did not shower for days.
Throughout the week, the only time I heard from local or state leaders was when Harris County was placed under a boil notice. We couldn’t help but laugh when we got that alert – we had lost access to most of our water and even if we had water, we did not have the electricity required to boil it. The absence of local and state leadership was jarring. It felt like we had been abandoned.
Eskedar Girmash: I grew up in the City of Dallas and later moved to the northern suburbs. I was used to everything shutting down or at least drastically slowing at the sight of snow, but never experienced such mass infrastructure failure as last week. Like Sarah, I lost power late Sunday night and did not regain it fully until Thursday. I spent days charging my phone in my car, wearing layers of clothes and blankets, finding whatever cardboard boxes and newspapers around to make a fire in our fireplace, and making sure my two-year-old niece was as warm as she could be. Luckily, we had a close family friend who offered up her home to us for warmth on Tuesday. Though we were warm, we were also met with the confounding variable of COVID-19 as there were other families seeking warmth at her home. It was dystopic, roads were dangerously iced over, all businesses were shuttered and dark, grocery stores were empty, and families were suffering.
As I write this, it is now 74 degrees outside, making the realities of last week seem like a distant disaster. However, so many families are now left with new disasters, including extensive home damage, medical bills, and contaminated water. This storm and our infrastructure failures make me increasingly aware of the immediacy of addressing climate change and its effects on public health. Further, it reinforced my understanding that it is often everyday people who are forced to step up and care for their communities when disaster strikes. Community organizers – particularly Black and Latinx women – across the Dallas-Forth Worth metroplex are the true heroes of last week’s disaster. They led life-saving efforts when local and state leaders were nowhere to be found.
Overlapping Crises
Sarah Lanford: The energy crisis happened against the backdrop of a pandemic that has already wreaked havoc on Texas, causing more than 40,000 deaths. Texans were left with little ability to avoid contact with people outside their household as many people gathered with neighbors or went to large warming centers to avoid freezing temperatures. The bad weather closed COVID-19 vaccination sites, and Harris County rushed to distribute more than 8,000 doses after a storage facility lost power Monday and officials urged people to stay off icy roads. It will likely take the state three weeks to recover from the week-long delay in vaccinations.
Impact on Seniors and Adults with Chronic Health Conditions
Sarah Lanford: After we regained power, I made welfare calls to seniors across the state as part of a community-led effort to ensure people had access to drinking water and were able to stay warm. At the end of those calls, we inquired about other immediate needs. Again and again, I heard from people who were either unable to get to the pharmacy to refill prescriptions or who were in dire need of dialysis. Many pharmacies were closed due to power outages, and those that were open could not obtain shipments due to icy roads. Nearly all outpatient dialysis centers in the state were closed due to power outages, and many hospitals were unable to perform inpatient dialysis after they lost access to water. This put the nearly 50,000 people in the state suffering from kidney failure in life-threatening situations. Power outages also affected access to medications that require storage at specific temperatures, such as insulin, and rendered life-sustaining medical equipment, such as oxygen, inoperable.
Impact on Children
Eskedar Girmash: As with seniors and adults with chronic health conditions, many children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) rely on home health care services, refrigerated medications, and electronically powered medical equipment. Power outages and other infrastructure failures resulted in the loss of many services, creating a surge in pediatric hospital admissions. Cases of hypothermia, carbon monoxide poisoning, frostbite, and car accident injuries also contributed to a rise in pediatric hospitalizations and fatalities. Some children’s hospitals were met with their own power and water outages, resulting in additional challenges in caring for newly-admitted children on top of the patient care challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Schools also suffered major infrastructural failures. Loss of power, water, and resulting damage interrupted student’s access to education, and the many additional essential services schools provide, such as meals, mental health, and physical health supports. There were over 130 burst pipes across schools in Dallas Independent School District, the second-largest school district in Texas. As a result, virtual and in-person school interruptions are in place until March 1 for schools that experienced extensive damage.
Inequities and Mutual Aid
Eskedar Girmash: As with all public health disasters, Winter Storm Uri laid bare many racial and class inequities that exist in our systems. Because of long-lasting systemic racism, such as redlining, many low-income Black and Latinx communities suffered disproportionate losses from the storm. To address these stark racial and ethnic inequities, mutual aid groups across the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex sprang into action, becoming the main form of disaster relief for our communities.
On Saturday after the storm, I volunteered with mutual aid groups in Dallas to cook meals and deliver groceries for families in need. Hundreds of people came out at various kitchens and sites across the city in a mutual effort to care for our communities. All individuals were masked, frequently washed hands, and following COVID-19 precautions. It was both incredible and devastating to witness how communities and organizers stepped up to take care of their own during a time when government was absent and slow to respond. Organizations like Feed the People Dallas, Lucha Dallas, and Not my Son helped place families who were experiencing freezing temperatures and damage to their homes in hotels and organized hot meal, grocery, hygiene, and other resource deliveries. Other organizations like North Texas Rural Resistance provided essential resources to low-income rural communities who were also disproportionately affected by the residual effects of the storm. These organizations are continuing their community-based efforts following the initial impact of the storm as many families remain without clean water and livable homes.
The Aftermath and Looking Ahead
Winter Storm Uri is proof that climate change leads to public health emergencies. Though power has been restored to most Texas homes, many are now dealing with the financial and logistical hardships of home repairs, debt accrued from emergency hospitalizations, and wage losses contributing to financial and mental health burdens on families, especially low-income families with children and those caring for children with special health care needs. Damages to homes and businesses, cleanup costs, and lost wages are estimated at $50 billion.
