CalAIM: Leveraging Medicaid Managed Care for Housing and Homelessness Supports
/in Policy, Population Health California Featured News Home, Reports Housing and Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health /by Allie AtkesonHow States Are Getting Ready to Unwind Medicaid’s Continuous Coverage Requirement
/in Health Coverage and Access Colorado, Massachusetts, Utah Blogs, Featured News Home COVID-19, Health Coverage and Access, Medicaid Managed Care /by Anita CardwellAcross agencies, state health policy officials are in the midst of tremendous planning efforts to prepare for the end of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement and the resumption of eligibility determination processes in Medicaid.
While the timing of this is uncertain because the requirement is tied to the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), states recognize that it is likely that the federal PHE declaration could end in the coming months. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a series of guidance documents for states related to unwinding PHE policies — most recently a state health official letter and new reporting templates released earlier this month — that have included specifics about reinstating disenrollments in Medicaid and strategies states can consider to minimize both churn and inappropriate coverage terminations.
On NASHP’s webinar earlier this month, three state officials each representing different health coverage programs — Medicaid (Colorado), CHIP (Utah), and a state-based marketplace (Massachusetts) — spoke about their programs’ current efforts to plan for the eventual end of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement. While they shared unique perspectives from their various vantage points and state contexts, some of the common themes from the discussion are described below, along with state snapshots of their current key priorities.
State-Specific Unwinding Planning Efforts
Colorado: The state’s Medicaid agency is focusing on a range of strategies to ensure continuity of coverage once the continuous coverage requirement is no longer in effect. Their overarching priorities center on minimizing disruptions for enrollees and supporting their eligibility determination workforce, and they are focusing their efforts in the areas of system improvements and partner input to develop effective strategies. The agency is seeking to distribute their eligibility redetermination work evenly over the PHE unwinding period and is taking into consideration the needs of certain populations, such as individuals who will be covered under the American Rescue Plan Act’s (ARPA) extended postpartum coverage option that the state will be implementing and vulnerable populations such as homeless individuals. Additionally, the agency recently redesigned their renewal materials with the aim of improving communications with enrollees about actions that they will need to take to maintain coverage. State Medicaid officials also hold weekly meetings with their county-based eligibility determination sites and their state-based marketplace to review needed policy and system changes and assess communication plans.
Massachusetts: Officials from the state-based marketplace, the Health Connector, are working very closely with their Medicaid agency counterparts to strategize about policy and operational approaches, coordinate messaging efforts, and share general information. Health Connector staff are currently in the process of gaining a better understanding of the characteristics of the individuals currently enrolled in Medicaid who may become eligible for marketplace coverage when the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement ends. One advantage the state has is that their Medicaid and marketplace eligibility determination systems are integrated, which facilitates smoother transitions between coverage programs.
Utah: Officials from Utah’s CHIP agency are incorporating lessons learned from their experience last year when CMS informed the state that unlike Medicaid, the CHIP program should be conducting regular disenrollments for individuals determined ineligible during the PHE (CMS had previously approved the state’s request to implement a disenrollment freeze in CHIP). Although the CHIP program attempted to reach enrollees, because the process needed to be conducted quickly, 41 percent of the CHIP caseload was disenrolled. Reflecting on this experience to inform the upcoming changes in Medicaid, the state is strategizing on ways to better communicate with enrollees and examining their eligibility system data closely. Similar to Colorado, they are focusing on prioritizing certain populations based on a range of factors and are currently identifying Medicaid enrollees within their system who are either found to be ineligible or whose eligibility cannot be confirmed so that further action can be taken on these cases when the PHE ends. Additionally, the state plans to launch a dashboard that will be able to provide information to the public about the reasons individuals are disenrolled from Medicaid and whether they are transferred to other coverage programs, as well as information about call center volumes and other data points to provide a comprehensive picture of eligibility redetermination activity.
Key Strategies to Address Current and Anticipated Challenges
Broadly, all states are facing the challenges of uncertainty about when the PHE declaration will end, as well as the significant growth in Medicaid enrollment over the course of the pandemic which increases the volume of work that will need to be completed. There is the additional challenge that the enhanced federal Medicaid funding that states are currently receiving for complying with the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement will expire at the end of the quarter in which the PHE ends; but states’ work to unwind the requirement will take much longer.
Balancing workloads and providing training to address state workforce constraints: Although the majority of states have been conducting renewals during the PHE, there will still be a very sizeable amount of eligibility work for states to process during the unwinding period. State officials also mentioned additional concerns about the potential increased workload as people begin reapplying for coverage after being disenrolled or appeal eligibility decisions. Both Colorado and Utah cited challenges related to recruiting and training the large number of state eligibility determination workers that will be needed. In Colorado, the state oversees the Medicaid program, but it is administered at the county level. While the legislature allocated funding for the hiring of more eligibility workers, counties have reported that it has been difficult to find employees because many businesses in the private sector are offering higher wages. However, a centralized state-funded site has been added so that counties with excess eligibility determination work can redirect cases there, which state officials hope will help even out the workload. In Utah, about a third of the Medicaid and CHIP eligibility staff are new employees, and due to the continuous coverage requirement they lack experience with conducting disenrollments in Medicaid. The state is providing training to recently hired staff and seeking to ensure that the upcoming significant workload increase will be processed both efficiently and carefully, with a focus on helping Medicaid-eligible individuals remain enrolled or that those who qualify for other programs are smoothly transferred to other sources of coverage.
Leveraging partnerships to reduce enrollee communication barriers: All three state officials commented on the significant challenge of finding effective ways to communicate with enrollees about the impending changes, especially because many enrollees have not ever had to take action to maintain coverage and may be unfamiliar with the redetermination process. In Colorado, in addition to their revamped renewal packet, the agency is promoting their newly modernized online portal that state officials are working to ensure is user-friendly. They are also using text messaging and other communication tools to engage enrollees and collect updated contact information. Massachusetts is aiming to use best practices in communication with enrollees and is currently conducting focus group testing of messaging that can be used across agencies so that they are in sync and are using the same “song sheet.” Additionally, for individuals who no longer qualify for Medicaid but are eligible for qualified health plans, Massachusetts Health Connector staff are thinking through ways to inform individuals about how marketplace coverage differs from Medicaid in terms of factors such as cost, provider networks, and income change reporting requirements. In Utah’s CHIP program, premiums have been suspended during the pandemic and state officials are working to develop effective strategies to inform enrollees about the reinstatement of these charges once the PHE ends.
One essential element in improving enrollee communication methods and gathering updated enrollee contact information cited by all three states is the engagement of a range of partners, such as community-based organizations with well-established ties to underserved and vulnerable populations. In Massachusetts, the state legislature allocated $5 million in ARPA funding to Health Care for All (HCFA)—a grassroots organization with strong connections to many marginalized communities—to support outreach efforts to Medicaid enrollees, and the state’s health insurance marketplace and Medicaid agency are working in tandem with HCFA on these initiatives. In Utah, advocates are helping to ensure that notices are written in plain and clear language, and the state is also actively reaching out to tribal nations for their input on communication strategies. In Colorado, community-based partners are directly assisting with updating enrollee contact information and the state has frequent communication with advocacy organizations. All three states are also coordinating closely with health insurance carriers that may have more frequent communication with members enrolled in their plans to both collect updated enrollee contact information and communicate about the upcoming changes. For example, in Utah, managed care plans are conducting outreach calls to individuals, and the state will soon be able to share more detailed information about enrollees’ eligibility determinations with the plans.
Putting the Medicaid Continuous Coverage Requirement Unwinding in Context
State officials also emphasized that it is important for all stakeholders to keep in mind that the work of unwinding PHE policies and resuming normal eligibility determination operations in Medicaid will be occurring within the context of many other substantial changes, overlapping timelines, and unique state challenges. For example, in Utah, the state is making significant changes to their eligibility determination system, recently launched a new Medicaid Management Information System, and is in the process of merging their health and human services agencies. From the perspective of the state-based marketplaces, if the PHE ends in July 2022, that coincides with their efforts to prepare for the fall open enrollment season, which involves considerable system changes and could create outreach and communication challenges. A further complication is that if the enhanced marketplace subsidies currently available via ARPA are not extended by Congress, individuals transferring to the marketplace will face considerably higher costs. Additionally, each state’s unique characteristics, such as their Medicaid and marketplace coordination arrangements and eligibility system structures, will affect the resumption of regular Medicaid eligibility operations and the overall PHE unwinding process.
States appreciate CMS’ ongoing support, but also hope that the administration will provide them with ample notice about when the PHE will end as well as offer some flexibility on certain rules to facilitate the overall process for both individuals and programs. While the many impending policy and operational issues are daunting for states, they are continuing to actively prepare and are hopeful that with a common goal across state agencies, partners, and the federal government of ensuring that eligible individuals remain enrolled, efforts will be coordinated and coverage disruptions will be minimized.
State Innovations in Medicaid Managed Care for Mobile Crisis Services
/in Medicaid Managed Care Arizona, New York, Virginia Blogs, Featured News Home Medicaid Managed Care /by Jodi Manz and Kitty PuringtonBackground
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) establishes an enhanced 85 percent federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) opportunity for mobile mental health crisis team services in Medicaid. This match supports states in ongoing efforts to build out mental health crisis systems that align to the core elements of a crisis continuum as outlined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): regional call centers, mobile response, and crisis stabilization facilities.
States may need to review and revise Medicaid state plans or other authorities in order to take full advantage of the enhanced FMAP opportunity. For states that deliver these services through managed care, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance indicates that qualifying crisis services must also be included in plan contracts, and the costs of those services integrated into corresponding capitation rates.
Prior to ARPA, several states expanded the delivery and payment of mobile crisis services under Medicaid care contracts. These innovations can continue as states seek the enhanced FMAP for mobile crisis services. Such innovations include:
Allowing assessments to be performed via telehealth. Section 9813 of ARPA requires that in order to qualify for the enhanced FMAP, mobile crisis teams must include at least one provider who can, under state requirements for scopes of practice, perform an assessment of an individual in crisis. Many states have or are considering allowing mobile crisis teams to conduct assessments via telehealth, as behavioral health workforce shortages and distance/transportation challenges can pose barriers, particularly in rural and underserved areas. For example:
- Virginia’s Medicaid mobile crisis response services are included in the state’s Medallion 4.0 managed care contract, and the state’s mental health services manual outlines billing for “telemedicine assisted assessments” in which a non-licensed qualified mental health professional (QMHP) or certified substance abuse counselor (CSAC) can conduct an assessment with real-time remote support from a supervising licensed professional. This assessment is imperative to understanding the immediate factors contributing to a crisis, as well as the supports in place that can help to stabilize an individual; permitting the use of telehealth to provide an assessment can help to ensure that crises are de-escalated as quickly as possible and that mobile teams can make connections to follow up care as necessary.
Enabling managed care data transfer to support coordination and billing. As the first component of the crisis continuum, call centers triage crisis situations, assessing the for the need for higher levels of intervention from mobile crisis teams. Getting insurance information from callers in crisis may not be possible and may interrupt or distract from the primary functions of triage and assessment. This information is, however, necessary to facilitate Medicaid billing for these services.
- Arizona takes a unique approach by contractually enabling information exchange among three entities: the state’s Regional Behavioral Health Authorities (RBHAs), their contracted call centers, and Medicaid managed care plans. Call centers receive minimal information from a caller – just first name, last name, and birth date – and use that to access an enrollment clearinghouse and data warehouse that contains both electronic health records and Medicaid managed care enrollment information submitted by the plans. Using these data, call centers can serve a further function, coordinating follow up services with community-based providers. This allows the centers to bill the managed care plans for both the call center services and care coordination after the call has been resolved.
Eliminating service authorization requirements. Behavioral health services may be subject to prior authorization requirements to ensure medical necessity before a service for a Medicaid beneficiary is approved for delivery. The nature of mobile mental health crisis services, however, makes prior authorization challenging. Several Medicaid managed care contracts explicitly state that plans may not require prior authorization for these services.
- Virginia does not require prior authorization; instead, reimbursement for mobile crisis services is authorized using a registration process. This effectively notifies a Medicaid managed care plan of a provided service and indicates a need for ongoing coordination of care. This registration allows for eight hours (32 units) of services within a 72-hour period, and a service registration form must be submitted to the managed care plan within one business day.
Extending billable service windows post-crisis. Mobile crisis teams provide services for acute crisis events but also provide coordination of ongoing services or connections to higher levels of care upon resolution of the qualifying crisis.
- New York’s billing guidance for mobile crisis intervention providers specifies that while services must be documented in clinical records within 24 hours of a crisis event, follow up services related to the event can be reimbursed within the 14-day period thereafter. During this time, providers can bill Medicaid managed care plans for follow up and coordination of services, including services to maintain stabilization and further engage community-based providers and other patient supports.
