Implementing the Family First Prevention Services Act: What to Watch in 2021
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, Children/Youth with Special Health Care Needs, Chronic and Complex Populations, Health Equity, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by Veronnica ThompsonEnacted in 2018, the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) significantly reformed the child welfare system and allowed states to use Title IV-E funds to reduce out-of-home placements for children and youth. When those placements are necessary, the FFPSA authorized specific types of allowable congregate settings, including qualified residential treatment programs (QRTPs).
States now have until October 2021 to implement these allowable congregate settings or risk losing Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments, which fund room and board and other activities in these approved settings.
With this deadline looming, many states are accelerating implementation of these newly authorized congregate settings, which may have potential implications for their child welfare and Medicaid programs and the funds states are able to capture under Title IV-E. This is particularly relevant as states struggle with budget shortfalls stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
A QRTP:
- Provides a trauma-informed model of care designed to address the needs of children with serious emotional or behavioral disorders;
- Has registered or licensed nursing staff available 24/7;
- Facilitates family participation in a child’s treatment and documents how members are integrated into the treatment; and
- Provides discharge planning and family-based aftercare support for at least six months post discharge, among other attributes.
Background
The FFPSA has generated significant reforms to the child welfare system and several key provisions allow states to use Title IV-E funds, which is the largest federal funding source for child welfare activities for certain evidence-based prevention services to reduce unnecessary out-of-home placements for children and youth. When out-of-home placement is necessary, FFPSA prioritizes Title IV-E funds for placements in foster family homes over those in congregate care, in part, by authorizing specific types of allowable congregate settings. These include qualified residential treatment programs (QRTPs), among others. States that do not implement QRTPs or other allowable congregate settings will soon be limited in their ability to claim Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
These new restrictions went into effect Oct. 1, 2019, however states had the option of delaying implementation of this provision for up to two years, until Oct. 1, 2021. At least 11 states opted for early adoption of these changes to congregate settings, with others opting for a delay. States that opted to delay implementation of these specific types of allowable congregate settings were simultaneously unable to use Title IV-E funds for prevention services under FFPSA – one of the hallmarks of the new law.
Changes to Congregate Settings Under FFPSA
Prior to FFPSA’s passage, states were able to claim federal Title IV-E for children in congregate settings with few constraints. But, as the final implementation date nears, only the following settings will be eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments:
- QRTPs designed to address the clinical needs of children with serious emotional or behavioral disorders. Key requirements include:
- Utilization of a trauma-informed treatment model;
- Having a registered or licensed nursing staff or other licensed clinical staff available 24/7;
- Facilitating family participation in the treatment process;
- Offering at least six months of support after discharge; and
- Being licensed and national accredited.
- Specialized settings for youth ages 18 and older who are living independently;
- Settings providing high-quality residential care and supportive services to children and youth who have been found to be, or at risk of becoming, sex trafficking victims; and
- Children who are placed with a parent in a licensed residential family-based treatment facility for substance use disorder for up to 12 months.
While there are limited exceptions, states will be unable to claim Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments after two weeks of placement in “childcare institutions” (i.e., congregate settings) that do not meet the above criteria. While existing congregate care settings will not necessarily close, their reimbursement structures may change. While the priority is to prevent children from being placed in congregate care, it remains an important option for some children and youth.
Approximately 10 percent of children and youth in out-of-home care were placed in a congregate setting in during fiscal year 2019. As a result, a delay in uptake of these changes beyond the final implementation date could represent a significant shift in costs onto states’ already constrained budgets. Texas estimates it will lose $26 million annually in federal Title IV-E funds if the state is unable to implement these provisions by the October 2021 deadline.
State Efforts to Implement QRTPs under FFPSA
Since the provision went into effect in October 2019, states have been at various stages of implementing allowable congregate settings that are eligible to claim Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments under FFPSA. Nearly all states have either implemented or are working to implement QRTPs, with many states launching and/or refining their program models in the coming months of this year.
- Michigan added the definition of QRTP to its state statute and is scheduled to submit its Title IV-E state plan amendment for federal review in early 2021, with contracts with QRTPs executed by February 2021.
- North Dakota began implementing QRTPs in October 2019 and now has three in place. This effort included making policy updates and the writing of a comprehensive document outlining answers to common questions.
- Virginia is scheduled to implement QRTPs by Jan. 31, 2021. The state also developed a comprehensive document outlining answers to common questions to provide clarity around the state’s implementation of the new congregate changes under FFPSA.
- Washington Statereceived federal approval in October 2020 for its updated QRTP policy and related Title IV-E state plan amendments to implement QRTPs. The state also received federal approval of a corresponding waiver allowing “qualified individuals” to perform the required assessments under FFPSA. The majority of the state’s QRTP facilities are accredited.
To support the uptake of QRTPs, some states are exploring use of supplemental funding, such as rate increases and federal Family First Transition Act funds. Many of these efforts are designed to incentivize providers to scale up their service delivery models to become QRTPs, reimburse providers for accreditation costs, and pilot QRTPs during the initial transition period.
- Maine is investigating opportunities for incentives and/or rate increases for providers that become accredited QRTPs. Maine is also working to develop and implement an application for providers becoming accredited QRTPs to receive partial reimbursement using the state’s federal Family First Transition Act funding.
- Texas is using federal Family First Transition Act funds awarded to support the state’s implementation of FFPSA to develop a two-year QRTP pilot program.
- Virginia officials indicated the state may provide funds to temporarily cover the cost of Title IV-E ineligible placements during the transition period as QRTPs are phased in. The state is also conducting a rate analysis to determine if a Medicaid rate adjustment is needed as providers transition to become accredited QRTPs.
- Washington State is working to establish dedicated funding to support providers working through the QRTP accreditation process.
The National Academy for State Health Policy will continue to monitor implementation and financing of QRTPs and other allowable congregate settings under FFPSA at both the state and federal level during 2021 and in the future.
Texas Improves Access to Routine Oral Health Services for Very Young Children
/in Policy Texas Child Oral Health, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Consumer Affordability, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Integrated Care for Children, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Oral Health, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Quality and Measurement, Quality and Measurement, Social Determinants of Health /by Veronnica ThompsonThough largely preventable, tooth decay (caries) is the most common chronic disease in US children, affecting approximately 23 percent of children ages 2 to 5.[1],[2] Texas’s First Dental Home and its enhanced bundled payment has increased access to preventive dental service and improved the oral health of Medicaid-enrolled children ages 6 to 35 months.
Providing children with access to routine oral health services has the potential to prevent dental caries, reduce emergency dental visits, and promote overall health, resulting in significant cost savings for states. States are required to provide dental services to Medicaid-enrolled children under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit. While it is recommended that all children receive an initial dental visit in their first year of life, less than 10 percent of Medicaid-enrolled children under age 3 receive preventive dental services.[3] This case study explores how Texas is improving oral health access for these very young children.