As state leaders begin to address the aftermath of the storm and look ahead for ways to avoid a similar crisis in the future, these questions arise:
- How can public health agencies work to advise and collaborate on rebuilding energy and home infrastructure across Texas and particularly focus on strengthening infrastructure in low-income, rural, and predominately Black, Asian-American, Latinx, and Native American communities?
- How can government agencies collaborate to develop resources and access to mental and physical health supports for CYSHCN and Black, Latinx, and Native American children who were disproportionately affected by the storm?
- How will public health agencies strengthen their focus on preparation for climate change disasters?
- How will public health and safety agencies better prepare for climate change disasters so they can respond immediately and effectively?
- What measures will be implemented to ensure that vulnerable populations are prioritized in disaster preparation and relief measures?
Some have said this is a once-in-a-lifetime storm, but this is the second time in a decade that Texans have experienced massive power outages after extreme winter weather. In 2011, a similar storm led to widespread power outages across the state. Policymakers failed to heed lessons from that storm and weatherize the power infrastructure, and last week Texans paid the price. Preparing for climate change is imperative. The climate crisis is life-threatening issue and requires public action to keep Texans safe.
The State of the States: Amid the Pandemic, Governors Tackle Health, Social, and Economic Issues
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Eligibility and Enrollment, Equity, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Immunization, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Allie Atkeson, Anita Cardwell, Rebecca Cooper, Gia Gould and Elinor HigginsGovernors use their annual state of the state addresses to showcase recent successes and define their policy priorities for the year ahead. By late February, 45 governors had delivered speeches outlining plans to address a wide range of health and related issues in the coming months. All mentioned their states’ responses to COVID-19, frequently praising frontline responders and public health agencies and applauding their states’ agile interagency actions to address the pandemic.
Echoing their 2020 health care and social determinant priorities, many governors continued to address social drivers of health. In 2021, they again prioritized education, livable wages, and justice – all areas that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Meanwhile, topics such as prescription drug costs, Medicaid expansion, and access to affordable and healthy food, while important, did not dominate the governors’ narratives this year.
View a chart highlighting governors’ goals on a variety of health-related policies here.
However, the issues governors addressed do not exist in silos. Many of these important topics, including equity, broadband, mental health, and justice, are themes woven throughout their addresses. Below are highlights of the key themes that governors raised.
COVID-19 Recovery
Every governor framed his or her state of the state address through the lens of COVID-19. Of those, 34 governors discussed specific plans for COVID-19 recovery. Twenty-seven focused on plans for expedient and equitable vaccine distribution and 11 governors discussed plans for community recovery.
Governors emphasized the importance of getting doses into arms quickly while prioritizing an equitable distribution – they highlighted state plans to build pop-up and mass vaccination clinics and deploy their National Guard units to aid in vaccination efforts. Several governors also highlighted innovative plans for community recovery both during and after the public health emergency ends. For example, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York announced his plan to build a public health corps to facilitate vaccination operations and share learnings and best practices to ensure New York is better prepared for future crises.
Governors also highlighted the importance of partnerships during the pandemic – between a state’s executive and legislative branches to pass emergency relief bills, as well as collaboration with other states to share workforce and supplies, such as the Northeast partnership between Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
Education
Forty-one governors discussed education in their state of the state speeches — up from 34 last year. It is well documented that individuals with more and better education experience improved health outcomes, and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf identified education as a critical social determinant of health, saying “universal high-quality education leads to healthier people and healthier communities.”
The majority of governors addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children, educators, and families. Fourteen governors underscored the importance of fully funding K-12 schools despite the tight budgets that states are facing this year and 11 governors emphasized the importance of safely opening schools. Governors proposed a variety of approaches to encourage schools to reopen so that children could get back to learning in-person:
- Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey proposed tying school funding to in-person learning as a way to incentivize schools to re-open their doors.
- Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said his team has been “working with a number of lab partners to develop a weekly COVID testing program for kids, teachers and staff.”
- Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak said that getting back to the classroom was the reason his state had “prioritize[d] our educators for vaccinations.”
Fifteen governors expressed support for expanded early childhood education programs, pre-kindergarten options, and improved childcare for young children. Participation in early childhood education programs has been linked to better health, higher educational achievement, and higher socioeconomic status in adulthood. But this year, two governors were also promoting it as a necessary childcare option for working parents, particularly mothers, who have had to leave the workforce to take care of children during the pandemic.
Recognizing the contributions that teachers have made throughout the pandemic was also a recurring theme. Fifteen governors proposed additional compensation for teachers through raises, bonuses, or increased pensions. Though some of these pay increases are aimed at improving teacher recruitment and retention, several governors framed them as a way to acknowledge the additional job challenges presented by COVID-19. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, for example, proposed a budget that included “a 2 percent pay increase as a way to express our state’s gratitude to our teachers who rose to the challenge during an unprecedented time for our state.”
In addition to acknowledging the challenges of the past year, governors also emphasized the variety of supports that children and families would need to recover from the pandemic. Ten governors proposed new college scholarships to alleviate financial stress for students and families, five introduced plans to increase support for low-income students and English-language learners, and four discussed the need for increased mental health supports as students return to school.