Aligning systems and innovation
The enhanced FMAP for team-based mobile crisis services offers an opportunity for states to develop innovations in mental health crisis systems, and Medicaid managed care contracts may be a helpful lever in maximizing state approaches. Issues such as workforce needs, systems coordination, and data infrastructure can be addressed in these contracts, connecting these services to broader state behavioral health systems. As states work across agencies to align existing resources and services in their Medicaid programs, leveraging managed care partners can help coordinate services and providers across the crisis continuum.
Acknowledgements: The authors at the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank the state officials from Arizona and Virginia who contributed their knowledge to this blog. In addition, we thank Health Resources and Services Administration Project Officer Diba Rab and her colleagues for their feedback and guidance. This project was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under co-operative agreement number UD3OA22891, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. The information, content, and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS, or the U.S. government.
State Community Health Worker Models
/in Community Health Workers Featured News Home, Maps Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Care Coordination, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Community Health Workers, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health System Costs, Long-Term Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home Community Health Workers /by NASHP StaffThrough Coordination and Investment, Arizona Substantially Increases Access to School-Based Behavioral Health Services
/in COVID-19 State Action Center, Policy Arizona Blogs, Featured News Home Back to School, Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, EPSDT, Health Equity, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Anita Cardwell and Gia GouldBy leveraging federal Medicaid funding and state investment while simultaneously clarifying complex billing procedures and enhancing engagement with providers, Arizona has made remarkable progress in increasing student access to critical school-based behavioral health services.
Arizona’s efforts to improve school behavioral health services began in 2018 when its state legislature allocated $3 million from the state’s general fund to expand these services. The state’s Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), and the Arizona Department of Education (DOE) used $1 million of this funding to provide schools with mental health training, and the remaining $2 million was matched with federal Medicaid funds, resulting in a total $10 million in Medicaid funding to increase the number of behavioral health providers in schools.
To obtain Medicaid reimbursement for school-based services under the Medicaid School-Based Claiming (MSBC) program, Arizona’s local education agencies (LEAs) use two school-based claiming programs, the Direct Service Claiming (DSC) program and the Medicaid Administrative Claiming (MAC) program. LEAs seek Medicaid reimbursement through the DSC program to cover the cost of providing medical and behavioral health services to Medicaid-eligible students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The MAC program provides LEAs with reimbursement for administrative outreach services for Medicaid that are conducted in school settings. The state contracts with a third-party administrator, Public Consulting Group (PCG), to process Medicaid school-based claims.
In addition to claims processed through the MSBC program for students with IEPs, Medicaid services delivered by behavioral health providers contracted through one of AHCCCS’ managed care organizations can be reimbursed by Medicaid regardless of whether the student has an IEP.
Challenges and Solutions
Improving partnerships and coordination between schools and providers: While Arizona provided school behavioral health services before 2018, the additional state funding helped prioritize these services and facilitated the development of new relationships between behavioral health providers and schools. State officials reported that prior to the initiative to promote school-based behavioral health services, there were some challenges related to establishing relationships between schools and providers.
For example, some school administrators were skeptical if they could bill for school-based services or were concerned about the logistics of providing appropriate space to conduct behavioral health services without interrupting usual school activities. Many of these issues have been addressed through extensive and ongoing training sessions with both school administrators and provider groups. State officials also credited the cross-sector workgroup meetings that are held on a regular basis with helping improve interagency relationships.
Another key factor in Arizona’s success was incentivizing partnerships between schools and behavioral health provider agencies to create a differential adjusted payment for behavioral health providers. The enhanced payment became effective in October 2019, and provides a 1 percent rate increase for providers that have a memorandum of understanding with three or more schools to provide behavioral health services, and a 3 percent rate increase for providers that are autism Centers of Excellence.
State officials at AHCCCS also are in the process of improving data sharing with the DOE. By matching school identifier numbers on claims for services provided on a school campus, or as the result of a referral from an educational entity, the state will be able to obtain a better understanding of where and which services are delivered. Improving these data-matching processes will also provide information about where students are being referred for additional services and help identify where future focus should be directed within the state to enhance school-based behavioral health services.
Another key partnership to support students’ behavioral health needs is AHCCCS’ collaboration with the Arizona DOE on several grants, including Project Aware, which is funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Project AWARE works with three school districts to provide suicide prevention and behavioral health resources.
Addressing lack of behavioral health providers and service delivery challenges: Arizona state officials identified the lack of behavioral health providers, particularly in rural regions, as an issue faced by many states. However, Arizona officials are pleased and encouraged by the number of providers who are participating in the state’s expansion of school-based behavioral health services. One factor that likely incentivized greater provider engagement was the implementation of the differential adjusted payment, although state officials indicated that there had already been a growing interest among behavioral health providers to develop new school partnerships to reach more students due to the statewide focus on the issue.
School districts in Arizona have also developed creative solutions to connect their students to behavioral health services. One school district in Arizona responded to provider shortages and space limitations by setting up a dedicated mobile unit in the school parking lot for behavioral health services. Prior to bringing in the mobile clinic, providers did not have financial incentives to travel to the school because it was difficult to secure an appropriate office during the school day. With the mobile unit, the district can provide consistency for their providers as well as a private space for students to receive behavioral health care. However, because the care is not technically provided in the school building, the district needed to work with the state Medicaid agency to find a way to appropriately bill under school-based behavioral health services.
Clarifying qualifying services and billing procedures: The state’s increased focus on the provision of behavioral health services in schools also helped to improve the accuracy of billing code processes. When efforts to expand school-based behavioral health services were initially launched, state officials at AHCCCS actively worked to address some of the existing misunderstandings about the allowability for those services to be provided at a school campus outside of the MSBC program. State officials recognized that due to errors in coding related to where services are provided, some school-based behavioral health services were not being correctly captured, resulting in the state not having a clear picture of the scope of services being provided to students.
To address these issues, AHCCCS coordinated and led many informational learning sessions throughout the state for both educators and provider agencies, including trainings about billing procedures. Once providers learned how to assign the correct place of service code, state officials reported a notable increase in the quantity of behavioral health services provided. State officials attributed the increase not only to the coding improvements that more accurately captured completed work, but also due to new services provided as a result of the state’s overall emphasis and investment in school behavioral health services.
Like many states, Arizona uses a Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) to assess the amount of time providers spend engaged in Medicaid-reimbursable activities. Each LEA has a RMTS coordinator who facilitates the administration of the program. As the third-party administrator, PCG manages the overall RMTS process, and provides program-specific introductory trainings for new coordinators and LEAs as well as recurring trainings to provide program updates and address areas of concern. AHCCCS coordinates with PCG to improve the RMTS process, and at present, AHCCCS consistently meets RMTS compliance standards, despite having to transition to virtual trainings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Effect of COVID-19: The transition to mobile learning due to COVID-19-related school closures has presented an opportunity for schools to provide behavioral health services through virtual platforms. State officials report there has been a reduction in the number of claims that use place-of-service codes, which indicate when services are provided at an educational institution, most likely due to the decrease in the number of students attending school in person because of the pandemic. However, officials indicated that they have observed a dramatic increase in the amount of behavioral health services currently delivered through telehealth as more students have had to operate within a remote learning environment.
For districts without local providers, the ability to work with students without travel has helped connect more children to care. According to one Arizona state official, many behavioral health providers have gone above and beyond to connect with children whose need for care has been exacerbated by stress and isolation resulting from the pandemic.
State officials said there is anecdotal evidence that the pandemic has caused an increase in the number of parents expressing concern that their children are exhibiting depression and/or suicidal tendencies. However, officials also noted they have observed a greater willingness among parents to discuss issues concerning mental health, which could result in parents more actively advocating to ensure that schools continue to offer behavioral health services.
Overall Success
Since the start of the state’s efforts to expand behavioral health services in schools in 2018, officials report progress has been remarkably successful throughout 2019 and into early 2020, and there has been a substantial increase in the number of students who have received behavioral health services from an educational entity or institution. While declines in the number of youth suicides cannot be directly correlated with the state’s expansion of behavioral health services — and data from the effect of the pandemic is not yet available — there was a 41 percent decrease in youth suicides from 2018 through 2019.
State officials report their efforts have been so successful that in 2020 the state legislature passed SB 1523, which established and allocated $8 million to a new Children’s Behavioral Health Services Fund that will further enhance school-based behavioral health services. The fund will be administered by AHCCCS and provides behavioral health services to students who are not Medicaid-eligible but are uninsured or under-insured and who receive a referral for services from an educational institution.
In reflecting on lessons from Arizona’s expansion of school-based behavioral health services that might be used by other states, officials explained that determining how to handle nuanced billing situations, such as telehealth and the state’s mobile unit, was an important factor in ensuring that all provided services were accurately captured and reimbursed. They commented, “If Arizona can do it, anyone can do it — we are ranked 51st in [the nation for] education funding, and we have the poorest counselor-to-student ratio in the nation…that said, we have this great state Medicaid agency, and we’ve been able to figure out how to reach more kids with the dollars given to us. And so, if Arizona can figure out how to do this sort of work and get these partners on school campuses, then any other state can do this.”
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) would like to thank state officials from Arizona for their time and contribution to this publication. Support for this work was provided by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
Spotlight on Home- and Community-Based Services: New Federal Opportunities?
/in COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Resource Center Blogs, Featured News Home Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, COVID-19, Health Coverage and Access, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Relief and Recovery, Social Determinants of Health, State Resources, The RAISE Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center, Workforce Capacity /by Kitty PuringtonOlder adults, people with disabilities, and their family caregivers have been hard hit by COVID 19. As states reel from the pandemic’s human and fiscal toll, policymakers are increasingly looking to home- and community-based services (HCBS) to address the pressing need for alternatives to nursing home care and supporting family caregivers who can help loved ones age in place.
Recent actions signal that the importance of HCBS is gaining traction at the federal level, and may receive significant attention in the coming months:
- The American Rescue Act, passed last month, includes a one-year, 10-point boost in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for HCBS delivered between April, 2021 and March, 2022. The funding must supplement – not supplant – current state expenditures, and can be used for an expansive list of HCBS. These include Medicaid waiver services, but also case management and rehabilitative services, which are often used to support people with serious mental illness. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently held a “listening session” to gather input for guidance that will be issued in the near future.
- The American Jobs Act, released by the White House on March 31, 2021, has been touted by the Biden Administration as an historic opportunity to rebuild America’s infrastructure. Interestingly, a full quarter of the total $1.2 billion proposed expenditure would go to “expanding access to quality, affordable home- or community-based care for aging relatives and people with disabilities.” The plan targets expansion of Medicaid HCBS and would improve wages and conditions for the nation’s direct care workforce, a majority of whom are women of color.
- Also last month, a group of members of Congress – Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – sought input on the HCBS Act of 2021, draft legislation that would make HCBS a mandatory benefit in state Medicaid plans and expand the kinds of services offered, among other changes.
In the short term, states will need to act quickly to develop time-limited strategies to take advantage of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) enhancement offered by the American Rescue Plan, and be prepared for other funding and policy opportunities as they emerge. States may choose to add enrollees to their existing HCBS programs, expand access by enhancing direct care workforce pay, focus on services to support family caregivers, and/or build on existing programs.
Explore the National Academy for State Health Policy’s (NASHP) State PACE Action Network for a new technical assistance opportunity for states to enhance or expand this home- and community-based services model. NASHP will continue to track these issues, and provide updates on state and federal initiatives that reflect the growing importance of HCBS.
How 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.
How States Access and Deploy Data to Improve SUD Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery
/in Policy Behavioral/Mental Health and SUD, Chronic and Complex Populations, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration, Quality and Measurement /by Kitty Purington and Jodi ManzAs state policymakers confront the substance use disorder (SUD) epidemic, they require a wide range of data – often found in disparate systems – to understand its impact and craft more effective treatment programs and interventions. This report explores best practices and sources for data gathering and describes how states can help communities access and use data to support local efforts.
Introduction
The nation’s substance use disorder (SUD) epidemic poses unique challenges for policymakers working to understand and apply data – which often exists in disparate systems – to guide their treatment and interventions. States, localities, and organizations need to access and generate reliable data, not just in health and behavioral health care, but in workforce, criminal justice, social services, and other systems to design successful SUD interventions.
Many data sets produced by state and federal agencies have value when used individually, but when data can be shared and presented in new ways, it begins to tell a more comprehensive story of the particular and highly localized impact of SUD across systems and populations.
This report describes the uses and limitations of commonly available data sets that can stand alone or be used in conjunction with other data to answer common questions posed by state and local leaders. The report reviews common data sources that can help state leaders address key issues, such as preventing SUD and diversion of controlled substances, supporting harm reduction, increasing treatment capacity and service delivery, and understanding the needs of vulnerable populations. The report also highlights best practices at the state level, and notes where state strategies can also assist communities in accessing and using data to support local efforts.