Importance of Oral Health in Very Young Children
Early childhood caries (ECC) is characterized by the presence of at least one decayed, missing, or filled primary tooth surface in a child younger than age 6.[4] Among children in this age group, nearly one-quarter have ECC,[5] with 10 percent untreated.[6]
In addition to causing pain and discomfort, dental caries, including ECC, can affect young children’s quality of life and overall development, including reduced intake of food, lower weight, and increased school absences.[7] High incidences of untreated dental caries are also associated with increased risk of hospitalizations and emergency dental visits, resulting in significant costs to state Medicaid programs.[8],[9] One report examining Medicaid-enrolled children under age 6 in Iowa found that children treated for ECC in a hospital or ambulatory setting accounted for 25 to 45 percent of total dental costs.[10]
Children who have their first preventive dental visit by age 1 are more likely to have subsequent preventive visits and lower dental-related costs.[11] Given the importance of early access to routine, preventive oral health services among young children, several leading national pediatric medical and dental organizations recommend that all children receive an initial dental visit during the first year of life.[12],[13],[14] Yet, only 9 percent of Medicaid-enrolled children under age 3 received a preventive dental service over a one-year period, compared to 84 percent of children in the same age group who received a well-child visit.[15],[16]
As states explore opportunities to improve access to oral health services, there is growing interest in strengthening routine access to oral health services among young children.
Texas First Dental Home
Implemented in 2008 by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) – the state’s Medicaid program – to increase children’s access to preventive services under the EPSDT benefit, the First Dental Home (FDH) is a legislatively supported, Medicaid dental initiative designed to improve the oral health of Medicaid-enrolled children, ages 6-35 month, through the following actions:
- Initiate early preventive dental services (including for those children without erupted teeth);
- Provide communication and education to parents and caregivers promoting the importance of children’s oral health; and
- Establish dental homes for children beginning at 6 months of age or as early as possible upon enrollment in Medicaid. [17]
Children participating in FDHs are eligible for a maximum of 10 visits between 6 to 35 months of age, with at least 60 days between visits. This requirement allows for a child to begin FDH visits at six months of age with a recall schedule of every three months (for those children at moderate-to-high risk for developing severe ECC) until their third birthday.[18] In addition to completing an oral health questionnaire, a dental risk assessment questionnaire, and a comprehensive oral evaluation during the initial visit, FDH visits include:
- Texas Health Steps Caries Risk Assessment Tool;
- Dental prophylaxis;
- Oral hygiene instructions for the child’s primary caregiver;
- Application of topical fluoride varnish;
- Dental anticipatory guidance, including nutritional counseling and oral developmental milestones; and
- Establishment of a dental recall schedule.[19]
Due to the importance of caregiver participation and understanding of their children’s oral health, HHSC requires at least one parent or caregiver to be present with the child during the entire FDH visit.[20] An evaluation of FDH found that participation in the program increased caregivers’ oral health knowledge and some of their oral health practices to improve their children’s oral health.[21]
First Dental Home Bundled Reimbursement and Provider Enrollment
The Current Dental Terminology (CDT) code D0145 is used at an enhanced reimbursement rate of $142.07 for all FDH visits. For the purposes of FDH billing, D0145 is considered an all-inclusive (or bundled) code required for all diagnostic and preventive services rendered under FDH, including those not traditionally reimbursed for routine preventive services, such as oral hygiene instruction and nutritional counseling.[22],[23] Dentists cannot bill for any other exam, prophy, or fluoride codes for a FDH visit.[24]
Eligible providers (e.g., pediatric and general dentists) must become FDH providers to claim reimbursement using the enhanced bundled CDT code. In addition to being trained and certified by the Texas Health Steps Program, the state’s EPSDT program, dentists must have a National Provider Indicator number (NPI) and an individual Texas Provider Indicator (TPI) number of each practice location.[25] Within the first 12 months of the program’s implementation, 815 dentists became FDH providers, 674 of whom billed for services.[26]
Texas is a state with dental benefits carved-out of its medical managed care program to three dental maintenance organizations (DMOs). Collectively, these DMOs help to manage the dental care needs of the state’s Medicaid members, including participation in FDH. Under this arrangement, HHSC outlines FDH-specific contract requirements, which stipulate that each DMO must:
- Implement a process to detect under-utilization of FDH services;
- Verify a providers’ qualifications to submit claims for FDH services; and
- Publish provider directories and note which providers are FDH providers.
In addition to these contract requirements, HHSC has a dental Pay-for-Quality (P4Q) program to further strengthen oral health utilization. Under Texas’s dental P4Q program, 1.5 percent of each DMO’s capitation is at risk of recoupment for specific performance measures (e.g., the percentage of enrolled children who receive a comprehensive or periodic oral evaluation in a reporting year) if a DMO’s performance declines beyond a defined threshold. Conversely, if a DMO’s performance improves beyond the threshold, the DMO can earn incentive payments.[27] To help bolster its performance, at least one DMO implemented value-added services for members participating in FDH, including a free dental care kit and gift card upon completion of a FDH visit.[28] As a result of limited data due to COVID-19 from which to assess quality measures, HHSC has temporarily suspended its dental P4Q program, including performance measures under FDH.[29]
Texas’s multipronged efforts to increase access to preventive oral health services for Medicaid enrolled children 6 to 35 months of age under the EPSDT benefit have resulted in increased utilization, even exceeding the rate of dental care use among commercially insured children in some years.[30],[31] Based on available dental performance measures collected by HHSC, participation in FDH has steadily increased with approximately 71 percent of children 6 to 35 months of age receiving at least one FDH visit in FY 19.[32] Based on claims data collected from 2005-2011, there was an estimated cost savings of $12.9 million (or $269.01 per member per year) among children 3 to 6 years of age receiving routine preventive dental services. The savings per member is driven, in part, by reductions in oral health utilization and treatment expenditures.[33] The goal of FDH services is to aid in the additional reduction of treatment expenditures.[34]
Due to the impact of COVID-19 on access to preventive services,[35] utilization of FDH was down 90 percent at the start of the public health emergency. By summer 2020, use of FDH services was at 80 percent compared to the previous year, with access rates slowly returning to normal.
Conclusion
To improve the oral health of Medicaid-enrolled children ages 6 to 35 months, Texas’s First Dental Home successfully implemented an enhanced bundled payment, caregiver engagement strategies, and provider-specific requirements to increase access to preventive oral health services for very young children under the EPSDT benefit. Texas’s approach is one that other state Medicaid programs can adapt as they explore strategies to improve the oral health of very young children and promote access to an initial dental visit during the first year of life.
Acknowledgements: This case study is a publication of the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP). This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Supporting Maternal and Child Health Innovation in States Grant No. U1XMC31658; $398,953. The information, 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.