Broadband
Thirty governors discussed broadband and the internet access during their state of the state addresses, up from 16 last year. The issue of broadband and internet access became a significant issue during the pandemic, especially as it related to equity in accessing on-line education and telehealth services. Maine Gov. Janet Mills noted that, “high-speed internet is as fundamental as electricity, health, and water. It is the primary way of connecting with others in the 21st century.” Though the digital divide existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health emergency highlighted the importance of access to reliable Wifi and exacerbated existing disparities. Seven governors specifically commented on the need to reduce the digital divide, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy commenting on the state’s progress from 2020, noting that in the past year it had worked to close the digital divide and today, 95 percent of students have the tools they need, and the state is working to close the gap to zero.
Thirteen governors also connected reliable broadband to education. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont noted how COVID-19 revealed that, “…too many students are left on the wrong side of the digital divide that exacerbates the achievement gap. Computers, internet access, and broadband – these are the tools essential to students’ success during COVID and for the foreseeable future.” At least 10 governors noted their fiscal support to ensure equitable access to broadband has increased across the state. Idaho Gov. Brad Little reiterated that for children to have a future, they need equal access to education. He spoke about how Idaho could benefit for years from a $50 million investment in broadband infrastructure, to support remote working and learning, especially in rural Idaho.
Eight governors also cited the urban/rural divide in broadband access and shared plans to expand broadband in rural areas. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s budget proposal would invest over $100 million in broadband expansion statewide, focusing specifically to provide access to rural communities that have been disproportionately impacted during the pandemic. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers noted that Wisconsin ranked 36th in the country for accessibility in rural areas and declared 2021 the “Year of Broadband Access.” His 2021-23 biennial budget proposes to invest around $200 million into broadband — nearly five-times the amount invested in the past three budget cycles combined.
Jobs, Livable Wages, and Unemployment Insurance
A total of 28 governors spoke about employment-related issues, focusing primarily on local economic growth efforts and workforce development to help connect individuals to higher-paying jobs. A few governors also commented on how their states’ unemployment systems were strained to capacity due to pandemic-related need.
Many governors mentioned planned investments in job training initiatives. Gov. Steve Sisolak commented on the creation of the Nevada Job Force that would engage leading businesses to fund and develop employment training programs, and also mentioned plans to establish a Remote Work Resource Center to connect individuals to job opportunities in other regions. Montana’s governor indicated that the current budget allocates funds for trades education by offering up to 1,000 scholarships a year and providing businesses with a 50 percent tax credit if they have employees who participate in the program. South Carolina’s Gov. McMaster proposed directing $60 million towards job skills training for high-demand manufacturing jobs and another $37 million for workforce scholarships and grants at technical colleges. Indiana’s governor advocated for continued investment in successful existing workforce development programs that have helped many individuals complete post-secondary education and obtain higher-paying employment.
In recognition of pandemic-caused job loss and the greater number of individuals relying on unemployment insurance (UI) who sometimes had difficulty accessing these benefits, governors in Illinois, Kansas, Wisconsin pledged to invest resources into UI system improvements. Governors in Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Tennessee stressed the importance of continuing to support small businesses as they begin to rebuild post-pandemic. Georgia’s governor commented that the state should promote “…job creation from those industries that are critical to health care and building on Georgia’s momentum to become a leader in all sectors of the health care industry.”
Environmental Actions
Twenty-three governors addressed environmental issues — down from 30 in 2020. Only Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington drew the explicit connection between the changing climate and the emergence of novel diseases like COVID-19, while most governors focused on the economic opportunity of investing in clean and alternative energy. Among governors’ top priorities was improving access to clean water:
- Gov. John Carney of Delaware: “We’ll again propose a $50 million investment in a new Clean Water Trust Fund. We will make sure that all Delaware families have access to clean drinking water. And we will place a special focus on those hard-to-serve families across our state.”
- Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan: “Last year, I announced the MI Clean Water Plan, a $500 million investment in Michigan’s water infrastructure. Direct dollars to communities for safe, clean water to residents. And it supports over 7,500 Michigan jobs. It’s time for the legislature to pass these bills so we can start rebuilding Michigan’s water infrastructure. I will keep working so every family in Michigan has clean, safe water.”
Behavioral Health
Twenty-two governors mentioned behavioral health in their state of the state speeches, including the effect of COVID-19 on mental health and substance use disorder. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey identified impacts of COVID-19 “beyond the disease itself… opioid abuse, alcoholism, addiction, mental health issues, the sheer loneliness of isolation, suicide: there has been no daily count of these human costs, but they are real and they are devastating.”
Nine governors mentioned significant investments in their state’s behavioral health care infrastructure and services and eight governors addressed substance use disorder (SUD) prevention and treatment as a priority.
- Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said the state is investing “$46 million investment to expand 96 beds at the Taylor Hardin facility in Tuscaloosa and another $6 million for an additional crisis diversion center.”
- In Montana, Gov. Greg Gianforte plans to use tax revenues from the sale of recreational marijuana, state and federal funding to create a $23.5 million fund to provide a continuum of SUD services.
- Missouri Gov. Michael Parson plans to invest in their workforce with “$20 million for 50 new community mental health and substance use disorder advocates and six new crisis stabilizations centers across the state.”
- Maine Gov. Janet Mills announced, “$7.5 million for mental health and substance use disorder, including community mental health and $2 million for our OPTIONS Initiative to dispatch mobile response teams to those communities that have high rates of drug overdoses — something that is more important than ever, given the increase in overdose deaths in Maine and the rest of the nation during the pandemic.”
Ten governors emphasized the impact of school closures on children’s mental health and made commitments to addressing the problem. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s budget includes “$6.5 million in our mental health safety net which will be focused on providing services for school-aged children struggling with mental health issues.” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s budget includes a proposal so that all children in school have access to a mental health counselor.