The State SUD Data Landscape
Policymakers have access to data sets that are collected, compiled, analyzed, and maintained by state and federal agencies and other entities responsible for providing or overseeing services related to the prevention, reduction, or treatment of SUD. The following highlights data sets that are commonly used by state policymakers in their efforts to analyze key SUD indicators.
Individual claims and administrative and programmatic data collected by states: Individual-level data sets that tie to the unique experiences of one person through a system can help illuminate the ways that individuals and populations seek and use services. This data is often personally identifiable, which requires either consent, legally authorized use, or systematic anonymization that removes identifying characteristics.
| Data | Ownership/Maintenance | Content |
| Medicaid claims and encounter data | State Medicaid agency
Medicaid managed care organization |
· Patient demographic data
· Diagnostic/service codes · Service utilization data |
| Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) | State licensing boards, public health agencies, or free-standing PDMP agency | Patient and prescriber data related to scheduled prescription drugs |
| Vital statistics, forensic epidemiology, or medical examiner/coroner reports | State public health or vital statistics agencies | · Deceased demographic data
· International Classification of Diseases 9-10 codes identifying causes of death · Toxicology reports |
| Homeless management information systems | State housing or social service agencies | Housing program services and client data, including self-reported diagnoses |
| Infectious disease data | State public health agencies | Surveillance data on hepatitis B/C and HIV infections |
| Behavioral health services data | State behavioral health agencies | · Non-Medicaid-funded services for SUD delivered by community behavioral health systems or state hospitals
· Provider licensure information |
| Emergency medical systems data | State public health agencies | Overdose response data, including naloxone deployment |
| Hospital admissions and discharge data | State public health agencies | Overdoses treated in hospital settings and/or discharges coded as overdose-related |
| Corrections | State and local corrections agencies | Health and behavioral health assessment and treatment data for incarcerated individuals |
De-identified state/federal data sets available to researchers, organizations, and the public: Aggregate data sets can also be helpful to understand system interactions and population trends. These kinds of data are valuable in gauging systemwide behaviors as well as shifts in services, demographics, or activities that indicate the needs of a given region or population.
| Data Set | Ownership/Maintenance | Content |
| All-payer claims databases (APCD) | Independent state or quasi-governmental organizations | Insurance claims from across payer sources |
| Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) | Self-reported health risk factor and health condition data |
| Census data | US Census Bureau | Self-reported demographic data |
| National Overdose Report | CDC | Overdose deaths by demographics, states/regions, and substances present |
| Annual HIV Surveillance Report | CDC | HIV infections by demographics, states/regions, and transmission factors |
| National Survey on Drug use and Health (NDSUH) | Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) | Self-reported substance use, mental health, and treatment services by demographics and state/region |
SUD Data Use Cases for State and Community Leaders
The following data use cases and strategies describe how available data can be used, often in innovative ways, to inform and guide state and local policy decisions.
Limit Diversion and Promoting Prevention Use Cases
Prescription opioids are often described as the substances behind the “first wave” of an overdose epidemic that has evolved to now be driven by illicit forms of opioids, such as heroin and fentanyl. In one study, over 80 percent of current heroin users reported that their first experiences with opioids involved diverted prescription pills, suggesting that policy interventions to reduce this diversion should be among state and local leaders’ top priorities. Analyzing available data can help to structure strategies that limit opioid diversion and prevent inappropriate prescribing.
Identify risky prescribing: Forty-nine states and Washington, DC support Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) that contain prescriber, dispenser, and patient-level data about controlled substances. Policymakers can use PDMP data to develop baselines that help show geographic and individual prescriber averages, as well as aberrations in prescribing and dispensing patterns. Pennsylvania maintains public-facing aggregate PDMP data that can be searched at the county level for a range of measures that indicate risky prescribing patterns, such as:
- Number/rate of individuals seeing five-plus prescribers and five-plus dispensers;
- Number/rate of individuals seeing four-plus prescribers and four-plus dispensers;
- Number/rate of individuals seeing three-plus prescribers and three-plus dispensers;
- Morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs);
- Number/rate of individuals with an average daily MME of more than 50, 90 or 120;
- Number/rate of individuals with overlapping opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions; and
- Number/rate of individuals with more than 30 days of overlapping opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions.
Similarly, Illinois tracks a “high-risk patient” population using data from its PDMP to better understand trends among individuals who have been:
- Prescribed both opioids and benzodiazepines;
- Individuals prescribed greater than 90 MME; and
- By number of total prescriptions.
Refine prescribing guidelines: States have significant leverage to implement opioid prescribing guidelines in their Medicaid programs and can then use this claims data to support these interventions. Using PDMP and Medicaid service utilization data, state Medicaid agencies can enact and support policies that reduce opioid prescribing and incentivize non-narcotic pain management. Policymakers in Virginia reviewed both opioid and non-opioid prescribing claims in Medicaid, and found the data suggested opioid prescriptions were the default for pain management. Working with stakeholders, including managed care pharmacy directors, the state removed prior authorization for non-opioid pain management and implemented limitations on opioid prescribing among Medicaid providers. Other states, including Ohio, have similarly used PDMP data to track and manage opioid prescribing limits that reduce the availability of pills for potential diversion. Ohio experienced a 41 percent decrease in opioid doses and a 37 percent decrease in prescriptions between 2012 and 2018 as a result of adopting these kinds of regulations.
Understand substance use trends: Massachusetts analyzed death records, state toxicology reports, and prescribing data from its PDMP to better understand substances involved in the state’s overdose deaths. Matching and analyzing these data sets revealed that people dying from overdose were much more likely to have an illegal substance in their system at the time of death, which resulted in a state review of its harm reduction strategy. The report noted that “(a)s a result of these findings, increasing the availability of harm reduction strategies and interventions that target heroin, fentanyl, and polysubstance use (especially benzodiazepine and cocaine use) could significantly reduce the opioid-related death rate.”
Preventing Overdose and SUD-Related Comorbidities Use Cases
Harm reduction interventions can lower the likelihood of both overdose and infectious disease by engaging individuals in active use to mitigate their risks. State-level data sets can help illuminate state- and community-specific needs related to reducing harm from opioid use, and can identify areas for policy intervention that can both improve outcomes for people using drugs and avoid costs related to chronic, comorbid illnesses.
Target resources where most needed: Targeted deployment of key harm reduction resources, such as naloxone, can be difficult to pinpoint:
- Lay use of naloxone goes unreported, and
- Emergency medical services (EMS) may use multiple doses for one overdose or may use naloxone when overdose is suspected but not present.
Wisconsin took a comprehensive approach in its harm reduction analysis. Policymakers analyzed four indicators across the state to identify areas of greatest need of harm reduction interventions: Incidents of opioid overdose deaths;
- Opioid overdose hospitalizations;
- Suspected opioid overdose ambulance runs; and
- Newly reported cases of hepatitis C in people age 15 to 29.
The state then used data on available resources, such as syringe services programs, naloxone availability at pharmacies through a standing order, medication-assisted treatment, HIV prevention, hepatitis C treatment, and SUD treatment providers to identify areas experiencing acute gaps in harm reduction resources.
To further support harm reduction efforts, Wisconsin also tracks suspected overdose deaths on a monthly basis, enabling the state to provide more timely and actionable data to state and local officials. The state reviews 911 ambulance runs and uses word searches in free-text fields to identify additional details. Data is presented as unconfirmed.
Push out actionable data to clinicians to treat common comorbidities: The Louisiana Public Health Information Exchange (LaPHIE) was first implemented in 2008 as a partnership between its Office of Public Health and Louisiana State University Health Care Services Division. The OPH maintains comprehensive HIV surveillance data that is updated daily through lab reporting. If a patient enters a participating hospital and a provider opens that patient’s electronic medical record to provide services, the provider will be notified if the patient has not received timely HIV care and prompted to take appropriate action. LaPHIE is bi-directional, any action taken by the provider with respect to the patient, whether it be a referral or a link back into care, is incorporated into the patient’s electronic medical record (EMR) and returned to the OPH, which then updates the state’s HIV surveillance data.
Identify critical intervention points: Several states have used comprehensive, cross-agency strategies to identify patterns and opportunities for intervention, and the Delaware Drug Overdose Mortality Surveillance report is one such example. This report uses data to illuminate the experiences of individuals in the months prior to their deaths and includes information from a broad scope of data sets, including hospital and health system interactions (including EMS and emergency department visits for overdoses), corrections engagement, and interface with the behavioral health system. By looking at non-fatal overdoses and interactions with EMS, officials can understand the systemic interplay and individual experiences of individuals who fatally overdose in order to better target opportunities for intervention, including treatment in emergency departments.
Similarly, in Massachusetts, the state linked ambulance data with state hospital data to identify individuals who had experienced a non-fatal overdose. By leveraging access to data afforded by the state’s opioid data-sharing initiative, Chapter 55, analysts were able to:
- Link information about this subset of individuals to other state data systems;
- Identify individuals’ prescription drug patterns through the state PDMP;
- Chart their contact with the health care and behavioral health systems through the state’s APCD; and
- Document their involvement with corrections.
The state used this information to identify opportunities for intervention and outreach on SUD treatment. A similar data exercise in West Virginia identified that 81percent of those who died from overdoses had interacted with at least one of the state’s health care systems.
Improving Treatment and Recovery Supports Data Use Cases
Ensuring an adequate treatment infrastructure is a high priority as states work to develop access to evidence-based services in the face of this epidemic. By investigating the current treatment landscape in a given state or region, policymakers can analyze unmet need and address gaps in care. Understanding the actual inventory of existing treatment providers through various data sources can help states develop gap analyses and understand workforce needs.
Quantify and optimize current capacity: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) established a public list of buprenorphine-waivered providers by state and a list of opioid treatment programs (OTP) that provide methadone, also searchable by state. These are helpful starting points when assessing state and local needs, but can be misleading as only a small percentage of waivered providers deliver care to the full extent enabled by the waiver process, and providers can choose to opt out of the listing. Policymakers can compare state-level claims data (Medicaid, APCD) to identify waivered providers who are not providing treatment or maximizing waiver treatment capacity limits. Through this additional step in analysis, state and local policymakers can drill down to better understand which providers may need support in engaging in the medication for opioid use disorder (OUD) provision. Referring these prescribers to tools such as the SAMHSA Provider Clinical Support System can provide additional tools and supports for those providers who are reluctant to maximize their capacity.
Indiana used state workforce survey data to identify which regions of the state lacked a sufficient amount of SUD treatment providers. The Indiana State Department of Health was one of several funders that supported the development of a user-friendly Health Workforce Information Portal that allows members of the public to create maps and reports to review both current workforce and educational pipelines for emerging professionals. Based on survey data, state, county, and local leaders could identify the number of full-time equivalents across areas of the state for a range of professionals, including psychiatrists, clinical social workers, and addiction counselors.
Understand cost and utilization patterns within Medicaid: Looking at existing cost drivers of SUD in Medicaid claims and encounter data within a state’s Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) can be a helpful starting point for states seeking opportunities to both reduce costs and realign reimbursement structures with service needs. Creating service delivery systems that prioritize a continuum of care in which services can be provided in community clinical settings presents an opportunity for Medicaid programs to reduce costs. In order to better coordinate care and potentially realize cost savings, states can use their Medicaid cost data to develop a range of options that support behavioral and physical health integration and promote team-based care. Virginia’s Addiction and Recovery Treatment Services (ARTS) waiver aligned SUD services to the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s (ASAM) criteria, and encouraged those services to be provided in primary care settings and office-based outpatient treatment facilities. In doing so, Virginia Medicaid experienced a 32 percent reduction in emergency department visits related to OUD during the second year of the program.
Support real-time access to treatment: In addition to the SAMHSA provider locator mentioned above, states can use self-reported provider data to maintain their own state-level treatment locators, and those can include a range of filters to identify particular information, similar to the tool developed by Kentucky using federal grant funding. Through a diverse partnership, the Kentucky Department for Public Health (via the Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research Center) engaged with the Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy, the Kentucky Department for Behavioral Health, Intellectual, and Developmental Disabilities, and Operation Unite to pull together provider data and develop a short screening that could connect the user to an available treatment provider. Providers have the necessary access and ability to update their facilities’ information daily, and are encouraged to do so. Some states are also employing “bed registries,” tools that track availability of inpatient hospital services, many of which are specific to detox and/or treatment and may serve to help providers in accessing real-time data about available treatment space.
Data Use Cases for At-risk and Underserved Populations
States can also analyze Medicaid service utilization data for specific populations or eligibility categories in order to tailor policy approaches to support vulnerable or underserved populations.