Notes
[1] “Hygiene-related Diseases, Dental Caries,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/hygiene/disease/dental_caries.html [2] “Dental Caries in Primary Teeth,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/OHSR-2019-dental-caries-primary-teeth.html – :~:text=The prevalence of untreated tooth,-poor, and poor children. [3] “Utilization of Dental Services Among Medicaid Enrolled Children,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, October 2012. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Computer-Data-and-Systems/MedicaidDataSourcesGenInfo/Downloads/MAX_IB9_DentalCare.pdf [4] “Statement on Early Childhood Caries,” American Dental Association, 2000. https://www.ada.org/en/about-the-ada/ada-positions-policies-and-statements/statement-on-early-childhood-caries [5] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Dental Caries in Primary Teeth,” [6] “Dental Caries and Sealant Prevalence in Adolescents in the United States, 2011-2011, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 2015. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db191.htm#:~:text=Dental%20caries%20among%20children%20aged,31%25)%20aged%202%E2%80%938 [7]Sheiham, A., “Dental caries affects body weight, growth, and quality of life in pre-school children,” British Dental Journal, November 2006. https://www.nature.com/articles/4814259 – :~:text=First, untreated caries and associated,foods because eating is painful.&text=Second, severe caries can affect,irritability and disturbed sleeping habits [8] “The Importance of the Age One Dental Visit,” Pediatric Oral Health Research & Policy Center, 2019. https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/policy-center/year1visit.pdf [9] “Allareddy, V., et al., “Hospital-based emergency department visits involving dental conditions: profile and predictors of poor outcomes and resource utilization,” Journal of the American Dental Association, April 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686965/ [10] “Kanellis, M., et al., “ Medicaid Costs Associated with the Hospitalization of Young Children for Restorative Dental Treatment under General Anesthesia,” Journal of Public Health Dentistry, May 2007. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2000.tb03288.x?sid=nlm%3Apubmed [11] Savage, M., et al., “Early Preventive Dental Visits: Effects of Subsequent Utilization and Costs,” Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, October 2004. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/4/e418.long [12] “Recommendations for preventive pediatric health care,” Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, March 2000. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/3/645 [13] American Dental Association, “Statement on Early Childhood Caries.” [14] “First Oral Health Assessment Policy,” American Association of Public Health Dentistry, May 4, 2004. https://www.aaphd.org/oral-health-assessment-policy [15] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Utilization of Dental Services Among Medicaid Enrolled Children.” [16] “Utilization of Well-Child Care Among Medicaid Enrolled Children,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, October 2012. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/computer-data-and-systems/medicaiddatasourcesgeninfo/downloads/max_ib10_wellchild.pdf [17] “First Dental Home: Section 1: Overview of the First Dental Home Initiative,” Texas Health and Human Services, Texas Health Steps. https://www.txhealthsteps.com/static/warehouse/1076-2010-Jun-8-7c06br1a1rkyar7csn96/section_1.html [18] “First Dental Home: Section 3: Scheduling, Treatment Planning, Documentation, and Billing,” Texas Health and Human Services, Texas Health Steps. https://www.txhealthsteps.com/static/warehouse/1076-2010-Jun-8-7c06br1a1rkyar7csn96/section_3.html [19] “First Dental Home,” Texas Health and Human Services. https://hhs.texas.gov/doing-business-hhs/provider-portals/health-services-providers/texas-health-steps/dental-providers/first-dental-home [20] Texas Health and Human Services, Texas Health Steps, “First Dental Home: Section 1: Overview of the First Dental Home Initiative.” [21] Mccann, Ann., & Schneiderman, E., “Does the Texas First Dental Home Program Improve Parental Oral Care Knowledge and Practices,” Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, March 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ann_Mccann/publication/319040790_Does_the_Texas_First_Dental_Home_Program_Improve_Parental_Oral_Care_Knowledge_and_Practices/links/5e496c8f299bf1cdb930f08e/Does-the-Texas-First-Dental-Home-Program-Improve-Parental-Oral-Care-Knowledge-and-Practices.pdf [22] Texas Health and Human Services, Texas Health Steps, “First Dental Home: Section 3: Scheduling, Treatment Planning, Documentation, and Billing.” [23] Use of CDT code D0145 in other state Medicaid programs is typically limited to an oral evaluation and counseling with the primary caregiver. [24] Texas Health and Human Services, “First Dental Home.” [25] Ibid. [26] “State of Texas Medicaid Dental Review,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, October 2010. https://www.mchoralhealth.org/PDFs/CMSReview_TX.pdf [27] “Pay-for-Quality Program,” Texas Health and Human Services. https://hhs.texas.gov/about-hhs/process-improvement/improving-services-texans/medicaid-chip-quality-efficiency-improvement/pay-quality-p4q-program – :~:text=Medical Pay-for-Quality Program,performance on certain quality measures.&text=The redesigned medic. [28] “DentaQuest Provider Office Reference Manual: TX HHSC Dental Services,” DentaQuest, October 2020. https://dentaquest.com/getattachment/State-Plans/Regions/texas/Dentists-Page/Provider-Resources/TX_ORM.pdf/ [29] National Academy for State Health Policy, Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Network Call, “How States Can Promote Children’s Oral Health.” [30] Nasseh, K., et al., “ Dental Care Use among Children Varies Widely across States and between Medicaid and Commercial Plans with States,” Health Policy Institute Research Brief, 2014. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dental-Care-Use-among-Children-Varies-Widely-across-Nasseh-Aravamudhan/763bbe86700c42c0f4b8a5cec50772dc20cda1a7#references [31] Gupta, N., et al., “Medicaid Fee-for-Service Reimbursement Rates for Child and Adult Dental Care Services for all States, 2016,” American Dental Association, Health Policy Institute, 2017. https://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science and Research/HPI/Files/HPIBrief_0417_1.pdf [32] “How States Can Promote Children’s Oral Health,” National Academy for State Health Policy, Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Network Call, October 2020. [33] Lee, I., et al., “Estimating the cost savings of preventive dental services delivered to Medicaid-enrolled children in six southeastern states,” Health Services Research, November 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6153169/pdf/HESR-53-3592.pdf [34] The research study focuses on children outside the age range of those receiving services under the First Dental Home. The study also includes claims data that precede implementation of the First Dental Home. [35] “CMS Issues Urgent Call to Action Following Drastic Decline in Care for Children in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Due to COVID-19 Pandemic,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, September 2020. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-issues-urgent-call-action-following-drastic-decline-care-children-medicaid-and-childrens-healthMichigan Medicaid Addresses Social Determinants of Oral Health through Dental and Medical Contracts
/in Medicaid Managed Care Michigan Blogs, Featured News Home Child Oral Health, CHIP, Consumer Affordability, Cost, Payment, and Delivery Reform, EPSDT, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Health System Costs, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Oral Health, Population Health, Primary Care/Patient-Centered/Health Home, Quality and Measurement, Social Determinants of Health, Special Populations and Services, Workforce Capacity /by Ariella LevisohnInequities in dental care are prevalent across the United States, with significant disparities based on age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Economic factors, such as ability to pay for dental insurance, and social factors such as food insecurity and access to nutritious food options also play a large role in oral health outcomes.
In Michigan, state Medicaid medical and dental managed care contracts now include requirements to address social determinants of health (SDOH) among enrollees. Examples of these requirements include:
- Incorporating oral health into community health workers’ training curriculum;
- Collaborating with community-based organizations (CBOs);
- Collecting data on enrollees’ SDOH and using it to target outreach and educational activities; and
- Implementing quality assurance and improvement projects that promote equitable access to oral health care.
Michigan’s Medicaid medical and dental managed care contracts demonstrate a proactive approach to identifying and addressing SDOH among Medicaid enrollees. While budget shortages resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic may make it more difficult for states to take on additional initiatives, addressing SDOH in Medicaid contracts can decrease costs and improve oral health outcomes. States that want to encourage dental plans to take on a larger role in promoting equitable access to care and addressing SDOH could adopt initiatives similar to Michigan’s.
These types of Medicaid contractual requirements are important first steps in improving SDOH among enrollees, while strengthening monitoring and enforcement requirements are also critical tools when adequate funding and personnel are available.
Why Focus on Oral Health and SDOH?
SDOH are the conditions in the places where individuals live, learn, and work that may affect their health risks and outcomes. They include factors such as food access, housing stability, educational attainment, poverty, health literacy, and transportation, among others. Social determinants dictate an individual’s access to health care and quality of care, which directly affect physical and oral health and exacerbate health disparities. For example:
- Low-income children are twice as likely to have dental caries (tooth decay) than children from higher-income homes; and
- Individuals who are poor or have less than a high school education have edentulism (toothlessness) at a rate three-times higher than those with higher incomes or more education.