Governors identified technology as an important tool in the delivery of behavioral health services. Four governors identified telehealth to increase access to behavioral health services and two governors mentioned support lines for their residents.
- Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, discussing telehealth stated, “….which isn’t just a useful innovation in a time of social distancing. It’s a convenient tool for folks who want to receive care from the comfort of their own homes, and it’s literally a lifesaver for many Coloradans in rural areas who may live far away from doctors and clinics and hospitals.”
In her state of the state address, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced, “the nation’s first text-only abuse and neglect hotline for New Mexico children, providing them an outlet that research has shown they may be more comfortable using.”
Legal System Reform
In 2020, the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor highlighted the need for criminal justice reform. This year, 22 governors referenced justice in their state of the state speeches, more than in 2020. Criminal system reform is a key health issue as corrections-involved individuals have high rates of chronic conditions and poor mental health outcomes.
In addition to legal system reform, governors addressed infrastructure investments in correctional facilities, expanding re-entry programs and treatment courts and the death penalty. Governors in four states, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey and Virginia, have plans to legalize marijuana.
Ten governors mentioned reforming their state’s criminal legal system through a variety of policies, including banning chokeholds, limiting no-knock warrants, and eliminating mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam addressed expungement in his speech stating, “rooting out inequities includes expunging the records of people who were convicted of this and certain other crimes in the past.”
Governors in Alabama, North Dakota and Tennessee addressed re-entry programs. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s budget includes “$4.7 million for additional day reporting centers and evidenced-based programming for community supervision. This approach ensures that re-entry to society is done in the most safe and effective way possible for those who were formerly incarcerated.” Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte’s budget includes an investment in [drug] treatment courts. He stated, “…we must prioritize and invest in treatment courts. Treatment courts work. They reduce recidivism. They reduce drug use. They increase public safety. And they are much more cost effective than incarceration.”
Health and Social Equity
COVID-19 has laid bare health and social inequities, and 2021 state of the state addresses shows that achieving equity is a bipartisan goal – 21 governors discussed strategies to work towards equity. Reducing racial and ethnic disparities is of great interest to governors, several discussed racism and racial injustice, describing how communities of color, including tribal communities, were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, and they expressed their commitment to improvement. To address this, two governors announced new positions dedicated to increasing equity:
- Delaware Gov. John Carney created a new position, Director of Statewide Equity Initiatives, designed to make sure those in state government are leading with equity. He noted, “…We’ve also worked hard to build a cabinet that looks like Delaware. We created the position of Chief Diversity Officer to focus on recruitment and retention of a diverse state workforce.”
- Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb announced, “We’ll get our state’s first-ever cabinet-level Chief Equity, Inclusion, and Opportunity Officer to improve and report on diversity outcomes across state government.” He also announced the state’s plan to launch a diversity data dashboard.
Equity was also woven into governors’ speeches around various topics. Eleven governors addressed equity in access to jobs and health care, seven governors addressed the impact of inequities and education, five governors discussed the intersection of equity and women and children’s health – including New Jersey and Indiana’s governors announcing programs to reduce infant and maternal mortality. Seven governors discussed increasing equity in broadband and internet access and closing the digital divide:
- Hawaii Gov. David Ige announced that his legislative package includes a bill to create a Broadband and Digital Equity Office. This office will help enable the state to identify and secure Hawaii’s share of federal funds to enhance broadband infrastructure and digital equity programs.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham stated, “We will enact an equity-first budget for public education, ensuring money reaches students and schools in proportion to the socioeconomic needs of families in the community, laying the path to a public education system that truly delivers for students now and a hundred years from now, no matter their zip code, their family circumstances or the color of their skin.”
Medicaid, Coverage and Access to Care
While all states have experienced Medicaid enrollment growth due to the pandemic’s economic effects, only nine governors explicitly mentioned Medicaid in their speeches. Only Nevada’s Gov. Steve Sisolak commented on the program’s increased enrollment, and he indicated that the upcoming budget would reverse provider rate reductions due to revenues surpassing initial projections. Governors in Missouri and Oklahoma mentioned their states’ plans to implement Medicaid expansion in response to ballot initiatives that were passed last year, and as in the prior year, Gov. Laura Kelly in Kansas again advocated for the state to take up expansion.
Tennessee’s governor highlighted the state’s recently approved Medicaid block grant waiver and also noted planned investments in the health care safety net and extensions of Medicaid coverage for adopted youth and during the postpartum period. Oklahoma’s Gov. Kevin Stitt mentioned the state’s move toward Medicaid managed care as “the best way forward” and Indiana’s governor commented that implementing a managed long-term services and supports program within Medicaid would help families more easily navigate care options.
The broader topic of health coverage and access to care was cited more frequently than Medicaid, with 17 governors commenting on this issue. Most commonly, governors focused on the crucial role that telehealth has served over the past year in maintaining access to both health and behavioral health services. Governors in Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, and Texas advocated that expanded telehealth capacity should be sustained and strengthened after the pandemic, and Gov. Charlie Baker commented on Massachusetts’ recent actions to make its telehealth changes permanent.
Colorado’s Gov. Jared Polis noted plans to once again try to pursue a public option to expand coverage, commenting: “And we look forward to adding an affordable Colorado Option that will give Coloradans — especially in rural communities — more choice and savings, when it comes to selecting a health care plan.” Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed expanding access to affordable coverage by eliminating premiums for 400,000 low-income New Yorkers, and New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham mentioned plans to create a Healthcare Affordability Fund that could potentially provide health coverage to 23,000 uninsured New Mexicans within a year.