Racial and ethnic disparities: West Virginia, Minnesota, and other states that have analyzed overdose deaths through a racial/ethnic disparity lens have found higher rates of death from overdose among these populations. Minnesota released data analysis focused on the racial disparities it found by reviewing state death certificates and coroners’ reports. The state concluded that the overall low drug mortality rate masked significant racial disparities: Blacks were twiingce as likely to die from a drug overdose than Whites and American Indians were almost six-times more likely to die of a drug overdose than Whites. While drug overdose mortality rates increased for all groups, racial disparities in overdose mortality also increased.
Pregnant women: Through collaborative efforts across state and private agencies, West Virginia identified and addressed a surge in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) and developed a programmatic response. The effort began by standardizing definitions for neonatal withdrawal and providing guidance to clinicians explaining how to use and track diagnostic criteria. The data informed the development of DrugFree Moms and Babies, a program that provides early intervention, treatment, and recovery supports to women and their newborns. The program has improved identification of families at risk and created a structure to support them.
Individuals with corrections involvement: The SUD crisis has highlighted the need for cross-system collaboration between health, behavioral health, and criminal justice systems. A 2017 Special Report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics detailed substance use patterns among individuals incarcerated in state prisons and jails between 2007-2009 and indicated that more than half of incarcerated individuals meet criteria for SUD. Kentucky’s Office of Drug Control Policy, in conjunction with the Kentucky Agency for Substance Abuse Policy, publishes a combined annual report that helps policy makers drill down to specific trends or patterns in charges that may indicate SUD, which can then be used to target the development of incarceration-based treatment programs and pre-arrest diversion programs such as the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) initiative in Louisville. In Massachusetts, the state Department of Corrections and county-level corrections agencies provided a complete list of people who had been released during one analysis period. The state found that people recently released from corrections facilities were 56-times more likely to die of an opioid overdose than the general public. Moreover, data indicated that those who had received treatment while incarcerated did not have a significant reduction in their risk of overdose. The analysis noted that additional attention should be paid to be individuals leaving corrections facilities, and that treatment should be standardized, regardless of setting.
Individuals without stable housing: Data on housing and homelessness is collected and maintained in Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) and can often be accessed directly from the Communities of Care (CoC) that operate regionally to provide a host of services that support housing. CoCs collect and report both housing inventory count (HIC) and point-in-time (PIT) counts of individuals who are homeless, information that can also be accessed at the CoC and state levels through the federal Housing and Urban Development Exchange website. Matching HMIS data with Medicaid utilization data through a state’s MMIS can provide opportunities to develop specific interventions for individuals who are homeless and have received services related to SUD. In Connecticut, the state matched HMIS and Medicaid data and identified a subset of Medicaid enrollees with complex and high-cost health care needs. The state used this data to develop program strategies to better support these individuals, and has since documented improved housing retention, decreased use of emergency departments, and improved connection to preventative services.
Supporting recovery: States are increasingly building peer supports into the continuum of care for SUD. While definitions and services provided vary, 39 states currently reimburse for peers in some capacity through their state Medicaid programs. North Carolina, in addition to tracking access data such as buprenorphine prescriptions and enrollment in opioid treatment programs, also includes access to peer recovery as a key metric on that state’s opioid dashboard. The state has demonstrated a significant increase in the number of certified peer support providers in the state, and provides the data by county.
Best Practices in Using Data to Support State and Local Policy Development
Comprehensive data – often gathered from across state, local, and federal resources – enables state and local leaders to tailor their prevention, treatment, and recovery responses and make the most of scarce resources. However, effectively using available data, matching or comparing complementary data sets, and identifying what should be the focus of analyses can be complicated. The following are key considerations for states seeking to improve data quality, explore data-sharing opportunities, and analyze existing data sets across systems.
Leadership is critical: Sharing data across state silos is challenging – many agencies generally prefer not to release data. Encouraging the sharing of health care and related data sets requires unifying leadership and a vision that can maintain momentum through many programmatic, legal, and technical hurdles. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, the governor used a disaster declaration to bring agencies to the table to create and sustain that state’s multi-agency data capacity. Other states, such as Massachusetts, made significant progress in cross-agency data sharing through legislation. That state’s Chapter 55 public law, passed in 2015, provided the impetus and structure needed for that state’s many SUD data innovations.
Engage both technical and policy expertise to make the most of existing data: While technical expertise in essential, policy and programmatic expertise is also a critical factor in successfully using data to support SUD prevention, treatment, and recovery. Data insights help state policymakers understand and explain variances in eligibility groups, interactions between specialty programs, and flag anomalies in the data due to program idiosyncrasies. Data also helps guide analysts in shaping metrics that will have value for policy decision-making.
Allow time and resources to address data governance: How substance use data is stored and shared is covered by both the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and 42 CFR Part 2 – the latter is specific to SUD data and imposes privacy standards that are often more stringent than those found in HIPAA. With few exceptions, providers and stewards of SUD data must obtain consent before sharing personally identifiable information that is protected by 42 CR Part 2. States can make the most of sharing data across agencies by building in time and resources to manage data governance issues:
- Data use agreements help to clearly articulate how organizations will use data, and specifically how it supports policy development. This Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fact sheet on DUAs outlines necessary components, helpful tips, and includes state example documents. Recognizing the limitations of all data sets included in a DUA also helps to expedite work. Confidentiality issues can be addressed clearly and completely, eliminating onerous approaches to de-identification or aggregation that may not ultimately be necessary. State agencies may have existing DUAs in place that can support new/emerging uses.
- Massachusetts was able to combine protected data from across ten disparate state agencies through a project-specific de-identification process that assigned random identifiers to each record. The state also developed a series of legal agreements that covered how data would be linked, shared, hosted, and accessed.
Expect challenges:
- Timeliness of data in a rapidly shifting substance use epidemic can be a challenge for virtually all data sets, as very few reporting systems offer real-time data. Longer lags, however, particularly those that pass more than a year from collecting data to reporting, make some data sets better used for understanding the landscape in retrospect rather than as a planning tool. Some states use unconfirmed data when necessary to track particularly urgent indicators, such as drug overdose deaths.
- Completeness of data sets – and the lack thereof – can also pose limitations for policymakers and is a major factor in data quality. State Medicaid enrollees, for instance, may move on and off the program as individual eligibility fluctuates, creating gaps in coverage and in key data points, such as current addresses. Encounter data from Medicaid managed care plans can also be problematic – states can improve encounter data quality through contract incentives, regular communication, and guidance. State-level guidance to providers and/or managed care organizations may be required to improve completeness of data
Conclusion
Many data sets produced by state and federal agencies have value when used individually, but when data can be shared and presented in new ways, it begins to tell a more comprehensive story of the particular and highly localized impact of SUD across systems and populations. There has been unprecedented activity at the state level in recent years to identify and use data sources to better understand and address state and local needs to prevent SUD, reduce the harms caused by SUD, and promote treatment and recovery. While states adopt indicators and metrics that meet specific state needs, there is an increasingly innovative menu of options to support their efforts.
Acknowledgements: The National Academy for State Health Policy provided this report with the ongoing support of JBS International and the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The authors would like to thank Lisa Patton, PhD, Vice President of Health Optimization Program and RCORP-TA Project Director at JBS International, and Marcia Colburn, MSW, Program Analyst in the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy at HRSA, for their continued guidance and expertise in supporting this work.
State Approaches to Reimbursing Family Caregivers of Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs through Medicaid
/in The RAISE Act Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, Chronic and Complex Populations, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, COVID-19, EPSDT, Health Equity, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Quality and Measurement, Social Determinants of Health, State Resources, The RAISE Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center /by Olivia Randi, Eskedar Girmash and Kate HonsbergerState Medicaid agencies have developed unique approaches to finance family caregivers who provide home health services to children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN). As states face home health service workforce shortages, COVID-19 restrictions, and rising costs of care, policies that allow reimbursement of family caregivers can alleviate these challenges and provide essential support for families. This report explores how states have used a variety of waiver authorities to promote reimbursement of family caregivers and their CYSHCN.
Executive Summary
States have implemented a variety of approaches to finance family caregivers through Medicaid for the services they provide to children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN). This report identifies special considerations for states in designing these policies to meet children’s specific needs and highlights several approaches that states have taken in these efforts.
State Medicaid agencies have implemented policies that allow family caregivers to be reimbursed for the services they provide through Home and Community-Based Service (HCBS) authorities, including the:
- 1915(c) Home and Community-based Services waiver;
- 1915(i) Home and Community-based State Plan Option;
- 1915(j) Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services State Plan Option; and
- 1915(k) Community First Choice.
Through these authorities, states can enable enrollees to receive participant-directed (or self-directed) services so enrollees have decision-making authority over their Medicaid-funded services, which can include hiring and overseeing their service providers. States can design self-directed HCBS services to allow for reimbursement of family caregivers. Additionally, states can develop policies that enable family caregivers to become home health service providers who can then be reimbursed through the state home health benefit and the Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit.
Family caregivers of CYSHCN face unique challenges, one of which is a lack of financial support.[1] The role of family caregivers has become more critical during COVID-19, which has created barriers for providers and licensed caregivers (e.g., home health nurses) due to social distancing requirements and infection rates. In response, Medicaid reimbursement of family caregivers has become more common as a result of emergency Medicaid waivers that strengthen home- and community-based services during a public health emergency. Policies that promote Medicaid reimbursement of family caregivers can also help alleviate home health provider workforce shortages while potentially reducing costs for the state, depending on how reimbursement rates for family caregivers are balanced against increased oversight costs. While many state Medicaid policies have focused on supporting family caregivers of adults, some states have also implemented policies to support family caregivers of CYSHCN through Medicaid. When states develop these policies to meet the needs of CYSHCN, there are additional factors to consider, including:
- Implementing multiple Medicaid authorities that allow for reimbursement of family caregivers for CYSHCN to support children with various needs who meet different eligibility criteria;
- Instituting oversight and training mechanisms to support program integrity;
- Clearly defining who is eligible for reimbursement as a family caregiver of a child;
- Tailoring the family caregivers’ services available for reimbursement to the needs and conditions of CYSHCN;
- Adopting assessments that account for varying needs of CYSHCN;
- Aligning policies that allow for reimbursement of family caregivers of CYSHCN with training and support; and
- Forming collaborations with agencies that serve CYSHCN to strengthen policies that support their family caregivers.
Background
Methodology: The National Academy for State Health Policy conducted a literature scan, including national publications, journal articles, and state reports, Medicaid waivers, health plans, and legislation related to state funding of services provided by family caregivers to children. State health officials from Alabama, California, Connecticut, Idaho, and Texas provided guidance and insights on this topic during a project advisory committee meeting in May 2020.
Family caregivers are an important source of home health services, though they are often not compensated for the skilled and non-skilled care that they provide.[2] These caregivers provide about 1.5 billion hours of health care to about 5.6 million CYSHCN annually in the United States.[3] If these services were instead provided by a home health aide, they would cost an estimated $11.6 to $35.7 billion per year.[4]
Through the EPSDT benefit, state Medicaid agencies are required to provide children under age 21 with all Medicaid services that can be covered through federal Medicaid law.[5] Yet, states face challenges in delivering personal care and home health services to CYSHCN due to workforce shortages of home health aides, personal care aides, nursing assistants, and other health providers. [6] Reimbursement can be an incentive for family caregivers to provide more comprehensive services than they are otherwise able to deliver due to time and budget constraints, which can help to alleviate these challenges.[7]
State policies often reimburse family caregivers as individuals rather than through provider agencies. While this may be financially beneficial for states as the reimbursement rates for individuals can be lower than for agency-provided care due to reduced administrative costs, states may incur costs in implementing adequate oversight and quality assurance mechanisms for family caregivers.[8] Still, these policies are an important service option to support family choice and quality care as Medicaid-funded family-provided care may reduce hospital utilization while also improving health outcomes.[9]
Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN): CYSHCN are those who “have or are at increased risk for chronic physical, developmental, behavioral or emotional conditions and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally.”[10] These children account for nearly 20 percent (13.8 million) of children under the age of 17.[11] In comparison to other racial and ethnic groups, special health care needs are most prevalent among children who are Black and children who are American Indian or Alaskan Native, with prevalence rates of 25 percent and 24 percent, respectively. Children who are Black represent 18 percent of CYSHCN, while accounting for 12 percent of all children.[12] These children, as well as those who are Latinx* (self-reported as Hispanic), are more likely to have unmet health care needs and to receive lower quality primary care than CYSHCN who are White.[13]
State Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) play important roles in covering health care services and supports for CYSHCN. As of 2017, Medicaid and CHIP completely or partially covered about 47 percent of CYSHCN. Medicaid and CHIP-covered CYSHCN are disproportionately Black or Latinx* (self-reported as Hispanic), 27 percent and 30 percent, respectively. CYSHCN who are White are more likely to have private insurance (65 percent) or both private insurance and Medicaid/CHIP (45 percent).[14]
Over the past several decades, Medicaid policy has shifted to prioritize providing services for CYSHCN in the home rather than in facilities whenever possible. In the 1980s, Katie Beckett, a child with encephalitis who was hospitalized for several years, drew attention to CYSHCN who were required to remain in institutional care or risk losing their Medicaid eligibility. The resulting Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) state plan option was a first step toward expanding Medicaid reimbursement for home-based care for CYSHCN.[15] All 50 states have implemented a TEFRA state plan option or a comparable waiver.[16] As a result of the 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead vs. L.C. decision, Medicaid programs are now required to cover services for people with disabilities in the community rather than institutions when it is appropriate, the person does not oppose it, and when it can be reasonably accommodated.[17] While this shift has improved the quality of care for many children, families have become increasingly relied upon to provide services, often without adequate support or reimbursement.[18]
The Impact of Family Caregivers
Nearly half of CYSHCN receive family-provided health care at home. CYSHCN who are Black or Latinx* are more likely to receive family-provided care at home (51 percent and 52 percent, respectively), while 48 percent of CYSHCN who are White reported receiving this type of care.[19] Family caregivers of CYSHCN tend to face financial challenges due to reduced or lost employment, and forego an estimated total of $17.6 billion in earnings per year.[20] Those most likely to receive a significant amount of care, defined as 21 hours per week or more, “were Hispanic, lived below the federal poverty level, had no parents/guardians who had finished high school, had both public and private insurance, and had severe conditions/problems,”[21] according to a 2017 report published in the journal Pediatrics.