Increasingly, Medicaid medical and dental managed care organizations are implementing initiatives designed to address SDOH among their members in order to improve oral health and promote health equity.
While all states cover dental care for Medicaid-enrolled children under age 21 as part of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit, adult dental coverage is optional for state Medicaid programs. Currently, 35 states provide limited dental benefits for adults and 19 states offer extensive adult dental benefits. However, optional adult benefits, such as dental care, may be affected by state efforts to meet continued budget challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Dental disease, though, not only adversely affects oral health but is also associated with diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and low birth weight and preterm births. Preventive dental care has the potential to improve overall health and well-being and reduce costs.
How Michigan Addresses Oral Health and SDOH
In NASHP’s recent 50-state scan of Medicaid managed care medical and dental contracts, Michigan was one of only three states (out of 19 reviewed) to consistently and directly reference SDOH in their Medicaid dental plan contracts.* Additionally, Michigan’s Medicaid medical managed care organization (MCO) contract includes detailed requirements for addressing SDOH, many of which align with the dental plan’s language and promotes coordination between physical and oral health care. While written contractual requirements do not guarantee that medical and dental plans are actively engaged in implementing SDOH-related initiatives – especially in the absence of funding to monitor these programs – Michigan’s contracts offer valuable examples of potential ways to address SDOH that other states could adopt as a first step.
Michigan Delivery System Overview
Michigan Medicaid uses a managed care system to deliver medical and dental care, and the Medicaid dental benefit is carved out and administered by various dental plans contracted by the state. Michigan Medicaid covers limited dental services for adults, including dental check-ups, teeth cleaning, X-rays, fillings, tooth extractions, and dentures. Additionally, the state offers an enhanced dental benefit for Medicaid-eligible pregnant women that includes emergency dental treatment and some oral surgeries. Michigan also administers the Healthy Kids Dental program, which covers comprehensive oral health care for children under age 21 enrolled in Medicaid.
Dental Contract Language
Michigan stands out because of the state’s frequent and direct mentions of SDOH throughout its Healthy Kids Dental (HKD) model contract. The HKD contract reflects a broad range of required initiatives related to SDOH, including:
- Collaboration with community organizations;
- Data use to target interventions and assess population-wide social needs, and
- Implementation of quality assurance and improvement projects that reduce barriers to oral health care.
Collaboration with Community Organizations
One way dental plans can help address SDOH-related needs is by working with community-based organizations (CBOs). CBOs play an important role in connecting individuals to social services and helping people access health-related social needs, such as healthy food, transportation services, and educational materials that promote health literacy.
Michigan requires dental plans administering the HKD program to “collaborate with community-based organizations to facilitate the provision of enrollee oral health education services to ensure the entire spectrum of social determinants of oral health are addressed, e.g., housing, healthy diet and physical activity.” Michigan also encourages contractors to “build relationships with community partners that will engage in integrated care and promote good oral health practices.”
Through dynamic and active partnerships with CBOs, dental plans can more easily refer individuals to social and community services to help address members’ needs. Additionally, these partnerships with CBOs allow the state to expand its reach to more Medicaid-eligible children through educational initiatives.
Dental plans can also encourage members to work with CBOs and other public health programs by implementing their own educational programs. Michigan lists community-based public health resources on its website, and requires dental plan contractors to institute educational, public relations, and social media programs to increase awareness of available resources, such as CBOs, that can help reduce the impact of social determinants of oral health.
Data Collection, Tracking, and Reporting
While coordinating with social and community resources is an important step in improving health equity, having strong mechanisms in place to collect and track community data is critical to ensure social determinants are addressed. Michigan stands out in its commitment to require that medical and dental plans collect SDOH-related data.
Michigan requires HKD contractors to collect data on SDOH and utilize enrollment files, claims, encounter data, and utilization management data to improve community collaboration and address oral health disparities. The state specifies that the dental plan must “use social determinants of oral health data provided by [the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services] to analyze member-level data to direct the contractor’s efforts of targeted interventions, outreach, enrollee education and health promotion.” Additionally, the dental plan must report on the effectiveness of its population health management programs, including measures identifying the number of enrollees experiencing a “disparate level of social needs,” such as limited transportation access and housing instability.
Michigan’s data utilization requirements range from addressing individuals’ health-related needs to analyzing population-wide equity issues. Plans are required to gather and utilize this information for finetuning their services, such as care management and referrals. However, given that requirements for health plans to collect SDOH-related data are fairly new, and the state has little funding available for this work, the state’s role in monitoring whether data collection is occurring is currently limited. With adequate funding and personnel, states can take a more active role in tracking and data analysis to better understand the social needs of the population and effectively target SDOH-related interventions.
Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement
Michigan is committed to not only reporting on the effectiveness of SDOH-related initiatives, but also working to improve existing systems to better address inequities in oral health. The HKD contract requires the dental plan to have a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan that includes a description of how the contractor will, “develop system interventions to address the underlying factors of disparate utilization, health-related behaviors, and oral health outcomes, including, but not limited to, how they relate to utilization of dental emergency services,” and “ensure the equitable distribution of dental services to contractor’s entire population, including members of racial/ethnic minorities, those whose primary language is not English, those in rural areas, and those with disabilities.”
SDOH can contribute to variances in utilization of dental services and poor oral health outcomes, with factors such as geographic location and language proficiency playing an important role in driving health care access. In addition to using data to better understand the impact of social factors on members’ oral health and population utilization trends, Michigan requires contractors to continue to find new ways to reach all populations and reduce the effects of SDOH on oral health outcomes.
Medical Contract Language
Much of the language related to SDOH included in the Healthy Kids Dental contract is consistent with the language in Michigan’s Medicaid medical MCO contract, which covers adults and children. Both the HKD and MCO contracts require the plan to collaborate with CBOs to provide physical and oral health education and address SDOH, implement community education campaigns to improve public knowledge of community-based resources, report on the effectiveness of SDOH-related population health management initiatives, and promote equitable access to care using Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) projects.
However, the medical contract also offers additional opportunities for investment in SDOH that states could consider implementing in dental contracts. For example, Michigan requires medical MCO contractors to participate in the Medicaid Health Equity Project, which is a statewide effort to address racial and ethnic disparities. Through this project, Medicaid health plans collect and report on data across multiple quality measures, including access to preventive and ambulatory health services. The state then uses data stratification by race and ethnicity to determine how racial and ethnic discrimination affect each quality measure, with the goal of addressing any disparities.
Additionally, the medical contract requires health plans to enter into agreements with CBOs to coordinate “population health improvement strategies,” which address social determinants such as physical environment and socioeconomic status. These agreements with CBOs must include information on data sharing, each partner’s role in care coordination, reporting requirements, and plans for coordinating service delivery with primary care providers.
What are Key Considerations and Next Steps?
Addressing SDOH is critical to improving oral health, overall health, and health equity. Increasingly, Medicaid dental plans across the country are collecting data on community needs and implementing initiatives to reduce barriers to oral health care. In a recent 50-state scan of Medicaid managed care contracts, NASHP found that out of 19 dental contracts and 38 medical contracts reviewed nationally, 13 and 37, respectively, require the plan to coordinate with community services. Efforts to address SDOH are also underway, though they tend to be further along on the medical side than the dental side. This provides an opportunity for states to apply medical contracts’ language in their dental contracts, or work with health plans to link existing SDOH-related programs with the dental system.