Housing and Homelessness
Sixteen governors addressed housing or homelessness in their 2021 speeches. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the United States’ existing affordable housing crisis. Additionally, people experiencing homelessness are at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. The CARES Act Emergency Rental Assistance Program allocated funding to states for rent and mortgage relief.
Six governors discussed their eviction prevention programs and eviction moratoriums. New Jersey Gov. Chris Murphy commented “as the pandemic literally hit people where they live, we instituted strong prohibitions against evictions and utility cutoffs to protect our families. We provided rental assistance to nearly 20,000 individuals and families facing immediate challenges.” In addition to eviction prevention, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker “dedicated a record $275 million to help pay utility bills for those suffering COVID-related income loss. Homelessness is never acceptable, but in a pandemic it’s downright barbaric.” Two Governors, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown addressed homelessness, Gov. Andrew Cuomo stating, “homeless shelters must be available, safe and secure. It’s not just our moral obligation, it is our legal obligation.”
Eight governors addressed expanding access to affordable housing. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam stated, “it’s also time to help people by taking more action on affordable housing. We have made record investments in the Virginia Housing Trust Fund that helps make more affordable housing available.” Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s budget includes a $250 million dollar investment in affordable housing, homelessness prevention and rental assistance. Governors also identified strategies to address property taxes, exclusionary zoning and the cost of land as barriers for affordable housing.
Health Care Costs
Eleven governors addressed health care cost and affordability — down significantly from 2020, when 21 governors addressed the issue. This year, governors focused on lowering health costs for consumers affected by the economic impact of the pandemic. Several introduced strategies to lower consumers’ premium costs:
- Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York proposed the elimination of health care premiums for more than 400,000 low-income New Yorkers.
- Gov. Phil Scott of Vermont directed his Department of Health Insurance Regulation to determine whether Vermonters are eligible for premium rebates due to low health care utilization during the pandemic.
- Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey highlighted the state’s successful launch of its State-Based Marketplace, which has lowered premiums for hundreds of thousands of New Jersey residents.
- Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico mentioned plans for a Healthcare Affordability Fund that would dedicate resources to lowering health insurance premiums and protect consumers from burdensome out-of-pocket costs.
Governors in Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and Utah seek to curb their state’s health care spending through cost and/or quality benchmarks. Vermont Gov. Phil Scott proposed setting a cap on annual price increases for health costs. In New Jersey and Utah, governors expressed their commitment to improving price transparency and data sharing, emphasizing the importance of building resources to help consumers better understand health care costs.
Only four governors addressed rising prescription drug prices – a significant decrease from last year when 12 governors addressed the issue.
Health Care Workforce
This year, eight governors addressed health care workforce issues, with most proposing solutions to meet the increasing demand for providers during the pandemic. Governors in three states proposed educational initiatives to bolster health care workforce development, including a grant program introduced by Gov. Mike Parson of Missouri to fund new health care associate degree programs at community colleges. Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska shared plans to expand the health care workforce by formalizing flexibilities implemented during the pandemic that allow licensed health care professionals from other states to practice in Nebraska, and governors from Kentucky, Idaho, and Nevada committed increased funds to address provider shortages. Two governors remarked on the importance of their volunteer workforce, with Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia calling on retired nurses and doctors to contribute to the COVID-19 vaccination effort.
Other Health-Related Issues
A sampling of other health-related topics that governors mentioned included:
- Transportation: Twelve governors talked about the need for modernized and healthy transportation systems. Indiana’s governor promoted his plan to convert old train tracks into hiking and biking trails, and Colorado’s governor made the connection between multi-modal transit options, electrification of transportation, and cleaner air.
- Child Welfare: Six governors discussed the child welfare system, highlighting progress and the need for more reform. Arkansas’ governor made a commitment to preventing abuse and protecting vulnerable children in the foster care system. Tennessee’s governor announced an extension of Medicaid coverage for foster children that would ensure a more seamless transition to family’s health plans during the adoption process.
- Violence prevention: Arkansas’ governor urged state legislators to pass hate crimes legislation, Georgia’s governor highlighted the need to address sex trafficking, and Alaska’s Gov. Mike Dunleavy indicated that his budget fully funds the state’s domestic violence and sexual assault programs and includes $7 million to help prosecute individuals who commit sexual assault and domestic violence crimes. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte addressed the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous individuals, who make up 7 percent of the population but account for 26 percent of missing persons.
- Medical supplies: New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo commented on the state’s medical supply chain being too reliant on overseas manufacturing and noted plans to incentivize state businesses to produce medical supplies.
- Food: Eight governors discussed food security, production, and distribution. Several governors commended the additional food security supports that were put in place to meet families’ needs during the pandemic. Oregon’s governor talked about new funding for wrap-around services in schools, including nutrition support.
- Wellness promotion: Oklahoma’s governor said that state leaders should address the high rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease among state residents.
Despite the significant challenges of addressing COVID-19, states are continuing to pursue innovative policies and initiatives to address a wide range of health and health-related issues, with many proposals developed directly in response to disparities highlighted by the pandemic. The National Academy for State Health Policy will continue to track many of these topics in the coming months.
2021 State of the States: Amid the Pandemic, Governors Tackle Health, Social, and Economic Issues
/in Policy Charts, Maps Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Consumer Affordability, COVID-19, Eligibility and Enrollment, Equity, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Housing and Health, Immunization, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by NASHP StaffHow States Improve Housing Stability through Medicaid Managed Care Contracts
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Ariella LevisohnIn 2019, more than 500,000 individuals experienced homelessness and nearly 20 million renters spent 30 percent or more of their income on housing. These numbers are increasing as the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates housing insecurity for people of color and low-wage workers. To improve housing stability – a critical social determinant of health (SDOH) – states are using Medicaid managed care contracts to encourage health plans to support members’ housing-related needs and promote coordination between housing providers and health plans.