Children who have more than one special health care need are more likely to receive family-provided care.[22] Family caregivers of children with medical complexity (CMC), a subset of CYSHCN who have significant needs beyond those of other CYSHCN and comprise 0.4 percent of children in the United States, are more likely to provide a significant amount of care than caregivers for other CYSHCN.[23] Nearly 80 percent of families of CMC spend five or more hours per week providing medical care at home, and this is more than twice as common for families who are non-White and Latinx.*[24]
In comparison to caregivers of adults, family caregivers of CYSHCN face unique challenges. Caregiving for CYSHCN often involves complex medical care, including technical medical equipment tasks (e.g., adjusting feeding tubes), occupational therapy, and symptom monitoring and management.[25] These caregivers tend to rate their health more poorly, more frequently report enduring physical strain, and are more likely to face financial hardship.[26] Many caregivers of CYSHCN have reported a need for information related to managing stress, finding time for oneself, and balancing work and family responsibilities, among other topics.[27] There are a number of ways that states can support family caregivers. Training, education, and respite services are important supports that are often lacking in availability and quality.[28] However, family caregivers of CYSHCN have reported that policies that offer financial support for the caregiving they provide are their most crucial need.[29]
The Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage Family Caregivers (RAISE) Act: The RAISE Act (42 USC 3030s), passed in 2018, requires the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop a national strategy to support family caregivers of children and adults.[30] The act also formed the RAISE Family Caregiving Advisory Council to develop recommendations to inform the strategy developed by HHS, including a report that identifies effective models to support family caregivers.[31] Support for family caregivers is clearly a federal priority, as demonstrated by the development of a national strategy and the formation of this advisory council. The national strategy may result in further opportunities for states to increase support for family caregivers based on best practices.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the important role that family caregivers play in providing home- and community-based services to CYSHCN. One way that states have addressed the increase in provider shortages during the pandemic due to social distancing requirements and infection rates is through policies that implement or expand Medicaid reimbursement for family caregivers.[32] These policies may provide important mechanisms to increase the home health provider workforce and support continuity of care for CYSHCN while reducing costs for the state. They may also serve as an important financial support for families of CYSHCN, even more of whom may face employment insecurity due to a lack of provider availability. Given that children who are Black and/or Latinx* are more likely to receive unpaid family-provided care, be enrolled in public health insurance, and have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicaid programs have a unique opportunity to support children’s health by considering policies that cover services provided by family caregivers.[33]
Medicaid Options for Funding Family Caregiver Services for CYSHCN
Historically, researchers and policymakers consider family caregivers to be those who help with activities of daily living (ADL), such as bathing, dressing, transferring and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), such as shopping, cooking, and laundry.[34] ADLs and IADLs are often covered by personal care services, a state plan benefit under Medicaid.[35] However, federal regulations prohibit legally responsible relatives from being paid family caregivers for state plan personal care services.[36]
Instead, states can use Medicaid funds to pay family caregivers of CYSHCN for the assistance they provide with ADLs and IADLs through state plan options and federal Medicaid waiver authorities that allow for participant-directed (also referred to as self-directed) services. Through these options, Medicaid enrollees or their representatives have “employer authority” and are able to choose who provides their Medicaid-funded services, which may include a family caregiver. States have the option to allow or prohibit services to be provided by legally responsible persons, legally liable relatives, legal guardians, and/or relatives. However, to be eligible for reimbursement, a state must establish that personal care or similar services provided by legally responsible persons are deemed “extraordinary care” and that it is in the best interest of the child that the services are provided by a legally responsible person.[37] States may also grant “budget authority,” through which children or their representatives can allocate funds for services provided by family caregivers.[38]
Policymakers increasingly recognize that family caregivers also provide services beyond ADLs and IADLs, including medical assistance tasks such as administering medications and injections.[39] When provided in the home, these services may be considered home health services, which are federally defined to include nursing services, medical supplies and equipment, and home health aide services, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology and audiology services provided by a home health agency.[40] These services may be covered by states’ mandatory Medicaid State Plan Home Health benefit and by the EPSDT benefit if the services are deemed medically necessary.[41] Federal regulations do not prohibit legally responsible relatives from providing home health services for family members. However, it is uncommon for family caregivers to be reimbursed under this benefit because most states do not allow participant direction for this benefit, and because these services often require providers to have professional qualifications and to be employed by a home health agency.[42]
Participant-Directed Service Terms and Policy Considerations
The following terms are frequently used within participant-directed services, and are important for states to understand when developing policies to reimburse family caregivers of CYSHCN.
- Participant-directed (or self-directed) services are those that provide Medicaid enrollees or their legal representatives with “decision-making authority over certain services” and grants them “direct responsibility to manage their services with the assistance of a system of available supports.”[43]
- Employer authority is granted to all Medicaid enrollees who self-direct their services. This makes consumers the employers, and they or their representatives have decision-making authority over those who provide services, including the ability to “recruit, hire, train, and supervise” the employee.[44] Through some Medicaid authorities, states can choose to grant authority over specific employer functions. For example, some states may choose to allow participants to recruit and supervise staff, but not to hire or train staff.
- Budget authority can be granted to Medicaid consumers who enroll in participant-directed services at the state’s option. This authority provides enrollees with a specified amount of Medicaid funds that children or their representatives can use for approved goods and services.
- Legally responsible person or individual is defined as “a person who has a legal obligation under the provisions of state law to care for another person. Legal responsibility is defined by state law, and generally includes the parents (natural or adoptive) of minor children, legally assigned caretaker relatives of minor children, and sometimes spouses.”[45]
- Extraordinary care is defined as care that exceeds ordinary care that would be provided to a person without a disability of the same age.[46] States that choose to reimburse legally responsible persons for personal care or similar services they provide to CYSHCN must develop criteria and specify their method for distinguishing between extraordinary and ordinary care. [47]
- Legally liable relative is defined as “persons who have a duty under the provisions of state law to care for another person.”[48] This group is similar to the “legally responsible person” category of family caregivers.
- Legal guardian is defined as “a person who has been appointed by a judge to take care of a minor child or incompetent adult (both called ‘wards’) personally and/or manage that person’s affairs.”[49]
- A relative is any individual related by blood or marriage. States may choose to more narrowly define this term within their Medicaid state plans or waivers.[50] This is generally the broadest category of family caregivers that states can prohibit from reimbursement.
- A legal representative is “a person who has legal standing to make decisions on behalf of another person (e.g., a guardian who has been appointed by the court or an individual who has power of attorney granted by the person).”[51] A legal representative will often be designated as a decision-making authority for a child’s self-directed services.
There are multiple Medicaid authorities that states can pursue to reimburse family caregivers for services they provide to CYSHCN. Most of these options are through the Home and Community-based Services authorities including the:
- 1915(c) Home and Community-based Services waiver;
- 1915(i) Home and Community-based State Plan Option;
- 1915(j) Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services State Plan Option; and
- 1915(k) Community First Choice
These authorities require services to be provided to Medicaid enrollees in accordance with a plan of care and informed by an assessment. States are allowed to set individual budget limits and are required to offer financial management services to all participants who self-direct their services.
States have also obtained 1115 Research and Demonstration waivers, as well as emergency waivers in response to COVID-19, that allow for the reimbursement of family caregivers of CYSHCN or modify the provisions of existing policies. Additionally, states have developed policies to facilitate reimbursement of family caregivers through their Medicaid State Plan Home Health benefit. While some features are common across Medicaid options, such as the ability for states to choose whether to allow the participant to employ family members, they differ in several key ways (see Chart: Medicaid Authorities that Fund Family Caregiver Services for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs for a summary of features of Medicaid authorities that allow for reimbursement of family caregivers). In addition to determining the appropriate federal waiver authority, states must also make programmatic decisions about the services that are reimbursable, how eligibility is determined, provider requirements, and other features that shape the policies that reimburse family caregivers of CYSHCN.