In response to budget shortfalls resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan’s Medicaid program now faces potential rate changes, particularly for dental payments. However, program staff report they see opportunities to establish shared performance metrics between Medicaid MCOs and dental plans in the future. The state is considering ways to standardize and refine SDOH-related data collection and analysis, especially related to dental care. Michigan health officials noted the necessity of first ensuring data was valid and reliable before using it to drive decisions or implement capitation withhold incentive programs. The state is also discussing leveraging Michigan’s health information exchange to transmit standardized SDOH screening information to plans and providers.
Through the Healthy Kids Dental and Medical MCO contract, Michigan has demonstrated a strong commitment to addressing social determinants of oral health. The contracts present an opportunity for states to adopt similar language in order to encourage dental plans to coordinate with CBOs, effectively collect and use SDOH-related data, and implement performance improvement projects aimed at reducing disparities.
* NASHP scanned Michigan’s Healthy Kids Dental model contract and the Michigan Medicaid Medical MCO sample contract.
Acknowledgements: This fact sheet was made possible by the DentaQuest Partnership LLC. The author would like to especially thank Trenae Simpson for her guidance and assistance, and state officials in Michigan for their helpful feedback. The information, content, and conclusions are those of the author’s and should not be construed as the official position or policy of the DentaQuest Partnership LLC.
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.
NASHP Roundtable: Georgia and Illinois Work to Improve Maternal Health Outcomes
/in Policy Georgia, Illinois Blogs, Featured News Home Eligibility and Enrollment, Health Coverage and Access, Health Equity, Infant Mortality, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health /by NASHP StaffIn partnership with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) recently held a virtual roundtable discussion of state officials to discuss maternal health initiatives in Illinois and Georgia and explore strategies to improve maternal health outcomes for Medicaid enrollees.
Despite spending more than other developed nations on hospital-provided maternity care, about 700 US women die each year from pregnancy-related complications.
- Women of color have significantly higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, and Black women are approximately four-times more likely than White women to die of pregnancy-related causes.
- In comparison to women covered by private insurance, pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid have increased rates of severe maternal morbidity and mortality and are more likely to have risk factors affecting their pregnancies.
In addition to tracking states’ initiatives to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage, NASHP offers a range of resources related to maternal health and healthy child development.
To view more materials from the roundtable, view this slide deck.
One approach proposed by a number of states is extending Medicaid postpartum coverage for women beyond the current 60-day period. As highlighted in NASHP’s interactive map and chart, Each State’s Efforts to Extend Medicaid Coverage to Postpartum Women, 23 states and Washington, DC have initiated efforts to extend postpartum coverage, and currently four states are in the process of seeking federal approval to do so through a Section 1115 demonstration waiver.
Georgia’s Extension of Postpartum Coverage
Georgia is one of those states and the state’s Medicaid director explained during the discussion that they are planning to submit a waiver proposal to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in December to extend postpartum coverage there. The state’s efforts began in 2010 when Georgia was ranked 50th in the nation for maternal mortality rates. Officials first formed an advisory committee to focus on the issue. As they examined specific maternal mortality data and rates, Georgia found that close to 60 percent of the maternal deaths were actually preventable. In 2019, the Georgia House passed a resolution to create a committee to study maternal mortality, which led directly to the state’s current efforts to pursue an extension of postpartum Medicaid coverage.
While Georgia’s study committee initially suggested extending postpartum coverage for 12 months, due to budget constraints the state was unable to pursue that recommendation. Instead, the state opted to seek extended coverage for individuals with income up to 225 percent of the federal poverty level for four months, which when added to Medicaid’s 60-day postpartum coverage period, will provide a total of six months (180 days) of coverage postpartum. Overall, the state legislature allocated $59 million for the proposed five-year demonstration project.
Services under the extended postpartum coverage will be provided through managed care, and after Medicaid’s 60-day postpartum period, individuals will be seamlessly transferred to coverage under the waiver. During the first year, the state anticipates that there will be approximately 151,000 enrollees, and it is expected that enrollment will grow to about 186,000 by the final year of the demonstration.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Pilot Program
The discussion also featured maternal and child health improvement initiatives in Medicaid that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBSIL) is currently pursuing. BCBSIL is conducting a 12-month, multi-pronged pilot program in partnership with community organizations and medical providers that is designed to address factors that negatively impact health outcomes in the maternal and child population. The goals of the pilot program are to reduce the number of elective, non-medically necessary Caesarian sections (C-sections) and newborn intensive care unit (NICU) admissions, as well as improve Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) rates in both prenatal visits and child immunizations.
Under the pilot program’s first goal of reducing unnecessary C-sections, BCBSIL plans to enhance care coordination efforts between providers, Medicaid agencies, and community organizations. As part of its second goal to improve prenatal and postpartum care visit rates, BCBSIL will target efforts in areas of Illinois with high rates of maternal and child health disparities. Within these regions, BCBSIL will identify at least three obstetrics practices that are willing to partner with BCBSIL. These providers will be connected with BCBS care coordinators to help ensure access to care delivery resources, because often providers lack the capacity to provide social service referrals for their members. BCBS enrollees will also have the opportunity to engage in an incentive program that will offer rewards for completion of prenatal care visits.
In addition to promoting better maternal health outcomes, the BCBSIL pilot program is also working to improve pediatric immunization and dental care rates. Through partnerships with Chicago public schools and community organizations, the pilot program will disseminate information about the importance of immunizations and preventive dental care and also create a referral system for children in need of these services and other preventive health care. The planning phases of the pilot program began this fall, and the initiative will continue through the end of 2021.
Along with tracking states’ initiatives to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage, NASHP has a wide range of resources related to maternal health and healthy child development, and will be continuing to follow states’ efforts to improve maternal and child health outcomes.
The online meeting and this blog were sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association,
with content development at the sole discretion of NASHP. To view a slide deck highlighting materials from the online meeting, please click here.
States Use CHIP Health Services Initiatives to Support Home Visiting Programs
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home CHIP, Chronic and Complex Populations, Infant Mortality, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Physical and Behavioral Health Integration /by Taylor PlattMaternal and infant mortality rates in the United States have been steadily rising over the past decade, with stark racial disparities between White and Black mothers and their babies. Black infants are twice as likely to die than White infants, and Black mothers are four-times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than White women.
Evidence-based home visiting programs, such as those funded by the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), play an important role in improving the health and well-being of the maternal and child health (MCH) population, especially during stressful periods of economic downturns and the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to MIECHV funding, the Children’s Health Insurance Program’s (CHIP) Health Services Initiatives (HSIs) are a funding opportunity available to states to support home visiting programs.
For an indepth report about public insurance financing of home visiting services and additional information about CHIP HSIs, read/download Public Insurance Financing of Home Visiting Services: Insights from a Federal/State Discussion.
Research shows home visiting programs improve overall maternal and infant health outcomes, increase maternal depression screenings, reduce child abuse and neglect, promote child development and school readiness, and improve coordination and referrals for community resources.
To support these programs, states use an array of private and public funds, including Medicaid and the CHIP funding, to support home visiting services. Specifically, CHIP HSIs are available to states to support a range of child health services, including home visiting since CHIP’s inception in 1997. Recently, there has been an uptick in the number of states using HSIs with 45 federally approved HSIs established between 2016 to 2019.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approve state HSIs through a state plan amendment that includes performance metrics to measure impact and outcomes of the programs. CHIP HSIs are designed to serve children under age 19 who are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but they can be designed to improve the health of a broader population of children beyond those eligible for Medicaid or CHIP.