Background
Housing status is a key social determinant of health. Many individuals experiencing homelessness suffer from diabetes, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS at rates that are up to six times higher than the general population, and are at increased risk for contracting COVID-19. Rates of mental illness and substance use disorders are also significantly higher among individuals experiencing homelessness.
Many individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid can be a valuable resource for helping individuals facing housing insecurity, and research shows that investing in housing can save states money and improve health. One study found that hospitalization, emergency room use, and total expenditures for individuals experiencing homelessness in Massachusetts were 3.8-times higher than for the average Medicaid recipient.
Increasingly, state Medicaid agencies are focusing on addressing housing-related needs of their enrollees through their managed care contracts.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) recently completed its three-year Health and Housing institute. Read its final report, Five States Break Down Interagency Silos to Strengthen their Health and Housing Initiatives, to learn how Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Oregon, and Texas improved their respective health through housing initiatives.
How States Use Medicaid Managed Care Contracts to Address Housing Needs
While Medicaid managed care contract language varies significantly between states, there are some similarities in states’ approaches to addressing Medicaid enrollees’ housing needs, including these managed care organization (MCO) contractual requirements:
- Screen enrollees for housing-related needs;
- Hire designated housing coordinators; and
- Ensure the coordination of care between housing providers or agencies and Medicaid programs.
States working to address housing insecurity and homelessness among Medicaid enrollees, or states that already require plans to focus on SDOH more broadly but wish to tailor initiatives specifically towards improving housing status, can adopt some of the contractual language and initiatives described below.
Screening for Housing Insecurity
According to NASHP’s scan of states’ Medicaid managed care contracts, 16 states (of 38 with publicly available contracts or requests for proposals) require contractors to conduct routine screenings for certain SDOH. Of the 16 states, 14 require their managed care plans to screen members about their housing needs during these assessments. These screenings can occur at any interval from annually to quarterly, with some states specifying that individuals who qualify as high-needs members should be screened more frequently. In New Hampshire, community mental health programs that contract with the state’s Medicaid program are required to conduct quarterly assessments and document all members’ housing status. In Pennsylvania, providers must complete an SDOH assessment that focuses on housing security, among other things, at least annually and more often depending on the individual’s risk level.
While some states require health plans to screen all enrollees, others only require screenings for certain populations. For example, Minnesota’s Medicaid MCO requires outreach and screening for members who have been to the emergency department for services three or more times within four consecutive months. In Alabama, the maternity psychosocial assessment includes questions related to homelessness.
Screening for housing status in order to identify members experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness is an important first step in addressing housing needs. However, in the absence of mechanisms to connect individuals to community resources that can help them find appropriate housing assistance, the impact of SDOH screenings is limited.
Hiring Housing Coordinators
According to NASHP’s analysis, seven state Medicaid MCOs identify a designated, full-time employee exclusively responsible for addressing enrollees’ housing needs – Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and North Carolina. Other states, including Delaware and Pennsylvania, require their plans to hire more broadly defined care coordinators or SDOH specialists. They work on housing as part of their jobs, but are also responsible for addressing other member needs, such as employment, transportation, and education.
Through its contract with Kansas Medicaid, United Healthcare employs a housing navigator, a position added in 2016. The housing navigator develops partnerships statewide to identify resources for providing housing supports – including vouchers, prevention services, public housing, and homeless service agencies – and to help members locate housing. United Healthcare’s housing navigator has assisted more than 200 Medicaid members with housing needs.
The Louisiana MCO contract requires the plan to hire a permanent supportive housing program liaison who works with the Louisiana Department of Health to help implement the PSH program deliverables, which include providing affordable housing and tenancy supports. While hiring housing navigators or specialists requires MCOs to invest financial resources, onboarding navigators to help connect members directly to housing services and supports has been shown to be one effective way to address Medicaid enrollees housing-related needs, especially those identified during SDOH screenings.
Partnering with Housing Providers and Agencies
State housing agencies and local housing providers are also valuable resources for improving both the health and housing needs of individuals. Rather than building new systems, managed care plans can address housing insecurity among members by partnering with existing housing services and working to eliminate siloes between health and housing agencies.
For example, in New Mexico, health plans are required to contract with a federally qualified health center that specializes in providing health care for populations experiencing homelessness. Similarly, in New York, health plans are required to coordinate care with Health Care for the Homeless providers. In Oregon, Coordinated Care Organizations – the state’s Medicaid accountable care organizations – have contracted with community-based organizations to provide housing supports and helped develop a medical respite program to house individuals experiencing homelessness following an inpatient hospital stay.
Initial data from New York’s pilot partnership project between Medicaid MCOs and housing providers to reach individuals experiencing homelessness who are high utilizers of Medicaid services showed a 46 percent reduction in emergency room (ER) visits, a 47 percent decrease in Medicaid costs, and a 99 percent reduction in ER costs for participants.