Medicaid Authorities that Reimburse Family Caregivers of CYSHCN
1915(c) Home and Community-based Services (HCBS) Waiver
The 1915(c) HCBS waiver is the most common authority that states use to offer participant direction for home and community-based services.[52] Forty-seven states and Washington, DC have implemented one or more HCBS waivers, and most of these states offer participant-directed services through at least one of these authorities.[53] States can use HCBS waivers to reimburse family caregivers for selected medical and non-medical services provided to CYSHCN, including case management, homemaker services, personal care, habilitation to support individuals with disabilities to develop and maintain skills and functioning for daily living, and respite.[54] To be eligible for HCBS waiver services, including those provided by family caregivers, federal law requires children to qualify for an institutional level of care and meet other requirements that the state has designated in the waiver’s target population. States have used the HCBS waiver more frequently because it allows for more control over the cost of services by permitting states to limit the number of people who receive services, the geographic area served, and the amount and scope of services.[55]
- In Colorado, children can receive services from paid family caregivers through the 1915(c) Children’s Home and Community-based Services (CHCBS) waiver. Case managers determine children’s eligibility for CHCBS waiver services using the Uniform Long-Term Care-100.2 intake assessment form.[56] Services that can be participant-directed are limited to “health maintenance activities” that includes skin care, nail care, mouth care, dressing, feeding, exercise, transferring, bowel care, bladder care, medical management, and respiratory care.[57] These activities are typically performed by professionals such as certified nursing assistants (CNAs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), or registered nurses (RNs), but Colorado has waived this requirement for this program. [58] The waived requirement reduces qualification barriers for family caregivers, including legally responsible persons and legal guardians, who are eligible to be reimbursed for the services they provide. Colorado’s waiver limits participants’ employer authority by excluding the ability to directly hire staff. Instead, caregivers are registered as attendants through a local in-home support service agency that oversees hiring, onboarding, training, and service quality in partnership with the child and legal representative.[59] The child must also have an authorized representative to support management of the participant-directed services, and this representative cannot also be the paid caregiver. [60]
- Texas’s 1915(c) waiver for the Medically Dependent Children Program (MDCP) offers community-based services for medically fragile children and youth under age 21 who are financially eligible for Medicaid, meet the institutional level of care need as determined by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the state’s Medicaid agency, and have an unmet need for one or more MDCP service.[61] Medical necessity is determined by the STAR Kids Screening and Assessment Instrument completed by a Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) or service coordinator.[62] Through the MDCP, relatives and legal guardians can be reimbursed for providing flexible family support services and respite.[63] Family caregivers must be 18 or older, have a high school diploma or equivalent, complete cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid certification, and pass criminal history checks.[64] Flexible family support services (FFS) may only be used when the child’s primary caregiver and/or legally responsible person is working, attending job training, or attending school. FFS services promote an enrollee’s participation in childcare, independent living, and post-secondary education and include personal care supports for daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, skilled care, and non-skilled care. Legally responsible individuals cannot be reimbursed for personal care or similar services. To match what the state would pay if the enrollee was in institutional care, all MDCP members must have a service plan within 50 percent of the cost the state would pay if the member was served in a nursing [65] For MDCP members with needs that exceed the cost limit, the state maximizes the use of state plan services, examines third-party resources, considers transitioning to another waiver, or offers institutional services.[66]
1915(i) Home and Community-based State Plan Option
The 1915(i) Home and Community-based state plan option allows participant direction as an option for HCBS.[67] It is similar to the 1915(c) waiver in terms of allowable services, the ability to target services to specific populations, and the required individualized assessment and plan of care. This state plan option differs in that it does not require an institutional level of care for participants to be eligible, and states cannot limit the number of participants or the geographic service area.[68] While several states allow respite services to be provided by relatives through this state plan option, few states allow family caregivers to be paid directly for services.[69]
- California’s 1915(i) state plan option is targeted to serve individuals with developmental disabilities. In addition to respite services, the state plan option allows participant-directed services that can be provided by family caregivers, including skilled nursing and non-medical transportation, and community-based training services.[70] Relatives and legal guardians may receive payment for all 1915(i) services as long as they meet the specified provider qualifications, but legally responsible relatives are ineligible.[71] To be reimbursed for skilled nursing services, family members must be a registered nurse or licensed vocational nurse. Individuals providing respite services must be CPR- and first aid-trained. Family caregivers are overseen and paid by regional centers, monitored by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the Department of Developmental Services. Provider rates are determined by three methods:
- Matching the rate regularly charged by a regional vendor;
- Following the DHCS fee schedule whereby rates are established by the state Medicaid agency; or
- By capping provider rates based on the regional center or statewide median rate.[72]
1915(j) Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services State Plan Option
The 1915(j) Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services state plan option can be used to allow participant-directed personal care services through a state’s existing 1915(c) waiver or through the optional state plan personal care services, which 34 states had implemented as of 2018.[73] Participants are only required to meet an institutional level of care need if the state plan option is applied to a 1915(c) waiver. The 1915(j) authority does not require statewide application and the state can limit the number of participants. States can only target a specific population if they are using this authority in conjunction with a 1915(c) waiver. States can opt to provide cash payments to participants to pay for their goods and services, and the 1915(j) waiver is the only authority that requires budget authority for participants.[74] In addition to offering financial management services, states must offer “support brokers and consultants” to help develop service plans and monitor a participant’s budget management, among other support functions.[75]
- Florida’s 1915(j) state plan amendment creates the option for self-direction of state plan personal care services for children enrolled in their 1915(c) Developmental Disabilities Individual Budgeting (iBudget) Waiver and through their State Plan personal care services.[76] The state’s 1915(j) amendment allows individuals, including children under 21 years of age, who are enrolled in the iBudget waiver to enroll in the state’s Consumer Directed Care Plus (CDC+) program to access participant-directed services [77] Florida opted to allow legally liable relatives to serve as paid caregivers of eligible enrollees including CYSHCN through this benefit. To reduce program integrity risks, all participants are able to assign an unpaid representative to manage the services and budget. Florida also provides training to all Medicaid participants regarding program integrity risks and the role of support coordinators. Waiver support coordinators review and approve the service plan budgets and assess the enrollee’s or their representative’s management capacity.[78]
- California’s In-Home Support Services (IHSS) allows for participant direction of personal assistance services for CYSHCN through three Medicaid authorities, one of which is the 1915(j) state plan amendment.[79] This authorizes California’s IHSS Plus Option (IPO), which serves children who do not meet the nursing facility level of care need but would like a legally liable relative to provide services.[80] The state collaborates with county health departments to administer IHSS, including conducting assessments to determine a child’s eligibility and the number of hours allotted for IHSS. Through these assessments, county social workers also determine whether other eligibility requirements are met including legally liable relatives’ inability to gain or sustain full-time employment due to the child’s needs. The assessor must also determine that, without the legally liable relative’s care, the child would face “inappropriate placement or inadequate care” due to a lack of appropriate providers or other legally liable adults who could provide services.[81] Counties also serve quality assurance and oversight functions, including conducting desk reviews to assess the accuracy of financial reports, home visits, and verification of services.[82]
1915(k) Community First Choice State Plan Option
The 1915(k) Community First Choice state plan option requires that states’ delivery models offer at least some consumer control over service delivery. One delivery model that states may choose is the self-directed model with a service budget (budget authority).[83] Participants must meet the institutional level-of-care requirement to be eligible for services through this state plan option. This authority requires that states provide coverage of:
- ADLs, IADLs, and health-related tasks;
- Support for the individual to acquire skills necessary for ADLs and IADLs;
- Systems to ensure continuity of services; and
- Voluntary training for the participant for selecting, managing, and dismissing staff.
States may also choose to cover fiscal management services, costs of transitioning from an institution to the community, and “expenditures relating to an identified need that increases his/her independence of substitutes for human assistance.”[84] This state plan specifically excludes legal representatives from also being the paid caregiver.[85]
States determine their own method for allocating individual service budgets and are allowed to provide direct cash payments to participants. This option does not allow states to limit the number of participants. As an incentive, services under this option are provided a six-percentage point federal medical assistance increase.[86]
- Connecticut’s 1915(k) state plan aligns with the self-directed model and allows family caregivers of CYSHCN to provide attendant care to support ADLs and IADLs unless they are also the child’s legal representative or legal guardian.[87] The state allocates individual service budgets by categorizing participants into one of eight groups based on the needs assessment results. Children or their legal representatives set all hiring qualifications for their attendants, except that the provider of services to support the acquisition of skills for health-related tasks must be a registered nurse, occupational therapist, physical therapist, or speech therapist.[88] As an optional support, the state’s Department of Public Health provides medical task training for family caregivers to support the provision of more advanced services.[89]
- California’s IHSS also offers a participant-directed program option through a 1915(k) waiver. Children enrolled in the 1915(k) program can receive services from relatives, including those who are legally liable. However, unlike the IHSS IPO program option through the 1915(j) state plan amendment, they must meet a nursing facility level of care need, in compliance with federal regulations.[90] Through all IHSS program options, children are eligible for up to 283 hours per month of services that are organized into service categories. If services are provided by a legally liable relative, the child is eligible for services within five categories: services related to domestic services, personal care services, accompaniment to medical appointments, protective supervision, and paramedical services. [91] If services are provided by a family caregiver who is not a legally liable relative, the child is eligible for three additional service categories: heavy cleaning, yard hazard abatement, and teaching and demonstration. Another IHSS service category, domestic services, is only available to adults.[92]
Section 1115 Research and Demonstration Waivers
The Section 1115 Research and Demonstration waiver is the most flexible authority that states can utilize to provide funding for family caregivers through Medicaid. In comparison to the HCBS waivers and state plan options, there are few requirements that states must meet in their design of their Section 1115 waiver. States have discretion to select the waiver services that Medicaid can reimburse, including those provided by family caregivers, the eligibility categories, and whether to target specific groups or limit the number of people served by the authority. This authority is also the most flexible for family caregivers, as it is the only path that does not require an agreement between service providers and the state Medicaid agency, and it is the only authority that can be used to offer prospective payments to family caregivers.[93]
Several states use Section 1115 waivers to provide financial support for family caregivers. Tennessee’s Medicaid agency tailored its Section 1115 waiver to include policies specific to family caregivers of CYSHCN. Through Tennessee’s Supportive Home Care (SHC) benefit, family caregivers can be reimbursed for services as long as they do not live in the child’s home.[94] In lieu of receiving SHC, the waiver program offers family caregivers who live with the child and provide needed daily assistance a stipend of up to $500 per month.[95]
Home Health State Plan Benefit
Medicaid Reimbursement to Family Caregivers in Response to COVID-19
States have pursued several different waiver authorities to increase support for family caregivers of CYSHCN during the COVID-19 pandemic. These include the 1135 emergency waiver, 1115 waivers, and 1915(c) Appendix K waivers. Each of these authorities temporarily add flexibilities to state Medicaid programs. These flexibilities aim to increase the home health service provider workforce to support the shift toward HCBS while reducing the number of people in long-term and intermediate care facilities. Policies that support the reimbursement of family caregivers can be particularly useful to alleviate gaps in care, as consumers have become more likely to decline agency-provided home health services during the pandemic.[96] Hawaii has implemented a Section 1115 waiver that allows family caregivers to be reimbursed for services they provide. Hawaii’s waiver specifies that this includes live-in caregivers and legally responsible individuals “when in certain circumstances the access to agency providers is limited.”[97] Georgia and Maryland have approved 1135 waivers to “permit payment for state plan personal care services rendered by family caregivers or legally responsible relatives.”[98] Arizona’s 1115 Appendix K waiver allows parents of eligible children to be reimbursed for providing personal care services.[99]
States’ Medicaid State Plan Home Health benefit can be used to fund skilled nursing, home health aide, and other therapeutic services that may be provided by family caregivers of CYSHCN. States are required to include at least some home health services in their Medicaid state plans, and federal law does not restrict family members from reimbursement for these services. However, these services require the provider to meet certain professional qualifications and, often, to be employed by a home health agency, both of which may pose barriers for family caregivers. Additionally, very few states allow home health state plan benefits to be participant-directed, and therefore children or their legal representatives may not have the employer authority to hire their family caregiver to provide services.[100] Instead, states can modify provider qualifications to reduce education and training barriers for appropriate services, and develop policies that are designed to support family caregivers in gaining the necessary credentials to provide reimbursable services for CYSHCN in their families.
- Colorado’s Home Health Program provides services to eligible CYSHCN, including skilled nursing, certified nurse aide (CNA) services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech/language pathology services.[101] Family caregivers can be reimbursed for services they provide through this benefit, but they must be a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or CNA. In collaboration with the state Medicaid agency, Colorado’s Title V CYSHCN program has issued guidance for caregivers regarding how to become a CNA to provide services for a child in their family.[102] Colorado has also developed the Pediatric Home Assessment Tool (PAT) to help identify a child’s level of need and the number of skilled care service hours that the child is eligible for through the home health services benefit. The PAT was developed based on stakeholder feedback that assessment criteria needed to be tailored to the pediatric population.[103]
- Arizona and Missouri have taken steps toward a similar approach. Both states have passed legislation that requires the development of programs to facilitate family caregivers’ ability to provide home health services as licensed nursing assistants to CYSHCN.[104]
Key Considerations for Reimbursing Family Caregivers of CYSHCN
There are several key considerations for states working to design, implement, or modify policies that reimburse family caregivers of CYSHCN. While some considerations may apply to policies that reimburse family caregivers across the lifespan (adults and children), others apply to policies that reimburse families of children.
- Implement multiple Medicaid authorities that allow for reimbursement of family caregivers for CYSHCN. Medicaid authorities that allow for reimbursement of family caregivers vary in several of their requirements. Some authorities require participants to meet an institutional level-of-care need while others allow states to establish a lower requirement level. Additional differences across authorities include whether they allow states to set service limits, define a target population, and provide participants with budget authority. Additionally, Medicaid waivers are temporary and require renewed applications, while state plan options continue until revoked. States can select the Medicaid authorities that best fit their state, and can also leverage multiple Medicaid authorities to develop a comprehensive set of options that allow CYSHCN with varying needs and conditions to receive services from their paid family caregivers (see the chart, Medicaid Authorities that Fund Family Caregiver Services, for a summary of the differences across these authorities.) For example, California has implemented 1915(i), 1915(j), and 1915(k) authorities. Family caregivers of children who do not meet an institutional level-of-care need are eligible for 1915(i) and 1915(j). If these children would like a legally liable relative to provide services, they are only eligible for 1915(j).
- Institute oversight and training mechanisms to support the integrity of programs. The primary challenge that states face in offering participant-directed services is program integrity. Because the employer authority shifts from the state Medicaid agency to the Medicaid enrollee, children or their legal representatives become the manager of the Medicaid-funded services. These non-traditional employers may require stronger oversight and monitoring mechanisms as well as additional administrative training and support, which may create additional costs for states. States can implement comprehensive quality assurance processes and use quality and monitoring reports to inform and enhance training. Financial management services that states must offer through these authorities, as well as consultants through the 1915(j) state plan option, can provide important support for participants. States can also work with MCOs, provider agencies, and local government agencies to implement quality assurance processes. For example, Florida assigns waiver support coordinators and allows enrollees to select an unpaid representative, and Colorado registers caregivers through local IHSS agencies to support oversight functions and improve program integrity.
- Clearly define who is eligible for reimbursement as a child’s family caregiver. All participant-directed Medicaid authorities provide states with the option to allow legally responsible or liable persons, legal guardians, and/or all relatives to be paid as the child’s provider. However, many states have chosen to prohibit these groups from reimbursement, and some states have gone even further by developing specific requirements, including that family members who live in the child’s household or who serve as the child’s legal representative cannot also be the paid caregiver. These limitations often prohibit a child’s primary caregiver from reimbursement, and though it is not always the case, these caregivers are likely providers of certain services for the child. Requiring those who are not family members to provide services may be more expensive for the state if an agency provider must be hired instead of using an independent family caregiver. This may also cause disruptions in a child’s care, especially given the challenges of identifying a home health provider due to workforce shortages. State Medicaid authorities that allow flexible eligibility for family caregivers, along with detailed service and assessment regulations, can support an individualized approach that meets the range of situations and needs facing CYSHCN and their families. As many states have expanded their definition of eligible family caregivers during the pandemic, they may want to consider extending these temporary flexibilities to improve quality of care while addressing workforce shortages and budget limits beyond the pandemic.