HSIs can focus on direct services, public health initiatives, or ongoing social, behavioral health needs. Funding for HSIs comes from a combination of state and federal funds. A state draws federal funds from its CHIP administrative allocation, which is 10 percent of its CHIP block grant spending, to help fund an HSI. These funds are provided at the state’s CHIP match rate. States must consider all of their administrative expenditures, including those required to operate their CHIP programs, such as staff, managed care fees, systems upgrades, etc. to ensure there are remaining funds, within a 10 percent cap, before committing funds to an HSI project.
As of 2019, there are 71 approved HSIs in 24 states. At least three states currently have HSIs that include home visiting services and one state recently received CMS approval to start an HSI that includes home visiting services.
- Alabama’s State Plan Amendment was approved in September 2019 to implement an HSI to provide case management and care coordination to low-income, high-risk pregnant women and their infants in three counties to improve pregnancy outcomes and infant health for up to one year postpartum. The case management services include home visits.
- The Arkansas SafeCare program is a structured, evidence-based and in-home parenting program that has a home visitor and parent work together to create a safe home environment. The home visitor assists the parent in providing structure and routines, while encouraging systematic health decision-making to keep children safe in their homes. Parents are provided with useful tools, such as books, thermometers, childproof safety locks, and other learning materials to use in their family environment to keep children safe. The home visitor delivers weekly or biweekly home visits for approximately 18 to 22 weeks. More information can be found about the state plan amendment here.
- Massachusetts has two CHIP HSIs that include home visiting services. The first, Healthy Families, is a newborn home visiting program that provides home visits, a six-week neonatal and postnatal parenting education support group series, and parent-child interaction groups to support positive parent-child relationships. The HSI is designed to serve families with at-risk newborns. The Young Parent Support program is another CHIP HSI that provides funding for community-based organizations that provide outreach, home visits, mentoring, and parent groups to strengthen the skills of young parents.
- Missouri’s newborn home visiting program serves at-risk, low-income pregnant and postpartum women and their children up to five years of age. Clinical staff and other trained professionals provide a range of services to families, including group training sessions and connection to needed resources. The CHIP HSI’s goal is to increase healthy pregnancies and positive birth outcomes, as well as decrease child abuse and neglect through its home-based services.
States are implementing evidence-based home visiting programs to improve health outcomes for women, children, and their families. CHIP HSIs are one of many funding mechanisms states can use to help expand their home visiting services and continue to improve the lives of children and their families, especially at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has brought new challenges for states and families. In spite of these challenges home visiting remains an important service for women, children, and families.
States will soon be faced with critical budget challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and will have to make tough decisions about funding for home visiting services. CHIP HSIs provide one funding source states may want to use to help support home visiting services.
- For more information on financing home visiting, read the NASHP report, Medicaid Financing of Home Visiting Services for Women, Children, and Their Families.
- And for additional information on CHIP HSIs, explore NASHP’s report, Leveraging CHIP to Improve Children’s Health: An Overview of Stare Health Services Initiatives.
States Invited to Join a Community of Practice to Improve Immunization Rates
/in Policy Blogs, Featured News Home CHIP, CHIP, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Eligibility and Enrollment, EPSDT, Health Coverage and Access, Immunization, Integrated Care for Children, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health /by NASHP StaffThe National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) and AcademyHealth are seeking five to seven states to join a community of practice focused on improving immunizations rates.
To apply, complete an expression of interest form by Dec. 10, 2020.
Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cooperative agreement entitled Eliminating Barriers to Immunization through Collaborative Use of State Agency Resources, each state’s community of practice will be comprised of a multidisciplinary team, including a Medicaid medical or policy director, an immunization state program manager, and a state immunization information system coordinator.
Through virtual and in-person engagement over the course of the three-year project, NASHP and AcademyHealth will work with states to identify immunization barriers and share promising practices for increasing immunization rates for children and pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid.
If a state’s Medicaid agency is interested in joining this community of practice, please send an email to Sunita Krishnan (Sunita.Krishnan@academyhealth.org ) with a completed expression of interest form by Dec. 10, 2020.
Explore NASHP’s State Immunization Services and Policies Resource Page for more resources.
How States Address Social Determinants of Oral Health in Dental and Medical Medicaid Managed Care Contracts
/in Medicaid Managed Care Blogs, Featured News Home Child Oral Health, CHIP, CHIP, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, Essential Health Benefits, Health Coverage and Access, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Medicaid Managed Care, Oral Health, Population Health, Social Determinants of Health, Special Populations and Services /by Ariella Levisohn, Allie Atkeson and Carrie HanlonInequities in oral health and health outcomes are driven by upstream factors, including diet, education, transportation, and access to care. A growing number of states are working to improve the oral and physical health of Medicaid enrollees and reduce costs by addressing these social determinants of health in their managed care contracts.
Recently, states have used Medicaid managed care contracts and value-based purchasing agreements to address the education, food, and transportation needs of their enrollees. However, less is known about how states leverage their purchasing clout to improve dental care or address social determinants of health (SDOH) directly in dental contracts.
To learn how state Medicaid programs include social determinants of health in their dental and medical Medicaid managed care contracts, view this interactive map.
A 50-state review by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) of Medicaid dental and medical managed care contracts, requests for proposals, and other similar documents publicly available through September 2020, identified how states address social determinants of oral health. Dental contracts were reviewed for a comprehensive list of social determinants and medical contracts were analyzed for references to care coordination, community resources, food access, social determinants of health screening, and coordination with dental contractors. In total, NASHP scanned dental contracts in 19 states and medical contracts in 38 states.
Of the dental contracts, nine referenced coordination between dental plans and medical plans and 13 referenced coordination with social and community services. Other common references in dental contracts included equity/cultural competence, education, and transportation (each referenced in 10 state contracts).
All but one of the 38 medical contracts referenced coordination with social and community services. Thirty-three states referenced food in their medical contracts, 25 referenced adverse experiences (such as domestic violence and child abuse), and 15 referenced care coordination between dental and medical care. Three states (Florida, Michigan, and Virginia) referred to food in both their dental and medical contracts, while only one (Virginia) referenced adverse experiences in both contracts.
State Medicaid Program Delivery of Dental Care
While Medicaid covers some form of adult dental care in 47 states and Washington, DC, and all states cover dental care for children under 21 as part of the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, adult dental coverage is optional for state Medicaid programs. Currently, 35 states provide limited dental benefits for adults and 19 states offer extensive adult dental benefits.
States have different options for delivering dental care. Some states with managed care use a carve-in model, where the dental benefit is integrated into medical managed care programs. With a carved-in benefit, managed care organizations (MCOs) may administer the dental benefit or subcontract the dental benefit to another vendor. In carve-out dental programs, states contract with a dental MCO or dental benefits manager (DBM). Alternatively, states with Medicaid managed care medical delivery systems may have fee-for-service dental systems.
Medicaid dental and medical contracts illustrate how states can consider social determinants affecting oral health and overall health through:
- Screening, referral tracking, and follow-up;
- Educational initiatives;
- Staffing and training requirements;
- Data sharing and technology;
- Coordination between dental and medical systems; and
- Performance improvement.
Social Determinants of Health in Dental and Medical Medicaid Contracts
Almost all states scanned have some requirement for plans to refer members to community resources and social services. NASHP focused specifically on requirements that are applicable to the general population, rather than individuals designated as high risk or high needs. States use a variety of strategies to encourage investment in SDOH.