Some state Medicaid contracts also identify opportunities for MCOs to support housing initiatives run by state or federal housing agencies. In Texas, the Medicaid MCO service coordinator must work with staff from their Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program, a federal program that helps provide supportive housing for individuals with disabilities, to coordinate care for Texans receiving Section 811 services and those leaving nursing facilities. This helps integrate health and housing services for individuals previously identified as having housing needs. In Louisiana, the state housing authority and the Department of Health co-manage the permanent supportive housing (PSH) program. The Louisiana MCO contract outlines a number of ways that MCOs are required to support the PSH program, including:
- Provide outreach to members who qualify for PSH;
- Help members apply for PSH;
- Ensure timely prior authorization for PSH tenancy and pre-tenancy supports;
- Refer members approved for PSH to relevant providers; and
- Work with PSH program management to ensure an adequate and qualified network of PSH program staff and service providers.
The MCO is also required to contract directly with housing providers approved by the state to provide tenancy and pre-tenancy supports to members participating in the PSH program. One analysis of Louisiana Medicaid recipients pre- and post-PSH showed a 26 percent reduction in emergency room visits, a 12 percent reduction in hospitalizations, and an increased use of behavioral health services among participants. Through partnerships with PSH programs, MCOs can improve integration of health and housing services for members and expand the reach of housing programs by helping to identify Medicaid enrollees in need of housing and connect them directly to resources.
Creative Financing
State Medicaid managed care contracts employ creative ways to use Medicaid funding to support efforts to address housing insecurity among enrollees. Although Medicaid cannot directly fund housing, there are many other strategies to effectively invest in housing services. Oregon’s Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) are required to spend a portion of their profits or reserves on health-related services, and specifically on housing supports. Starting January 2021, CCOs are also required to submit annual spending plans to the state, which include the CCO’s spending priorities related to addressing SDOH and health equity, and how they align with the state’s housing-related priorities. In Kansas, the state’s MCO request for proposal calls for alternative payment strategies to incentivize warm handoff transitions for individuals moving from institutions into community-based programs and services.
In Massachusetts, the managed care contract mentions the Social Innovation Financing for Chronic Homelessness Population Program (SIF), a Pay For Success (PFS) initiative that finances PSH. Through the Community Support Program for People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness (CSPECH), Medicaid managed care entities fund support services for PSH tenants in the PFS program. As of October 2020, 860 members have enrolled in CSPECH. Together with the PFS program, CSPECH has improved housing retention, decreased emergency room stays, and saved millions in costs. While the current budget climate arising from the COVID-19 pandemic makes adopting new funding strategies difficult, investing health plan dollars in housing services can not only improve members’ housing status, but also decrease Medicaid spending down the line.
Pilot Programs
In addition to established methods, such as screening for housing needs and partnering with housing service providers, some states are using their managed care plans to launch new initiatives to address their Medicaid enrollees’ housing needs. In Florida, MCOs are participating in a voluntary pilot program to provide behavioral health services and supportive housing assistance directly to Medicaid enrollees who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and who also experiencing either serious mental illness or substance use disorder. The North Carolina managed care contract provides for an Enhanced Case Management Pilot program in up to four areas of the state. MCOs in each area work to determine the most effective, evidence-based interventions to address four priority domains, which include housing. The program also requires each program to evaluate the effect of the interventions on health care costs and outcomes. There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to addressing housing, but piloting programs like these, or creative financing solutions like those mentioned above, can help MCOs determine which methods are best for reaching housing-insecure members in their state, while also improving health outcomes and decreasing costs.
Conclusion
As efforts to address SDOH become increasingly common among Medicaid managed care plans, many states are narrowing their focus to address housing insecurity and homelessness specifically. By working to identify enrollees’ housing needs and directly connect them to housing and supportive services, health plans can improve housing stability, which in turn improves health outcomes and decreases costs.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, states face budget challenges while their Medicaid managed care plans may experience financial gains from a decline in demand for physical health services. This leaves health plans in a unique position to invest new resources upfront in housing-related services. In 2020, many insurers reported large profits, in part due to the decline in non-COVID-19-related hospital admissions. Medical Loss Ratio rules, however, limit the amount insurers can keep for profit or overhead costs – health plans must either issue rebates or spend more on health-related services, which presents an opportunity to use these additional funds to address housing insecurity and homelessness among enrollees. And, by requiring health plans to indirectly invest in housing by hiring housing coordinators, partnering with existing housing agencies who are already immersed in the work, financing housing-related services, or by piloting new, creative solutions, states can take the lead in guiding Medicaid managed care plans’ work.
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 U2MOA394670100, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the US government.
Oregon’s Community Care Organization 2.0 Fosters Community Partnerships to Address Social Determinants of Health
/in Medicaid Managed Care Oregon Featured News Home, Reports Accountable Health, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Program Design, Quality and Measurement, Social Determinants of Health /by Neva KayeWith CDC Eviction Ban Extended One Month, States Step Up with Additional Protections
/in Policy Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Health Equity, Housing and Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Allie AtkesonCDC’s order identified the importance of housing during a pandemic, “… Housing stability helps protect public health because homelessness increases the likelihood of individuals moving into congregate settings, such as homeless shelters, which then puts individuals at higher risk to COVID-19.” Under CDC’s original provision, renters who provided a signed declaration to their landlord that they expected to earn less than $99,000 a year ($198,000 if filing jointly) and were at risk of homelessness or living with others in close proximity were protected from eviction until Dec. 31, 2020.
On Jan. 14, 2021, the Biden Administration released its stimulus plan that asks Congress to extend the eviction moratorium until Sept. 30, 2021 and provide an additional $30 billion in rental relief. Congress must pass the extension before Jan. 31, 2021 in order to avoid a lapse in the moratorium and protections for renters.