- Tailor family caregiver services available for reimbursement to the needs and conditions of CYSHCN. Because it is generally expected that children’s primary caregivers or legally responsible relatives would assist their children with at least some tasks that qualify as ADLs or IADLs, understanding and defining the scope of services that family caregivers will be reimbursed for is particularly important for states to consider. Through the appropriate Medicaid authorities, states can identify which services can be participant-directed. States can specify which services are available to children, and further, which services are eligible for reimbursement if the provider is a family caregiver. Developing a more targeted approach to service eligibility allows states to reimburse family caregivers for services provided to CYSHCN while avoiding payment for services deemed inapplicable.
- Adopt assessments that account for the varying needs of CYSHCN. State Medicaid agencies vary in how they assess a child’s eligibility and level of need for participant-directed services. The assessment can identify the specific services that children are eligible to self-direct and the number of hours that are allocated for each task. States can also use the assessment to determine whether a family caregiver is eligible to be the paid provider, which may impact the number of hours and types of services that can be allocated for the child, depending on how a state has defined service eligibility for family caregivers. While states have noted the benefit of leveraging a universal assessment across home- and community-based service programs, children may benefit from an assessment that is tailored to identify their age-specific needs.[105] Additionally, assessments that incorporate caregivers’ perspectives may result in more appropriate service allocations.[106]
- Align policies that allow for reimbursement of family caregivers of CYSHCN with training and support. Family caregivers face various technical, physical, and emotional challenges in providing medical assistance to CYSHCN, particularly those who are dependent on technology.[107] States can couple their policies that allow reimbursement of family caregivers with training and respite services that can help alleviate these challenges. Because family members are not federally prohibited from providing home health services, some states have implemented policies that publicize and facilitate opportunities for family caregivers to gain the credentials needed to provide these more advanced services to CYSHCN. Additionally, medical professionals can be trained to improve the level of information and support they provide to family caregivers. One example of this is the Caregiver, Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act, which has been implemented in the majority of states and requires hospitals to provide additional information and improve coordination with family caregivers about their caretaking responsibilities.[108] While some states’ laws only apply to caregivers of adults, some now include the pediatric population.[109] Many states also offer respite services for family caregivers through their HCBS waivers and state plan options.
- Collaborate with agencies that serve CYSHCN to strengthen policies that support their family caregivers. State Medicaid agencies can form partnerships to strengthen their policies for reimbursing family caregivers of CYSHCN. States can partner with local county governments, private agencies, and MCOs to support administration, implementation, and oversight of policies that reimburse family caregivers. These partners are often responsible for conducting medical needs assessments, providing billing support, and monitoring services and budgets. To streamline payment processes, some states contract with financial intermediaries that pay family caregivers for services and then bill the state Medicaid agency for reimbursement. Collaborations with state Title V CYSHCN programs have also been leveraged to support training and administration of policies that reimburse family caregivers.
Conclusion
Family caregivers have been increasingly recognized as critical sources of unpaid care for CYSHCN. Reliance on these services without adequate support has contributed to the greater financial hardship that families of CYSHCN often experience. States have implemented Medicaid authorities that allow for participant direction, which in some cases allows for family caregivers to be reimbursed for these services. States have also developed policies that support family caregivers in providing home health services. While many of these policies have been limited in scope, particularly for children, states have added new flexibilities in response to COVID-19. As states face home health service workforce shortages and rising costs of care, states need to balance spending priorities with the need for state budget cuts. Policies that allow for reimbursement of family caregivers may be used to alleviate these challenges during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, while providing an essential support for families. The national strategy now under development through the RAISE Act may build upon these policies and identify additional approaches for states to implement comprehensive support systems for family caregivers of CYSHCN.
Chart: Medicaid Authorities that Fund Family Caregiver Services for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN)
| Medicaid authority | Reimbursable services by family caregivers of CYSHCN (at state’s discretion) | Institutional level-of-care eligibility requirement | Budget authority | Target group identified by state (age, diagnosis, eligibility group, etc.) | Service limits allowed (geographic and number of participants) | Family caregiver groups that can be eligible service providers* |
| 1915(c)
Home and community-based waiver |
Case management, homemaker, home health aide, personal care, habilitation, respite, and other | Yes | Allowed | Yes | Yes | Legally responsible individuals,** relatives, legal guardians |
| 1915(i) State Plan Home and Community-based Services | Case management, homemaker, home health aide, personal care, habilitation, respite, and other | No (set by the state, below institutional level of care) | Allowed | Yes | No | Legally responsible persons,** relatives, legal guardians |
| 1915(j) Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services State Plan Option | Personal care services, other services if used with 1915(c), other services to increase independence at the state’s discretion | Yes if 1915(c);
No if State Plan Personal Care Services |
Required | Yes, if used with 1915(c) | Yes, if used with 1915(c) | Legally liable relatives |
| 1915(k) Community First Choice Option | ADLs, IADLs, health-related tasks, support for the individual to accomplish ADLs and IADLs, mechanisms for continuity of services, voluntary training. Can also cover fiscal management, transition costs, and other expenditures at the state’s discretion. | Yes | Allowed | No | No | None (state may choose to include/exclude groups) |
| 1115 Research and Demonstration Waiver | State’s discretion | No (state’s discretion) | Allowed | Yes | No | None (state may choose to include/exclude groups) |
| Home health services/Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) state plan benefit | Nursing services; medical supplies and equipment; home aide services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology and audiology services provided by a home health agency | No (for EPSDT, must be a medically necessary service) | Not allowed | Not allowed | Not allowed | None (state may choose to include/exclude groups) |
*While there are specific options available under some Medicaid authorities, states can choose to develop their own definition of who is eligible to provide services as a family caregiver.
**If a state chooses to reimburse legally responsible individuals for personal care or similar services through 1915(c) or 1915(i), a state must identify its criteria for meeting the “extraordinary care” requirements and its assessment methods, and how it will establish that the care provided by a legally responsible person is in the child’s best interest, among other requirements.
Source: Adapted from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Authority Comparison Chart, HCBS Technical Assistance Website, http://www.hcbs-ta.org/authority-comparison-chart
Notes
- National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. Caregivers of Children: A Focused look at Those Caring for A Child with Special Needs Under the Age of 18. November 2009: https://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report_Caregivers_of_Children_11-12-09.pdf.
- National Academy for State Health Policy. State Approaches to Providing Home Health Services to Children with Medical Complexity Enrolled in Medicaid. Washington, DC: National Academy for State Health Policy, July 2020.; Romley JA, et al. “Family-Provided Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs”, Pediatrics, 2017.
- Romley JA, et al. “Family-Provided Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs,” Pediatrics, 2017.
- Ibid.
- Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services. “Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment,” Accessed August 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/early-and-periodic-screening-diagnostic-and-treatment/index.html.
- National Academy for State Health Policy. State Approaches to Providing Home Health Services to Children with Medical Complexity Enrolled in Medicaid. Washington, DC: National Academy for State Health Policy, July 2020. Romley JA, et al. “Family-Provided Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs”, Pediatrics, 2017.
- Health Resources and Services Administration. “Long-Term Services and Supports: Direct Care Worker Demand Projections 2015-2030,” March 2018, https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bhw/nchwa/projections/hrsa-ltts-direct-care-worker-report.pdf.
- See, for example, Delaware’s 1915(i) state plan amendment that pays participant-directed personal care services at 43% of the reimbursement rate due to “the removal of reimbursement for administrative functions included in the HHA rate” : Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Delaware 1915(i) State Plan Amendment. Accessed July 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/State-resource-center/Medicaid-State-Plan-Amendments/Downloads/DE/DE-19-003.pdf.
- National Bureau of Economic Research. What Is The Marginal Benefit of Payment-Induced Family Care? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2016.
- Health Resources and Services Administration, “Children with Special Health Care Needs,” August 2019, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-healthtopics/children-and-youth-special-health-needs.
- Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2018 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) data query. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). Accessed May 2020, www.childhealthdata.org.
- Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2017-2018 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) data query. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). Accessed May 2020, childhealthdata.org.
- Park C, et al. “Racial Health Disparities Among Special Health Care Needs Children With Mental Disorders: Do Medical Homes Cater to Their Needs?”, Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, 2014; Inkelas M, et al. “Unmet mental health need and access to services for children with special health care needs and their families”, Ambulatory Pediatrics, 2007.; Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) data query. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). Accessed May 2020, www.childhealthdata.org.
- Kaiser Family Foundation. How Do Medicaid/CHIP Children with Special Health Care Needs Differ from Those with Private Insurance? San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019.
- U.S Department of Health & Human Services. “Understanding Medicaid Home and Community Services: A Primer, 2010 Edition. Katie Beckett Option,” November 2010. https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/understanding-medicaid-home-and-community-services-primer-2010-edition/katie-beckett-option.
- Musumeci M, Chidambaram, P. Medicaid Financial Eligibility for Seniors and People with Disabilities: Findings from a 50-States Survey. San Francisco, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019. https://www.kff.org/report-section/medicaid-financial-eligibility-for-seniors-and-people-with-disabilities-findings-from-a-50-state-survey-issue-brief/; Tennessee Department of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, “Notice of Change in TennCare II Demonstration: Amendment 40,” Tennessee Department of Finance & Administration, August 5, 2019, https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tenncare/documents2/Amendment40ComprehensiveNotice.pdf.
- United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. “About Olmstead,” https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_about.htm.
- Coleman CL. “Not Just Along For The Ride: Families Are The Engine That Drives Pediatric Home Health Care, Health Affairs Blog, 2019. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190415.172668/full/.
- Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2018 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) data query. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB).
- Romley JA, et al. “Family-Provided Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs,” Pediatrics, 2017.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Kuo DZ, et al. “A national profile of caregiver challenges among more medically complex children with special health care needs.” The Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2011.; Romley JA, et al. “Family-Provided Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs,” Pediatrics, 2017.
- Mooney-Doyle K, et al., “Family and Child Characteristics Associated With Caregiver Challenges for Medically Complex Children,” Family & Community Health, 2020.
- Ray, LD, “Parenting and Childhood Chronicity: Making Visible the Invisible Work,” Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 17(6): 424-438, December 2002. doi:10.1053/jpdn.2002.127172
- National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. Caregivers of Children: A Focused look at Those Caring for A Child with Special Needs Under the Age of 18. November 2009: https://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report_Caregivers_of_Children_11-12-09.pdf.
- Ibid.
- Coleman CL. “Not Just Along For The Ride: Families Are The Engine That Drives Pediatric Home Health Care, Health Affairs Blog, 2019. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190415.172668/full/.
- National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. Caregivers of Children: A Focused look at Those Caring for A Child with Special Needs Under the Age of 18. November 2009: https://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report_Caregivers_of_Children_11-12-09.pdf.
- U.S. Congress, House, Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage Family Caregivers (RAISE Family Caregivers Act) Act of 2017, H.R. 3759, 115th Congress, Introduced in House September 13, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3759.
- National Academy for State Health Policy. The RAISE Family Caregiver Resource and Dissemination Center. Washington, DC: National Academy for State Health Policy, July 2020.
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. States Are Leveraging Medicaid to Respond to COVID-19, September 2020.
- Romley JA, et al. “Family-Provided Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs”, Pediatrics, 2017.; Kaiser Family Foundation. How Do Medicaid/CHIP Children with Special Health Care Needs Differ from Those with Private Insurance? San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019.; Pathak, EB and Garcia, RB “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Mortality Among Children and Teens,” Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care. October 6, 2020. Accessed December 10, 2020. Kaiser Family Foundation. How Do Medicaid/CHIP Children with Special Health Care Needs Differ from Those with Private Insurance? San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019.
- American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Home Alone Revisited: Family Caregivers Providing Complex Care 2019. Washington, DC: AARP Foundation, 2019. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2019/04/home-alone-revisited-family-caregivers-providing-complex-care.pdf.
- Kaiser Family Foundation. Key State Policy Choices About Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services. San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019. http://files.kff.org/attachment/Issue-Brief-Key-State-Policy-Choices-About-Medicaid-Home-and-Community-Based-Services.
- National Health Law Program. Q&A Relatives as Paid Providers. Washington, DC: National Health Law Program, December 2014. https://healthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/QA-Relative-Providers-November-2014-NHeLP.pdf.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Application for a 1915 (C) Home and Community-Based Waiver Instructions, Technical Guide and Review Criteria.” January 2019, 120-121. https://wms-mmdl.cms.gov/WMS/help/35/Instructions_TechnicalGuide_V3.6.pdf.
- Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services. “Self-Directed Services” Accessed July 2020.: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/long-term-services-supports/self-directed-services/index.html.
- Kaiser Family Foundation. Key State Policy Choices About Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services. San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019.