Screening for SDOH Needs
Sixteen states use routine screenings for certain social determinants, including employment status and access to food and transportation. The scan of 14 medical contracts and two dental contracts indicate that states are more likely to require medical plans to conduct needs assessments, often within a specified time frame after enrollment, than dental plans. States may also require medical plans to use this data to appropriately target interventions to meet enrollees’ needs.
While dental plans do not necessarily have the same explicit requirement to conduct a screening, some states do ask their dental plans to use SDOH data to target their educational and outreach activities.
- Michigan’s dental plan is required to use social determinants of oral health data from the state in order to target interventions, outreach, and education efforts.
- Nevada’s dental contract requires the contractor to complete a community-based needs assessment to inform their health promotion and educational activities, including ensuring that any interventions are culturally appropriate and meet the needs of the target population.
Referral Tracking and Follow-up
While screening is an important first step in identifying members’ social needs, it also raises a question of how states use the data to address social determinants. NASHP found that in almost every state with publicly available contracts, Medicaid agencies partner with community-based organizations to meet the social needs of enrollees. For example, plans may facilitate referrals to these community agencies based on information collected through SDOH screenings. States can use tracking, follow-up, and reporting requirements to ensure that referrals to community resources and organizations are effective and successful. Contractors can support these efforts by documenting “closed-looped” referrals that ensure that an enrollee is successfully connected with a community-based organization to address other health and social needs.
- In Louisiana, the Dental Benefit Program Manager is required to connect enrollees with community-based service providers and document referrals and referral outcomes in enrollees’ dental records.
Dental contracts are less likely to require or encourage the plan to monitor referral follow-up. However, dental plans could adopt some of the medical MCOs’ language in order to track the status of referrals, strengthen care coordination between insurance plans and community resources, and ensure individuals are receiving adequate social services that meet their evolving needs. For example, New Hampshire requires MCOs to track the effectiveness of community-based providers and resources, and Oregon requires reporting on referrals to culturally diverse social and support services.
Educational Initiatives
Healthy People 2020 identified health literacy as a component of SDOH, noting that individuals’ ability to access and understand relevant health information affects their health and health outcomes. To help improve health literacy, many states require managed care plans to implement educational initiatives. For dental plans, this includes educating members about the importance of oral health or launching community oral health initiatives designed to help eliminate barriers to dental services and improve population oral health.
- In both Nevada and Texas, the dental contractor must develop and implement programs designed to educate members about nutrition, the importance of oral health, and the relationship between oral health and overall health.
- Florida’s dental plan includes incentives for participation in health education classes. Examples of incentives members can receive that support healthy child development include clothes, food, books, safety devices, publications, and memberships in health and education clubs.
- In its response to Nebraska’s request for proposals (RFP), dental contractor MCNA referenced a program it implemented in Texas that uses the fotonovela (a comic book-style communication popular in the Latinx community) to distribute health information materials to children of migrant farm workers.
Staffing and Training Requirements
Plans may also be responsible for training their employees to better meet members’ needs. In their contracts, states can prioritize the type of training that a plan’s staff receive.
- Nebraska’s dental contract requires all staff to be trained on how social determinants (including food, housing, education, violence, and physical and sexual abuse) affect members’ health and wellness. Staff also receive training on how to find community resources and make referrals.
Both medical and dental plans also employ staff members who are responsible for care coordination, addressing social determinants, and improving access to care for historically marginalized populations.
- Nebraska’s dental contract requires the plan to employ a tribal network liaison to coordinate and expand dental services to Native Americans and connect them to community resources. Arizonaand New Mexico both require medical MCOs to employ someone to coordinate services with Native Americans.
Examples of other medical plans’ required staff positions include a community liaison in Illinois, who connects enrollees with community-based services, and a service coordination director in Kansas, who oversees quality improvement initiatives related to SDOH. Dental contractors could potentially leverage medical MCO positions and their expertise to streamline care experiences for enrollees across medical and dental systems.
Coordination between Dental and Medical Systems
To better integrate dental and medical care, dental and medical managed care use staff members to connect physical health and oral health services across contracts. These staff members also connect Medicaid enrollees to community services to meet social needs.
- In its dental contract, Tennessee requires a coordinator to work with the medical MCO and develop a system to exchange data with the MCO.
- Florida requires MCOs to have a liaison for their prepaid dental health plan to help integrate medical care, behavioral health, and long-term benefits with the dental plan.
- Iowa requires the dental contractor to send a care facilitation plan to the state with information on how the plan will facilitate coordination between dental and medical plans and providers.
Data Sharing and Technology
Eleven states require some form of data sharing between dental and medical plans, or between plans and community organizations. Requirements for integrating different agencies’ social determinant data and sharing information across systems allow medical, dental, and social services to work together to coordinate care for members and encourage referrals and follow-up tracking.
- In Tennessee, the dental benefits manager must facilitate data exchange with school-based health programs to coordinate any needed follow-up care.
- Washington State tasks its dental contractors with using health information technology and health information exchanges to coordinate care between physical health, behavioral health, and social services and other community-based organizations.
Other states are creating their own online platform or mobile applications to improve access to social services for their Medicaid enrollees. These platforms are mentioned specifically in medical managed care plan contracts, but have the potential to be used by dental contractors as well.
- Kansas developed a web-based, mobile-friendly application that connects service coordinators to community resources, such as food banks and pantries, housing, clothing, legal resources, and transportation.
- Medicaid Prepaid Health Plans in North Carolina will use a telephonic, online, and interfaced IT platform to refer members to social services and track the outcomes of these referrals.
Performance Improvement
A number of states encourage both dental and medical plans to engage in performance improvement projects (PIPs) in order to address SDOH.
- In Nevada, dental vendors are required to conduct both a clinical and non-clinical PIP every year. Non-clinical PIPs can focus on cultural competency and accessibility of services, among other SDOH.
- Oregon Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) must implement PIPs that address at least four of eight designated focus areas, which include addressing SDOH and equity, and integrating primary care, behavioral health care, and/or oral health care.
Through these PIPs, state managed care plans (both dental and medical) can launch pilot interventions to improve health outcomes by addressing SDOH and reducing barriers to care.
Conclusion
Research shows that addressing individual social needs leads to better oral health outcomes. Despite having different levels of funding and varying Medicaid adult dental benefits, states across the country are finding ways to invest in SDOH. While not all states have started to include SDOH requirements in their dental contracts, these examples show potential opportunities for dental plans to integrate some of the medical plans’ language and guidance into their own work. To learn more about how state Medicaid programs include SDOH-related language in their dental and medical Medicaid managed care contracts, view this interactive map.
Acknowledgements: This blog and map were made possible by the DentaQuest Partnership LLC. The authors would like to especially thank Trenae Simpson for her guidance and assistance, and Trish Riley and Jill Rosenthal for their helpful feedback. This information, content, and conclusions are those of the authors’ and should not be construed as the official position or policy of the DentaQuest Partnership LLC.
How Oregon Uses Medicaid Incentive Payments and Quality Measures to Improve Contraceptive Use and Timely Postpartum Care
/in Policy Oregon Blogs, Featured News Home Health Equity, Integrated for Pregnant/Parenting Women, Maternal Health and Mortality, Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health, Medicaid Managed Care, Population Health, Quality and Measurement /by Eddy FernandezTo improve effective contraceptive use and timely postpartum care statewide, Oregon’s Medicaid program successfully used incentive payments and quality measures to increase the rates of effective contraceptive use from 35.4 to 46.8 percent between 2015 and 2018, and timely postpartum care from 61.3 to 68.2 percent between 2018 to 2019.