The recent COVID-19 relief package, approved Dec. 27, 2020, extends CDC’s eviction moratorium and provides $25 billion in emergency rental assistance to be distributed to states through the Coronavirus Relief Fund. States, territories, and localities with populations greater than 200,000 were encouraged to apply for funds by January 12, 2021 but can access funds on a rolling basis. The $25 billion must be used for “direct financial assistance, including rent, rental arrears, utilities and home energy costs, utilities and home energy costs arrears, and other expenses related to housing.” Renter households eligible for assistance include:
- Households where at least one person has experienced a reduction in income or incurred significant costs or financial hardship due to COVID-19;
- A demonstrated risk of homelessness or housing instability; and
- Household income at or below 80 percent of the area median income.
Households are eligible for up to 12 months of rental assistance. Households with an individual who has been unemployed for more than 90 days prior to their application and households earning below 50 percent of area median income will be prioritized.
Many states had already created rent relief programs earlier in the public health emergency, however, it is estimated that renters currently owe more than $70 billion to landlords. Rental payments are essential for landlords to pay mortgages, property taxes, maintenance expenses, and insurance.
According to the US Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, nearly 36 percent of people in the United States are at risk of eviction or foreclosure in the next two months. Additionally, analysis by the Federal Reserve of Philadelphia finds that more than 1.3 million renter households that lost jobs during the pandemic each owe on average $5,400 in rent and utilities. These numbers are disproportionately higher among families with children and families of color. Black and Latinx renters are also more likely to report having no or slight confidence that they can pay their rent next month than White renters.
State Policies to Prevent Eviction
Eviction is associated with short- and long-term adverse health outcomes and can create barriers for individuals seeking housing in the future. Emerging research shows that incidence of COVID-19 was higher in states that lifted their eviction moratoria prior to the CDC moratorium. Since the pandemic began, there have been over 200,000 evictions filed in five states and 27 cities tracked by the Eviction Lab.
While the federal moratorium is important in scope, state-level policies and programs will further protect low-income renters from eviction, provide stability by extending the moratorium beyond Jan. 31, 2020, and provide needed relief to landlords. With evictions come additional costs to local governments and agencies, including emergency shelter, emergency medical care, inpatient medical care, and social services. These associated costs are estimated to between $62 and $129 billion dollars nationwide depending on the number of households evicted.
States are taking actions to prevent eviction:
- In California, legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom passed AB 3088 to protect tenants from eviction. Under the new law, no renter household can be evicted before Feb. 1, 2021 as a result of rent owed due to a COVID-19-related hardship accrued between Mar. 4 – Aug. 31, 2020” if the tenant provides a declaration of hardship. For COVID-19 related hardship occurring between Sep. 1, 2020 and Jan. 31, 2021, “tenants must also pay at least 25 percent of the rent due to avoid eviction.” The bill also extends anti-foreclosure protections to small landlords through the Homeowner Bill of Rights.
- Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, DC all tie their eviction moratoria to the end of a state or federal public health emergency.
- State legislators in New York convened a special session during the last week of 2020 to pass the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020, which was signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The act bans evictions until May 1, 2021 and provides protections to landlords with 10 or fewer dwellings struggling to pay mortgages.
- The Oregon legislature recently passed a bill extending the state’s eviction moratorium until June 30, 2021. Accompanying legislation, SB 5731, allocates $150 million for the landlord compensation fund with $50 million for rental assistance. Both bills were signed into law by Gov. Kate Brown.
Using executive orders, governors in the following states have extended bans on evictions beyond the Jan. 31, 2021 federal moratorium deadline:
- Connecticut, until Feb. 9, 2021;
- Hawaii, until Feb. 14, 2021;
- Illinois, until Feb. 6, 2021;
- Nevada, until March 31, 2021; and
- Washington State, until March 31, 2021.
Biden Housing Plan and Eviction Prevention
President-elect Biden’s housing plan identifies principles and policies to increase access to safe, affordable, and quality housing. The plan also calls for the end of discriminatory and unfair practices in the housing market, and includes protecting tenants from eviction. The Biden plan supports the proposed Legal Assistance to Prevent Evictions Act of 2020 to provide tenants who face eviction with access to legal assistance. The plan also states the administration will “encourage localities to create eviction diversion programs, including mediation, payment plans, and financial literacy education programs.”
In a memo to the Biden transition team, the National Housing Law Project, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and The Eviction Lab have requested the incoming president to enact a broad eviction moratorium on Day One of his administration that includes:
- Universal eviction protections for tenants regardless of whether they have signed a declaration to their landlord;
- A moratorium on all phases of the eviction process including notice, filing, hearing, judgement and physical eviction;
- Extending the moratorium to cover all evictions, including no-fault and end-of-lease evictions in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and
- Enforcement of the moratorium through a hotline so renters may file complaints and criminal penalties against landlords who violate the moratorium.
Conclusion
During the pandemic, housing is essential in order to practice social distancing and reduce the transmission of the coronavirus. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and CDC’s eviction moratorium provide essential funding and protections for tenants and landlords during this public health emergency. State policies can reduce the risk of COVID-19, along with short- and long-term adverse health outcomes, by helping prevent eviction and establishing programs to provide rent relief.
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. 























































































































