- “Home Health Services” Code of Federal Regulations, title 42 (2020) 440.70. Accessed August 2020. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-1998-title42-vol3/pdf/CFR-1998-title42-vol3-sec440-70.pdf.
- National Academy for State Health Policy. State Approaches to Providing Home Health Services to Children with Medical Complexity Enrolled in Medicaid. Washington, DC: National Academy for State Health Policy, July 2020
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Home Health Providers,” Accessed July 2020. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/CertificationandComplianc/HHAs.
- Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services. “Self-Directed Services” Accessed July 2020.: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/long-term-services-supports/self-directed-services/index.html.
- Ibid.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Application for a 1915 (C) Home and Community-Based Waiver Instructions, Technical Guide and Review Criteria.” Accessed January 2019. https://wms-mmdl.cms.gov/WMS/help/35/Instructions_TechnicalGuide_V3.6.pdf.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Application for a 1915 (C) Home and Community-Based Waiver Instructions, Technical Guide and Review Criteria.” January 2019, 120-121. https://wms-mmdl.cms.gov/WMS/help/35/Instructions_TechnicalGuide_V3.6.pdf.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Application for a 1915 (C) Home and Community-Based Waiver Instructions, Technical Guide and Review Criteria.” January 2019, 120-121. https://wms-mmdl.cms.gov/WMS/help/35/Instructions_TechnicalGuide_V3.6.pdf.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicaid Program; Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services Program State Plan Option (Cash and Counseling); Final Rule (CMS-2229-F). October 3, 2008. Accessed August 2020. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-10-03/pdf/E8-23102.pdf.
- Legal Dictionary, “guardian,” accessed July 2020. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=843.
- National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services. “Caring Families…Families Giving Care Using Medicaid to Pay Relatives Providing Support to Family Members with Disabilities.,” Washington, DC: NASDDDS, June 2010. https://dda.health.maryland.gov/pages/Developments/2015/Attachment%205%20Caring%20Families.pdf.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Application for a 1915(C) Home and Community-Based Waiver Instructions, Technical Guide and Review Criteria.” Accessed January 2019. https://wms-mmdl.cms.gov/WMS/help/35/Instructions_TechnicalGuide_V3.6.pdf.
- Kaiser Family Foundation. Key State Policy Choices About Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services. San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019.
- Ibid.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Application for a 1915 (C) Home and Community-Based Waiver Instructions, Technical Guide and Review Criteria.” January 2019, 120-121. https://wms-mmdl.cms.gov/WMS/help/35/Instructions_TechnicalGuide_V3.6.pdf.
- National Council on Disability. “Chapter 3. Evolution of Self-Directed Medical Services,” Accessed July 2020. https://ncd.gov/policy/chapter-3-evolution-self-directed-medicaid-services.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Colorado 1915(c) Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Application.” Accessed July 2020.
- Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. “Home and Community Based Services For The Developmentally Disabled (HCB-DD) Waiver.” Accessed July 2020. https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=8773&fileName=10%20CCR%202505-10%208.500.
- Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing. “In-Home Support Services (IHSS)”. Accessed July 2020. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/hcpf/in-home-support-services.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Colorado 1915(c) Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Application.” Accessed July 2020.
- Ibid.
- Texas Health and Human Services. “STAR Kids Handbook. Section 1000, Overview and Eligibility.” Accessed July 2020. https://hhs.texas.gov/laws-regulations/handbooks/skh/section-1000-overview-eligibility; 1 TAC RULE §353.1155(b)(1).
- Ibid.
- Texas Health and Human Services. “Application for a 1915 (C) Home and Community-Based Services Waiver.” Accessed July 2020. https://hhs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/laws-regulations/policies-rules/mdcp-waiver-app-amendment-4.pdf.
- Ibid.
- Texas Health and Human Services. “STAR Kids Handbook. Section 1000, Overview and Eligibility.” Accessed July 2020. https://hhs.texas.gov/laws-regulations/handbooks/skh/section-1000-overview-eligibility.
- Ibid.
- Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “HCBS Authority Comparison Chart.” Accessed July 2020. http://www.hcbs-ta.org/authority-comparison-chart?field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B1%5D=1&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B2%5D=2&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B3%5D=3&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B4%5D=4&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B5%5D=5.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Providing Self-Directed Services under 1915© Waiver and 1915(i) State Plan Medicaid Authorities.” Accessed July 2020. http://www.appliedselfdirection.com/sites/default/files/Self%20Direction%20under%201915%28c%29%20and%20%28i%29%20Slides.pdf.
- North Dakota Behavioral Health Human Services. 1915(i) State Plan Home and Community-Based Services Administration and Operation. Accessed August 2020. https://www.behavioralhealth.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/1915i/ND%201915(i)%20Application.pdf; Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. New Hampshire 1915(i) State Plan Home and Community-Based Services Administration and Operation. Accessed August 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/State-resource-center/Medicaid-State-Plan-Amendments/Downloads/NH/NH-18-002.pdf.
- California Department of Health Care Services. California. State 1915 (I) Plan Amendment. Accessed August 2020. https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/laws/Documents/Approved16-047.pdf.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. California 1915(i) HCBS State Plan Application. Accessed August 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/State-resource-center/Medicaid-State-Plan-Amendments/Downloads/CA/CA-16-016.pdf.
- Ibid.
- Kaiser Family Foundation. Key State Policy Choices About Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services. San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Providing Self-Directed Services under 1915© Waiver and 1915(i) State Plan Medicaid Authorities.” Accessed July 2020. http://www.appliedselfdirection.com/sites/default/files/Self%20Direction%20under%201915%28c%29%20and%20%28i%29%20Slides.pdf.
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-10-03/pdf/E8-23102.pdf
- Agency for Health Care Administration. Florida 1915(j) State Plan Application. Accessed August 2020. https://ahca.myflorida.com/medicaid/stateplanpdf/Florida_Medicaid_State_Plan_Part_II.pdf.
- Ibid.; Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Florida 1915(j) State Plan Amendment. Accessed August 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/State-resource-center/Medicaid-State-Plan-Amendments/Downloads/FL/FL-11-016-Att.pdf.
- Ibid.
- California Department of Health Care Services. Approved State Plan Under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Accessed August 2020. https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/laws/Documents/StatePlan%20Supp%205%20to%20Att%203.1-A.pdf.
- Disability Rights California. In-Home Supportive Services (HISS): A Guide for Advocates. Oakland, CA: Disability Rights California, June 2019.
- California Welfare and Institutions Code § 12300 In-Home Supportive Services (2004). http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=12300.&lawCode=WIC.
- California Department of Social Services. “IHSS Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention,” Accessed July 2020. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/ihss/quality-assurance/program-integrity.
- Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. Federal Policy Guidance: Community First Choice State Plan Option. December 30, 2016. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/smd16011.pdf.
- Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “HCBS Authority Comparison Chart.” Accessed August 2020. http://www.hcbs-ta.org/authority-comparison-chart?field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B1%5D=1&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B2%5D=2&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B3%5D=3&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B4%5D=4&field_hcbs_authority_target_id%5B5%5D=5.
- National Health Law Program. Q&A Relatives as Paid Providers. Washington, DC: National Health Law Program, December 2014. https://healthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/QA-Relative-Providers-November-2014-NHeLP.pdf.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Final Rule (CMS-2337-F) Medicaid Program; Community First Choice Option. May 7, 2012. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/05/07/2012-10294/medicaid-program-community-first-choice-option.
- Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Connecticut 1915(k) Community First Choice State Plan. July 22, 2015. Accessed July 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/State-resource-center/Medicaid-State-Plan-Amendments/Downloads/CT/CT-15-0012.pdf.
- Ibid.
- Nation Academy for State Health Policy, NOSLO Advisory Group Member – Dawn Lambert, Connecticut.
- California Department of Social Services. State Plan Under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Accessed July 2020. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/agedblinddisabled/res/CFCO/CFCO-SPA_13-007(Final5-3-13).pdf; California Department of Social Services. All-County Letter: Implementation of the Community First Choice Option Program. August 29, 2014. Accessed July 2020. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/lettersnotices/EntRes/getinfo/acl/2014/14-60.pdf.
- Disability Rights California. In-Home Supportive Services (HISS): A Guide for Advocates. Oakland, CA: Disability Rights California, June 2019.; California Welfare and Institutions Code § 12300 In-Home Supportive Services (2004). http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=12300.&lawCode=WIC.; Disability Benefits 101. “In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS): The Details,” August 18, 2020. Accessed August 2020. https://ca.db101.org/ca/programs/health_coverage/medi_cal/ihss/program2b.htm.
- Ibid.
- National Resource Center for Participant-Directed Services. Comparative Analysis of Medicaid HCBS (1915 & 115) Waivers and State Plan Amendments Accessed August 2020. http://www.appliedselfdirection.com/sites/default/files/Authority%20Comparison.pdf.
- Tennessee Division of TennCare. TennCare Medicaid Section 1115 Demonstration Application. Accessed August 2020. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tenncare/documents/tenncarewaiver.pdf.
- Ibid.
- Shang J, et al. “COVID-19 Preparedness in US Home Health Care Agencies,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2020.
- Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. Federal Policy Guidance: COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Section 15(a) Opportunity for States. March 22, 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/section-1115-demonstrations/downloads/hi-covid19-public-health-emerg-demo-app-20200401.pdf..
- Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. Section 1135 Waiver Flexibilities- Georgia Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Second Request), Accessed July 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/state-resource-center/disaster-response-toolkit/federal-disaster-resources/98426.; Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. Section 1135 Waiver Flexibilities- Maryland Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Second Request), Accessed July 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/state-resource-center/disaster-response-toolkit/federal-disaster-resources/98246.
- Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. Arizona APPENDIX K: Emergency Preparedness and Response and COVID-19 Addendum, Accessed July 2020. https://www.medicaid.gov/state-resource-center/downloads/az-appendix-k-appvl.pdf.
- Kaiser Family Foundation. Key State Policy Choices About Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services. San Francisco, California: Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2019.
- Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing. “Home Health Program,” Accessed July 2020. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/hcpf/home-health-program.
- Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing. “Parents as their child’s Certified Nursing Aid (CNA),” Accessed July 2020. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/parents-their-childs-certified-nursing-aide-cna.
- Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing. “Pediatric Assessment Tool Client Frequently Asked Questions,” Accessed July 2020. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Client%20FAQs.pdf.
- Missouri State Senate. An Act Appropriates money for the expenses, grants, refunds, and distributions of the Department of Mental Health, Board of Public Buildings, and Department of Health and Senior Services. Introduced in House February 6, 2019. https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills191/hlrbillspdf/0010H.06T.pdf.; AZ legislation: Arizona State Senate. An Act Amending Section 36-2939, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to the Arizona Long-Term Care System, Introduced in House February 13, 2019. https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2706/id/1902833.
- U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2017. MEDICAID CMS Should Take Additional Steps to Improve Assessments of Individuals’ Needs for Home-and Community-Based Services. In Report to Congressional Requesters. December 2017. Washington, DC: GAO. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689053.pdf.
- Elliot TR, et al. “Medicaid Personal Care Services and Caregivers’ Reports of Children’s Health: The Dynamics of a Relationship,” HSR: Health Services Research, 2011.
- Kirk S and Glendinning C. “Developing services to support parents caring for a technology-dependent child at home,” Child: Care, Health & Development, 2003.
- American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). 2019. The CARE Act Implementation: Progress and Promise. March 2019. Washington, DC: AARP. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2019/03/the-care-act-implementation-progress-and-promise.pdf.
- For example, Oklahoma’s law applies to caregivers of both adults and children: Oklahoma State Senate, Telecommunications; clarifying requirements of the Oklahoma E911 Emergency Fund, SB 1536, Engrossed to House February 19, 2014, http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB1536%20ENR.PDF.; while Illinois’ law specifies that “‘Patient’ does not include a pediatric patient”: Illinois State Senate, Public Act 099-0222, Arrived in House April 26, 2017. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/99/PDF/099-0222.pdf.
*Identified as Hispanic in the survey.
Acknowledgements: This issue brief was written by Eskedar Girmash, Kate Honsberger, and Olivia Randi of the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP). The authors wish to thank participating states’ Medicaid and Title V CYSHCN program staff for their time and willingness to be interviewed and their review. The authors also wish to thank officials at the Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau for their review and input.
This project was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UD3OA22891, National Organizations of State and Local Officials. This information or content and conclusions are those of the authors and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the US government.
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. 























































































































