Oregon implemented the quality incentive measures and incentive payments made to its Coordinated Care Organizations (CCC) to improve uptake of effective contraceptive use (which have failure rates under 13 percent) and timely postpartum care to reduce unplanned pregnancies and improve health outcomes following childbirth among Medicaid enrollees.
Background
In 2010, approximately 46 percent of all pregnancies in Oregon were unintended, similar to the national average rate of 45 percent, and almost 70 percent of Oregon’s unplanned pregnancies were publicly funded. Long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs), a contraceptive method with less than 1 percent failure rates, are highly effective and have the highest continuation rates of reversible contraceptive methods, as additional adherence to an ongoing medication regimen or regular follow-up are not required. Additionally, there are cost savings associated with increased access to contraception, as unintended pregnancies in 2010 cost states more than $6 million. It remains essential for states and providers to honor individual choice when determining if a LARC or other contraceptive option is appropriate.
In 2017, Oregon’s CCOs, networks of various health care providers serving Medicaid enrollees, reported that about 50 percent of enrolled women received a postpartum care visit 21 to 56 days after delivery. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that all postpartum women contact a maternal care provider within the first three weeks postpartum and as needed for ongoing care. According to ACOG, a comprehensive postpartum visit that includes a full assessment of physical, social, and psychological well-being, should occur no later than 12 weeks after birth.
As part of Oregon’s commitment to pay for better quality care and health outcomes, CCOs can qualify for incentive payments if they meet a pre-established state benchmark or reach their individual improvement targets. The individual target is at least a 10 percent reduction in the gap between the baseline and the benchmark. These initiatives were design to encourage CCOs to focus more on prevention and care management.
Federal Efforts to Improve Postpartum and Contraceptive Care
Improving access to postpartum care and contraception is also a priority for the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). MCHB has funded the creation of two patient safety bundles, one focusing on a comprehensive postpartum visit and the other on transitioning from maternity to well-woman care. Additionally, CMS’ Adult and Child Core Measure Sets include postpartum care and contraceptive care.
Oregon’s Reproductive Health Incentive Measure
The Effective Contraceptive Use (ECU) measure, created by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) in 2014, focuses on women ages 15 to 50 who are not currently pregnant and who adopted or continue to use one of the most effective or moderately effective contraceptives. The OHA decided to continue using this measure when CMS formally adopted a contraceptive measure, called the CCW Measure, under the Medicaid Adult Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures.
When developing this measure, the OHA carefully considered the history and risk of reproductive coercion in the United States. The OHA also recommended CCOs use particular strategies to increase voluntary contraceptive use. Those strategies include, but are not limited to:
- Removing barriers to contraception (e.g., providing contraception supplies for longer than three months);
- Improving availability and uptake of LARCs by partnering with local Title X family planning clinics;
- Offering clinician training, such as how to provide effective contraceptive counseling that includes discussing the efficacy and benefits of the chosen method, employing a “teach-back” method, and providing time for the client to review and sign the informed consent form for LARC procedures;
- Adjusting workflows to support and implement the One Key Question initiative, which screens for pregnancy intentions; and
- Creating quality improvement processes.
The OHA relied on administrative claims data to determine if CCOs qualified for incentive payments. Through claims data, the OHA was able to determine the number of CCO enrollees using intrauterine devices (IUDs), implants, contraception injections, contraceptive pills, sterilization, patches, rings, or diaphragms. The OHA also uses claims data to measure surveillance of a contraceptive method. Additionally, the ECU measure stratified enrollees by age group – adolescents ages 15 – 17 and adults 18 – 50. In order to qualify for the incentive payment, CCOs must meet benchmarks or pre-established improvement targets. Meeting the benchmarks or targets applied to all ages (15 to 50), not stratified results. In 2019, the OHA established a 53.9 percent benchmark, which was in the 90th percentile for CCOs in 2017.
Statewide performance on the ECU measure increased from 35.4 percent in 2015 to 46.8 percent in 2018. CCOs have also documented improvements among various racial and ethnic groups. In 2017, effective contraceptive use rates among Latinx was 46.8 percent compared to 37.2 percent in 2015. Effective contraceptive use rates among Black women were at 43.1 percent in 2017 compared to 35.4 percent in 2015. In the Journal of the American Medical Association report, Association of Implementing an Incentive Metric in the Oregon Medicaid Program with Effective Contraceptive Use, researchers found a significant increase in contraceptive use every year among Medicaid enrollees, compared to the control group. As of 2020, the OHA no longer uses this metric as a result of improvements in contraceptive use.
Postpartum Care Incentive Measure
Timeliness of postpartum care is a measure outlined in Oregon’s 1115 demonstration waiver and is reported as a CMS Adult Core Measure. To address decreasing timely postpartum care rates, Oregon replaced an incentive associated with timely prenatal care, which had shown drastic improvements in prior years, with one focused on improving timely postpartum care. This incentive measure pulls data from the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS), Decision Support/Surveillance and Utilization Review System (DSSURS), and medical records to determine the percentage of live birth deliveries for which there is a subsequent, timely postpartum visit. Timely postpartum visits are defined as postpartum care on or between 21 and 56 days after delivery.
The OHA published a resource with strategies for improving timely postpartum care designed specifically for CCOs, clinics, and the community. These strategies include:
- Delivery changes, such as offering patient education, peer support, and enhanced maternity care models (e.g., maternal medical homes);
- Using email, texts, or apps to remind women to schedule postpartum follow-up; and
- Leveraging payment strategies, such as reimbursement to support dyadic care (e.g., visits where both mother and baby receive care).
These strategies, along with incentive payments to CCOs that reach benchmarks or improvement targets, worked to address the decreasing postpartum care rates. As a result of implementing this measure, the OHA was able to increase timely postpartum care visit rates from 61.3 percent in 2018 to 68.2 percent in 2019.
In addition to increasing postpartum care visits, OHA officials indicated they plan to develop a measure to determine the quality of a postpartum visit. This measure, which may be released as soon as early 2021, will include breastfeeding evaluation and education, postpartum depression screening, postpartum glucose screening for patients with gestational diabetes, and family planning and contraception.
Conclusion
In order to improve effective contraception use and timely postpartum care, Oregon successfully leveraged Medicaid incentive payments and quality measures. These examples can inform other states’ efforts to address unplanned and unintended pregnancies and improve maternal and infant outcomes.
For more information about state Medicaid quality measurement activities for women’s health, explore NASHP’s interactive map State Medicaid Quality Measurement Activities for Women’s Health.
For more information about increasing access to LARCs under Medicaid, read a joint report by NASHP and the National Institute for Children’s Health Quality, Strategies to Increase Access to Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) in Medicaid.
Acknowledgements: This case study is a publication of the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP). This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services HHS under the Supporting Maternal and Child Health Innovation in States Grant No. U1XMC31658; $398,953. This information, 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. 























































































































































